Search Results

Search found 43968 results on 1759 pages for 'web standards'.

Page 80/1759 | < Previous Page | 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87  | Next Page >

  • Restful Java based web services in json + html5 and javascript no templates (jsp/jsf/freemarker) aka fat/thick client

    - by Ismail Marmoush
    I have this idea of building a website which service JSON data through restful services framework. And will not use any template engines like jsp/jsf/freemarker. Just pure html5 and Javascript libs. What do you think of the pros and cons of such design ? Just for elaboration and brain storming a friend of mine argued with the following concerns: sounds like gwt this way you won't have any control over you service api for example say you wanna charge the user per request how will you handle it? how will you control your design and themes? what about the 1st request the browser make? not easy with this all of the user's requests will come with "Accept" header "application/json" how will you separate browser from abuser? this way all of your public apis will be used by third party apps abusively and you won't be able to lock it since you won't be able to block the normal user browser We won't use compiled html anyway but may be something like freemarker and in that case you won't expose any of your json resources to the unauthorized user but you will expose all the html since any browser can access them all the well known 1st class services do this can you send me links to what you've read? keep in mind the DOM based XSS it will be a nightmare ofc, if what you say is applicable.

    Read the article

  • should i concentrate on logical and puzzles part in programming, i want to be a web (flex)developer?

    - by abhilashm86
    I'm a student not good and can't easily crack at more puzzle, complex mathematics, hard logic problems? in college i studied c++, java, oops. I'm comfortable with all syntax and writing programs and using API's and doing mashups, i can do.......... but once a friend asked help on coding contest, i was in dilemma and frustration? It was simple and complex, i could not write code for those, so got scared? Is logical ability,complex mathematics, puzzles required for a developer point of view? please help and suggest methods to achieve things......

    Read the article

  • TechCast Live: "Java and Oracle, One Year Later" Replay Now Available

    - by Justin Kestelyn
    Earlier this week I had the opportunity to chat with Ajay Patel, Oracle's VP leading the Java Evangelist team, about "the state of the union" wrt Oracle and Java. Take a look: And here are some choice quotes, some paraphrased, as helpfully transcribed by Java evangelist Terrence Barr: "One key thing we have learned ... Java is not just a platform, it is also an ecosystem, and you can't have an ecosystem without a community." "The objectives, strategically [for Java at Oracle] have been pretty clear: How do we drive adoption, how do we build a larger, stronger developer community, how do we really make the platform much more competitive." "It's about transparency, involvement. IBM, RedHat, Apple have all agreed to working with us to make OpenJDK the best platform for open source development ... it is a sign that the community has been waiting to move the Java platform forward." "It's not just about Oracle anymore, it's about Java, the technology, the community, the developer base, and how we work with them to move the innovation forward." "Java is strategic to Oracle, and the community is strategic for Java to be successful ... it is critical to our business." On JavaFX 2.0: "... is coming to beta soon, with a release planned in second half [of 2011] ... will give you a new, high-performance graphics engine, the new API for JavaFX ... you will see a very strong, relevant platform for levering rich media platforms." On the JDK and SE: "... aggressively moving forward, JDK 7 is now code complete ... looking good for getting JDK 7 out by summer as we promised. Started work on JDK 8, Jigsaw and Lambda are moving along nicely, on track for JDK 8 release next year ... good progress." On Java EE and Glassfish: "... Very excited to have Glassfish 3.1 released, with clustering and management capabilities ... working with the JCP to shortly submit a number of JSRs for Java EE 7 ... You'll see Java EE 7 becoming the platform for cloud-based development." "You will see Oracle continue to step up to this role of Java steward, making sure that the language, the technology, the platform ... is competitive, relevant, and widely adopted." Making progress!

    Read the article

  • Studies on code documentation productivity gains/losses

    - by J T
    Hi everyone, After much searching, I have failed to answer a basic question pertaining to an assumed known in the software development world: WHAT IS KNOWN: Enforcing a strict policy on adequate code documentation (be it Doxygen tags, Javadoc, or simply an abundance of comments) adds over-head to the time required to develop code. BUT: Having thorough documentation (or even an API) brings with it productivity gains (one assumes) in new and seasoned developers when they are adding features, or fixing bugs down the road. THE QUESTION: Is the added development time required to guarantee such documentation offset by the gains in productivity down-the-road (in a strictly economical sense)? I am looking for case studies, or answers that can bring with them objective evidence supporting the conclusions that are drawn. Thanks in advance!

    Read the article

  • Matching the superclass's constructor's parameter list, is treating a null default value as a non-null value within a constructor a violation of LSP?

    - by Panzercrisis
    I kind of ran into this when messing around with FlashPunk, and I'm going to use it as an example. Essentially the main sprite class is pretty much class Entity. Entity's constructor has four parameters, each with a default value. One of them is graphic, whose default value is null. Entity is designed to be inherited from, with many such subclasses providing their own graphic within their own internal workings. Normally these subclasses would not have graphic in their constructor's parameter lists, but would simply pick something internally and go with it. However I was looking into possibly still adhering to the Liskov Substitution Principal. Which led me to the following example: package com.blank.graphics { import net.flashpunk.*; import net.flashpunk.graphics.Image; public class SpaceGraphic extends Entity { [Embed(source = "../../../../../../assets/spaces/blank.png")] private const BLANK_SPACE:Class; public function SpaceGraphic(x:Number = 0, y:Number = 0, graphic:Graphic = null, mask:Mask = null) { super(x, y, graphic, mask); if (!graphic) { this.graphic = new Image(BLANK_SPACE); } } } } Alright, so now there's a parameter list in the constructor that perfectly matches the one in the super class's constructor. But if the default value for graphic is used, it'll exhibit two different behaviors, depending on whether you're using the subclass or the superclass. In the superclass, there won't be a graphic, but in the subclass, it'll choose the default graphic. Is this a violation of the Liskov Substitution Principal? Does the fact that subclasses are almost intended to use different parameter lists have any bearing on this? Would minimizing the parameter list violate it in a case like this? Thanks.

    Read the article

  • Naming: objectAction or actionObject?

    - by DocSalvage
    The question, Stored procedure Naming conventions?, and Joel's excellent Making Wrong Code Look Wrong article come closest to addressing my question, but I'm looking for a more general set of criteria to use in deciding how to name modules containing code (classes, objects, methods, functions, widgets, or whatever). English (my only human language) is structured as action-object (i.e closeFile, openFile, saveFile) and since almost all computer languages are based on English, this is the most common convention. However, in trying to keep related code close together and still be able to find things, I've found object-action (i.e. fileClose, fileOpen, fileSave) to be very attractive. Quite a number of non-English human languages follow this structure as well. I doubt that one form is universally superior, but when should each be used in the pursuit of helping to make sure bad code looks bad?

    Read the article

  • How do you overcome your own coding biases when handed legacy code?

    - by Bryan M.
    As programmers, we often take incredible pride in our skills and hold very strong opinions about what is 'good' code and 'bad' code. At any given point in our careers, we've probably had some legacy system dropped in our laps, and thought 'My god, this code sucks!' because it didn't fit into our notion of what good code should be, despite the fact that it may have well been perfectly functional, maintainable code. How do you prepare yourself mentally when trying to get your head around another programmer's work?

    Read the article

  • What is the convention for the star location in reference variables?

    - by Brett Ryan
    Have been learning Objective-C and different books and examples use differing conventions for the location of the star (*) when naming reference variables. MyType* x; MyType *y; MyType*z; // this also works Personally I prefer the first option as it illustrates that x is a "pointer type of MyType". I see the first two used interchangeably, and sometimes in the same code I've seen differing uses of both. I want to know what is the most common convention It's been a very long time since I've programmed in C (15 years) so I can't remember if all variants are legal for C also or if this is Objective-C specific. I'd prefer answers which state why one is better than the other, as how I explained how I read it above.

    Read the article

  • Working with fubar/refuctored code

    - by Keyo
    I'm working with some code which was written by a contractor who left a year ago leaving a number of projects with buggy, disgustingly bad code. This is what I call cowboy PHP, say no more. Ideally I'd like to leave the project as is and never touch it again. Things break, requirements change and it needs to be maintained. Part A needs to be changed. There is a bug I cannot reproduce. Part A is connect to parts B D and E. This kind of work gives me a headache and makes me die a little inside. It kills my motivation and productivity. To be honest I'd say it's affecting my mental health. Perhaps being at the start of my career I'm being naive to think production code should be reasonably clean. I would like to hear from anyone else who has been in this situation before. What did you do to get out of it? I'm thinking long term I might have to find another job. Edit I've moved on from this company now, to a place where idiots are not employed. The code isn't perfect but it's at least manageable and peer reviewed. There are a lot of people in the comments below telling me that software is messy like this. Sure I don't agree with the way some programmers do things but this code was seriously mangled. The guy who wrote it tried to reinvent every wheel he could, and badly. He stopped getting work from us because of his bad code that nobody on the team could stand. If it were easy to refactor I would have. Eventually after many 'just do this small 10minute change' situations had ballooned into hours of lost time (regardless of who on the team was doing the work) my boss finally caved in it was rewritten.

    Read the article

  • Designing web-based plugin systems correctly so they don't waste as many resources?

    - by Xeoncross
    Many CMS systems which rely on third parties for much of their code often build "plugin" or "hooks" systems to make it easy for developers to modify the codebase's actions without editing the core files. This usually means an Observer or Event design pattern. However, when you look at systems like wordpress you see that on every page they load some kind of bootstrap file from each of the plugin's folders to see if that plugin will need to run that request. Its this poor design that causes systems like wordpress to spend many extra MB's of memory loading and parsing unneeded items each page. Are there alternative ways to do this? I'm looking for ideas in building my own. For example, Is there a way to load all this once and then cache the results so that your system knows how to lazy-load plugins? In other words, the system loads a configuration file that specifies all the events that plugin wishes to tie into and then saves it for future requests? If that also performs poorly, then perhaps there is a special file-structure that could be used to make educated guesses about when certain plugins are unneeded to fullfil the request. Any ideas? If anyone wants an example of the "plugin" concept you can find one here.

    Read the article

  • Co-worker uses ridiculous commenting convention, how to cope? [closed]

    - by Jessica Friedman
    A co-worker in the small start-up I work at writes (C++) code like this: // some class class SomeClass { // c'tor SomeClass(); // d'tor ~SomeClass(); // some function void someFunction(int x, int y); }; // some function void SomeClass::someFunction(int x, int y) { // init worker m_worker.init(); // log LOG_DEBUG("Worker initialized"); // find current cache auto it = m_currentCache.find(); // flush if (it->flush() == false) { // return return false } // return return true } This is how he writes 100% of his code: a spacer line, a useless comment which says nothing other than what is plainly stated in the following statement, and the statement itself. This is absolutely driving me insane. A simple class written by him spans 3 times as much as it's supposed to, It looks well commented but the comments contain no new information. In fact the code is completely undocumented in any normal definition of "documentation". All of the comments are just a repetition of what is written in C++ in the following line. I've confronted him several times about it and each time he seems to understand what I am saying but then goes on to not change his coding and not fix old code which is written like this. I've went on and on again and again about the distinct disadvantages of writing code like this but nothing get through to him. Other co-workers doesn't seem to mind it as much and management doesn't seem to really care. What do I do? (sorry for the rant)

    Read the article

  • Maintainability of Boolean logic - Is nesting if statements needed?

    - by Vaccano
    Which of these is better for maintainability? if (byteArrayVariable != null) if (byteArrayVariable .Length != 0) //Do something with byteArrayVariable OR if ((byteArrayVariable != null) && (byteArrayVariable.Length != 0)) //Do something with byteArrayVariable I prefer reading and writing the second, but I recall reading in code complete that doing things like that is bad for maintainability. This is because you are relying on the language to not evaluate the second part of the if if the first part is false and not all languages do that. (The second part will throw an exception if evaluated with a null byteArrayVariable.) I don't know if that is really something to worry about or not, and I would like general feedback on the question. Thanks.

    Read the article

  • Is there a way to add Google Docs-like comments to any web page?

    - by Sean
    You know the comments on Google Docs word processing documents? And how it creates a little discussion over in the right-hand margin? I love it. Great for collaboration. I want to free it from Google Docs so I can use it with clients to discuss mock-ups or scaffolded websites. Searching Google for "add comments [or discussions] to any website" only gets you results for adding blog-like comments (Disqus, JS-Kit, etc.) Anyone know of a solution for what I'm after here?

    Read the article

  • is it possible to sell a web site

    - by Bogdan0x400
    There might be a situation where one of my clients won't pay for the web site that I've made. So I am wondering if it is possible to sell a web site? It is an internet shop, so there is no content that comes with it, but the source code is fully available, and it has a decent design. I've seen people trying to sell web site templates, and I've seen people who try to sell already running web sites, and there are plenty of commercial web site engines out there. But what about raw empty web sites, is there a market for them?

    Read the article

  • How to convince my boss to improve code quality?

    - by Vimvq1987
    The place I'm working for is a service provider. We have a lot of services, which are written to deal with deadline, so their code are really terrible: No coding convention, everyone codes in his own style No unit testing (which is really bad) No refactoring (which is truly worse) No automation build/deployment etc and these code are used again and again, so bad code continue to spread all over my department. I really want to set up a standard quality for our code, by requiring everyone to follow "rules": every line of code which does not follow convention will be rejected, and every function of code which does not pass unit testing will not be committed,...But I don't know how to convince my boss to allow me to do this. I'm relatively new comer, so inspiring people from my works is really hard, and I think it's easier if my boss support me to this. Thank you very much for your advices

    Read the article

  • Naming standard for additional A records/IP addresses for IIS servers?

    - by serialhobbyist
    When you're adding another IP address to and IIS server, what naming standards do you use for the A records? Background: I've a bunch of sites on an IIS server which use (CNAME'd) host-headers and a single IP address. Server names (and A records) adhere to unfriendly (as in difficult-to-remember) naming standards whereas CNAMEs, and therefore host-headers, can be friendly. Now I've a need for several SSL certificates for different sites. I was thinking about using an additional IP address for each to-be-SSL'd site but still using friendly CNAMEs. So then I come to what to call the A record. What do you do? Related to this question.

    Read the article

  • ISO 12207: Verification of integration and Unit test validation

    - by user970696
    I have received comments from the supervisor reviewing my thesis. He asked two questions I cannot answer right now: If ISO 12207 says under "Integration verification" that it "checks that components are correctly and completely integrated into a system", how this can be verified without testing, if all testing is validation? How without testing can I know that system is integrated correctly and fully? If unit testing is validation, how does it match the ISO definiton of validation "that requirements for intended use were fulfilled" if its so low level?

    Read the article

  • Standard -server to server- and -browser to server- authentication method

    - by jeruki
    I have server with some resources; until now all these resources were requested through a browser by a human user, and the authentication was made with an username/password method, that generates a cookie with a token (to have the session open for some time). Right now the system requires that other servers make GET requests to this resource server but they have to authenticate to get them. We have been using a list of authorized IPs but having two authentication methods makes the code more complex. My questions are: Is there any standard method or pattern to authenticate human users and servers using the same code? If there is not, are the methods I'm using now the right ones or is there a better / more standard way to accomplish what I need? Thanks in advance for any suggestion.

    Read the article

  • Should you create a class within a method?

    - by Amndeep7
    I have made a program using Java that is an implementation of this project: http://nifty.stanford.edu/2009/stone-random-art/sml/index.html. Essentially, you create a mathematical expression and, using the pixel coordinate as input, make a picture. After I initially implemented this in serial, I then implemented it in parallel due to the fact that if the picture size is too large or if the mathematical expression is too complex (especially considering the fact that I made the expression recursively), it takes a really long time. During this process, I realized that I needed two classes which implemented the Runnable interface as I had to put in parameters for the run method, which you aren't allowed to do directly. One of these classes ended up being a medium sized static inner class (not large enough to make an independent class file for it though). The other though, just needed a few parameters to determine some indexes and the size of the for loop that I was making run in parallel - here it is: class DataConversionRunnable implements Runnable { int jj, kk, w; DataConversionRunnable(int column, int matrix, int wid) { jj = column; kk = matrix; w = wid; } public void run() { for(int i = 0; i < w; i++) colorvals[kk][jj][i] = (int) ((raw[kk][jj][i] + 1.0) * 255 / 2.0); increaseCounter(); } } My question is should I make it a static inner class or can I just create it in a method? What is the general programming convention followed in this case?

    Read the article

  • Should comments say WHY the program is doing what it is doing? (opinion on a dictum by the inventor of Forth)

    - by AKE
    The often provocative Chuck Moore (inventor of the Forth language) gave the following advice (paraphrasing): "Use comments sparingly. Programs are self-documenting, with a modicum of help from mnemonics. Comments should say WHAT the program is doing, not HOW." My question: Should comments say WHY the program is doing what it is doing? Update: In addition to the answers below, these two provide additional insight. Beginner's guide to writing comments? http://programmers.stackexchange.com/a/98609/62203

    Read the article

  • Is writing comments inside methods not a good practice?

    - by Srini Kandula
    A friend told me that writing comments inside methods is not good. He said that we should have comments only for the method definitions(javadocs) but not inside the method body. It seems he read in a book that having comments inside the code means there is a problem in the code. I don't quite understand his reasoning. I think writing comments inside the method body is good and it helps other developers to understand it better and faster. Please provide your comments.

    Read the article

  • if ('constant' == $variable) vs. if ($variable == 'constant')

    - by Tom Auger
    Lately, I've been working a lot in PHP and specifically within the WordPress framework. I'm noticing a lot of code in the form of: if ( 1 == $options['postlink'] ) Where I would have expected to see: if ( $options['postlink'] == 1 ) Is this a convention found in certain languages / frameworks? Is there any reason the former approach is preferable to the latter (from a processing perspective, or a parsing perspective or even a human perspective?) Or is it merely a matter of taste? I have always thought it better when performing a test, that the variable item being tested against some constant is on the left. It seems to map better to the way we would ask the question in natural language: "if the cake is chocolate" rather than "if chocolate is the cake".

    Read the article

  • Control convention for circular movement?

    - by Christian
    I'm currently doing a kind of training project in Unity (still a beginner). It's supposed to be somewhat like Breakout, but instead of just going left and right I want the paddle to circle around the center point. This is all fine and dandy, but the problem I have is: how do you control this with a keyboard or gamepad? For touch and mouse control I could work around the problem by letting the paddle follow the cursor/finger, but with the other control methods I'm a bit stumped. With a keyboard for example, I could either make it so that the Left arrow always moves the paddle clockwise (it starts at the bottom of the circle), or I could link it to the actual direction - meaning that if the paddle is at the bottom, it goes left and up along the circle or, if it's in the upper hemisphere, it moves left and down, both times toward the outer left point of the circle. Both feel kind of weird. With the first one, it can be counter intuitive to press Left to move the paddle right when it's in the upper area, while in the second method you'd need to constantly switch buttons to keep moving. So, long story short: is there any kind of existing standard, convention or accepted example for this type of movement and the corresponding controls? I didn't really know what to google for (control conventions for circular movement was one of the searches I tried, but it didn't give me much), and I also didn't really find anything about this on here. If there is a Question that I simply didn't see, please excuse the duplicate.

    Read the article

  • "static" as a semantic clue about statelessness?

    - by leoger
    this might be a little philosophical but I hope someone can help me find a good way to think about this. I've recently undertaken a refactoring of a medium sized project in Java to go back and add unit tests. When I realized what a pain it was to mock singletons and statics, I finally "got" what I've been reading about them all this time. (I'm one of those people that needs to learn from experience. Oh well.) So, now that I'm using Spring to create the objects and wire them around, I'm getting rid of static keywords left and right. (If I could potentially want to mock it, it's not really static in the same sense that Math.abs() is, right?) The thing is, I had gotten into the habit of using static to denote that a method didn't rely on any object state. For example: //Before import com.thirdparty.ThirdPartyLibrary.Thingy; public class ThirdPartyLibraryWrapper { public static Thingy newThingy(InputType input) { new Thingy.Builder().withInput(input).alwaysFrobnicate().build(); } } //called as... ThirdPartyLibraryWrapper.newThingy(input); //After public class ThirdPartyFactory { public Thingy newThingy(InputType input) { new Thingy.Builder().withInput(input).alwaysFrobnicate().build(); } } //called as... thirdPartyFactoryInstance.newThingy(input); So, here's where it gets touchy-feely. I liked the old way because the capital letter told me that, just like Math.sin(x), ThirdPartyLibraryWrapper.newThingy(x) did the same thing the same way every time. There's no object state to change how the object does what I'm asking it to do. Here are some possible answers I'm considering. Nobody else feels this way so there's something wrong with me. Maybe I just haven't really internalized the OO way of doing things! Maybe I'm writing in Java but thinking in FORTRAN or somesuch. (Which would be impressive since I've never written FORTRAN.) Maybe I'm using staticness as a sort of proxy for immutability for the purposes of reasoning about code. That being said, what clues should I have in my code for someone coming along to maintain it to know what's stateful and what's not? Perhaps this should just come for free if I choose good object metaphors? e.g. thingyWrapper doesn't sound like it has state indepdent of the wrapped Thingy which may itself be mutable. Similarly, a thingyFactory sounds like it should be immutable but could have different strategies that are chosen among at creation. I hope I've been clear and thanks in advance for your advice!

    Read the article

  • How important is it that you know the C++ standard?

    - by Nim
    I did try searching, but I did not see a similar question (either that or my search terminology was incorrect - if so, feel free to close). I am an avid user of SO, and I notice that there are lots of references to the C++ standard in discussions and answers - and I have to admit, I have never read this particular document, the language makes my eyes hurt... So, the question is, can a C++ developer really code for a living without ever having read this document? Is it really important for us mere mortals who are not in the business of writing compilers?

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87  | Next Page >