Search Results

Search found 33509 results on 1341 pages for 'good practices'.

Page 81/1341 | < Previous Page | 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88  | Next Page >

  • Modern way to validate POST-data in MVC 2

    - by zerkms
    There are a lot of articles devoted to working with data in MVC, and nothing about MVC 2. So my question is: what is the proper way to handle POST-query and validate it. Assume we have 2 actions. Both of them operates over the same entity, but each action has it's own separated set of object properties that should be bound in automatic manner. For example: Action "A" should bind only "Name" property of object, taken from POST-request Action "B" should bind only "Date" property of object, taken from POST-request As far as I understand - we cannot use Bind attribute in this case. So - what are the best practices in MVC2 to handle POST-data and probably validate it.

    Read the article

  • How to create custom CSS "on the fly" based on account settings in a Django site?

    - by sdolan
    So I'm writing a Django based website that allows users select a color scheme through an administration interface. I already have middleware/context processors that links the current request (based on domain) to the account. My question is how to dynamically serve the CSS with the account's custom color scheme. I see two options: Add a CSS block to the base template that overrides the styles w/variables passed in through a context processors. Use a custom URL (e.g. "/static/dynamic/css//styles.css") that gets routed to a view that grabs all the necessary values and creates the css file. I'm content with either option, but was wondering if anyone else out there has dealt with similar problems and could give some insight as to "Best Practices".

    Read the article

  • Test Driven Development (TDD) with Rails

    - by macek
    I am looking for TDD resources that are specific to Rails. I've seen the Rails Guide: The Basics of Creating a Rails Plugin which really spurred my interest in the topic. I have the Agile Development with Rails book and I see there's some testing-related information there. However, it seems like the author takes you through the steps of building the app, then adds testing afterward. This isn't really Test Driven Development. Ideally, I'd like a book on this, but a collection of other tutorials or articles would be great if such a book doesn't exist. Things I'd like to learn: Primary goal: Best Practices Unit testing How to utilize Fixtures Possibly using existing development data in place of fixtures What's the community standard here? Writing tests for plugins Testing with session data User is logged in User can access URL /foo/bar Testing success of sending email Thanks for any help!

    Read the article

  • Converting table based layout into a div/css based one.

    - by nimo9367
    I'm supposed to rewrite the UI for a rather large web application. The thing is that the layout is completely based on tables and if I could somehow, semi automatically, convert the tables into divs it would save me a huge amount of time. What are the best practices when doing something like this? Is this a good idea at all? The application use layout files (containing something similar to helpers) that are parsed into html at runtime and the application itself also output html at specific places. So the work will consist of converting these helpers and the htmloutput code within the application.

    Read the article

  • How to setup custom CSS based on account settings in a Django site?

    - by sdolan
    So I'm writing a Django based website that allows users select a color scheme through an administration interface. I already have middleware/context processors that links the current request (based on domain) to the account. My question is how to dynamically serve the CSS with the account's custom color scheme. I see two options: Add a CSS block to the base template that overrides the styles w/variables passed in through a context processors. Use a custom URL (e.g. "/static/dynamic/css//styles.css") that gets routed to a view that grabs all the necessary values and creates the css file. I'm content with either option, but was wondering if anyone else out there has dealt with similar problems and could give some insight as to "Best Practices".

    Read the article

  • If you could remove one feature of php ti help newbies what would it be?

    - by Chris
    If you could remove one feature from PHP so as to discourage, prevent or otherwise help stop newer programmers develop bad habits or practices, or, to stop them falling into traps that might hinder their development skills what would it be and why? Now, before the votes to close it's not as open-ended as you might think. I'm not asking purely what is the worst feature or what feature would you really like to remove purely arbitrarily. Yes, there may not be one correct answer but I suspect there will be many similar answers which will provide me with a good idea of things I might be doing wrong, even inadvertently.

    Read the article

  • Model association changes in production environment, specifically converting a model to polymorphic?

    - by dustmoo
    Hi everyone, I was hoping I could get feedback on major changes to how a model works in an app that is in production already. In my case I have a model Record, that has_many PhoneNumbers. Currently it is a typical has_many belongs_to association with a record having many PhoneNumbers. Of course, I now have a feature of adding temporary, user generated records and these records will have PhoneNumbers too. I 'could' just add the user_record_id to the PhoneNumber model, but wouldn't it be better for this to be a polymorphic association? And if so, if you change how a model associates, how in the heck would I update the production database without breaking everything? .< Anyway, just looking for best practices in a situation like this. Thanks!

    Read the article

  • Ways to Unit Test Oauth for different services in ruby?

    - by viatropos
    Are there any best practices in writing unit tests when 90% of the time I'm building the Oauth connecting class, I need to actually be logging into the remote service? I am building a rubygem that logs in to Twitter/Google/MySpace, etc., and the hardest part is making sure I have the settings right for that particular provider, and I would like to write tests for that. Is there a recommended way to do that? If I did mocks or stubs, I'd still have to spend that 90% of the time figuring out how to use the service, and would end up writing tests after the fact instead of before...

    Read the article

  • If you could remove one feature of php to help newbies what would it be?

    - by Chris
    If you could remove one feature from PHP so as to discourage, prevent or otherwise help stop newer programmers develop bad habits or practices, or, to stop them falling into traps that might hinder their development skills what would it be and why? Now, before the votes to close it's not as open-ended as you might think. I'm not asking purely what is the worst feature or what feature would you really like to remove purely arbitrarily. Yes, there may not be one correct answer but I suspect there will be many similar answers which will provide me with a good idea of things I might be doing wrong, even inadvertently.

    Read the article

  • Do you leave historical code commented out in classes that you update?

    - by 18Rabbit
    When you need to obsolete a section of code (say either the business rules changed, or the old system has been reworked to use a new framework or something) do you delete it from the file or do you comment it out and then put in the new functionality? If you comment it out, do you leave a note stating why it was removed and what it was originally intended to do? I ask mainly because I've done a lot of contract work for different places over the years and sometimes it's like excavating a tomb to find the actual code that is still being used. Why comment it out and leave it in the file if source control has a record of what used to be there? If you comment out a method do you also comment out/delete any methods that were exclusively used by that method? What do you think the best practices for this should be?

    Read the article

  • How to cope with developing against a poor 3rd party API/application?

    - by wsanville
    I'm a web developer, and my organization has recently started to use a proprietary ASP.NET CMS for our web sites. I was excited to get started using the CMS, thinking it would bring a lot of value to our end users and be fun to work with, since my skills are a good match for the types of projects we're using it for. That was about a year ago. Since then, we've ran into all kinds of issues, from blatant bugs in the product, to nasty edge cases in the APIs, to extremely poor documentation for developers. On about a weekly basis, we are forced to pursue workarounds and rewrite some of the out of the box functionality, and even find some of the basic features unusable. In many cases, since this is a closed source application (and obfuscated of course), there's nothing we can do as developers to solve these issues. So my question is, how does one attempt to develop a good application in such a scenario? The application mostly works when using the the exact out of the box behavior, or using one of the company's starter sites. However, my attempts to use the underlying APIs to implement slightly different, yet reasonable behavior has proved to be extremely time consuming (not to mention just as buggy), given the lack of good information about the APIs. I've given this a lot of thought, and my conflicting viewpoints are the following: Strongly advise against any customization to the CMS, as development time will rise exponentially, or even have an extremely high chance of failing. While this is accurate, I do not want to give the impression that I am not willing to code my own solutions to problems and take the initiative to implement something difficult or complex. I don't want to be perceived as someone who is not motivated, lazy, or not knowledgeable to do anything complex, because this is simply not the case. I love coding my own solutions, trying new/difficult things, I just dislike the vendor app we're using. Continue on the path I'm on now, which is hacking my way past all issues I encounter and try my best to deliver an application that meets the needs and specs exactly. My goals are to make it as seamless and easy to use as possible to the end user, even when integrating the CMS with our other applications internally. The problem I'm finding with this approach is it is very time consuming. I open support cases with the vendor on a regular basis to solve issues and to gain knowledge of their APIs, but this is extremely time consuming, and in some cases it leads to dead ends. I post on the vendors forums on a regular basis but have become frustrated as most of my posts get 0 replies. So, what would you, a reasonable developer, do in this case? How can I make the best of the situation? And just for fun, here are some of the code smells and anti-patterns I've dealt with using the product (aside from their own code blatantly failing): Use of StringBuilder to concatenate a giant string that is hard coded and does not change. They use it to concatenate their Javascript and write it out into the body tags of their pages. Methods that accept object or Microsoft.VisualBasic.Collection as the parameters. In the case of the VB Collection, the data is not a list of any kind, it's used instead of making a class. Methods that return a Hashtable of VB Collections Method names of the form MethodName_v45, MethodName_v20, etc... Multiple classes with the same name in different namespaces with different functionality/behavior. Intellisense that reads "Note: this parameter is non functional" Complete lack of coding standards, API is filled with magic numbers and magic strings. Properties with a getter of type object that accepts totally different things, like enum or strings, and throw exceptions at runtime when you pass in something not supported. And much, much, more...

    Read the article

  • code review: Is it subjective or objective(quantifiable) ?

    - by Ram
    I am putting together some guidelines for code reviews. We do not have one formal process yet, and trying to formalize it. And our team is geographically distributed We are using TFS for source control (used it for tasks/bug tracking/project management as well, but migrated that to JIRA) with VS2008 for development. What are the things you look for when doing a code review ? These are the things I came up with Enforce FXCop rules (we are a Microsoft shop) Check for performance (any tools ?) and security (thinking about using OWASP- code crawler) and thread safety Adhere to naming conventions The code should cover edge cases and boundaries conditions Should handle exceptions correctly (do not swallow exceptions) Check if the functionality is duplicated elsewhere method body should be small(20-30 lines) , and methods should do one thing and one thing only (no side effects/ avoid temporal coupling -) Do not pass/return nulls in methods Avoid dead code Document public and protected methods/properties/variables What other things do you generally look for ? I am trying to see if we can quantify the review process (it would produce identical output when reviewed by different persons) Example: Saying "the method body should be no longer than 20-30 lines of code" as opposed to saying "the method body should be small" Or is code review very subjective ( and would differ from one reviewer to another ) ? The objective is to have a marking system (say -1 point for each FXCop rule violation,-2 points for not following naming conventions,2 point for refactoring etc) so that developers would be more careful when they check in their code.This way, we can identify developers who are consistently writing good/bad code.The goal is to have the reviewer spend about 30 minutes max, to do a review (I know this is subjective, considering the fact that the changeset/revision might include multiple files/huge changes to the existing architecture etc , but you get the general idea, the reviewer should not spend days reviewing someone's code) What other objective/quantifiable system do you follow to identify good/bad code written by developers? Book reference: Clean Code: A handbook of agile software craftmanship by Robert Martin

    Read the article

  • Can this be considered Clean Code / Best Practice?

    - by MRFerocius
    Guys, How are you doing today? I have the following question because I will follow this strategy for all my helpers (to deal with the DB entities) Is this considered a good practice or is it going to be unmaintainable later? public class HelperArea : AbstractHelper { event OperationPerformed<Area> OnAreaInserting; event OperationPerformed<Area> OnAreaInserted; event OperationPerformed<Area> OnExceptionOccured; public void Insert(Area element) { try { if (OnAreaInserting != null) OnAreaInserting(element); DBase.Context.Areas.InsertOnSubmit(new AtlasWFM_Mapping.Mapping.Area { areaDescripcion = element.Description, areaNegocioID = element.BusinessID, areaGUID = Guid.NewGuid(), areaEstado = element.Status, }); DBase.Context.SubmitChanges(); if (OnAreaInserted != null) OnAreaInserted(element); } catch (Exception ex) { LogManager.ChangeStrategy(LogginStrategies.EVENT_VIEWER); LogManager.LogError(new LogInformation { logErrorType = ErrorType.CRITICAL, logException = ex, logMensaje = "Error inserting Area" }); if (OnExceptionOccured != null) OnExceptionOccured(elemento); } } I want to know if it is a good way to handle the event on the Exception to let subscribers know that there has been an exception inserting that Area. And the way to log the Exception, is is OK to do it this way? Any suggestion to make it better?

    Read the article

  • Why doesn't every class in the .Net framework have a corresponding interface?

    - by Thorsten Lorenz
    Since I started to develop in a test/behavior driven style, I appreciated the ability to mock out every dependency. Since mocking frameworks like Moq work best when told to mock an interface, I now implement an interface for almost every class I create b/c most likely I will have to mock it out in a test eventually. Well, and programming to an interface is good practice, anyways. At times, my classes take dependencies on .Net classes (e.g. FileSystemWatcher, DispatcherTimer). It would be great in that case to have an interface, so I could depend on an IDispatcherTimer instead, to be able to pass it a mock and simulate its behavior to see if my system under test reacts correctly. Unfortunately both of above mentioned classes do not implement such interfaces, so I have to resort to creating adapters, that do nothing else but inherit from the original class and conform to an interface, that I then can use. Here is such an adapter for the DispatcherTimer and the corresponding interface: using System; using System.Windows.Threading; public interface IDispatcherTimer { #region Events event EventHandler Tick; #endregion #region Properties Dispatcher Dispatcher { get; } TimeSpan Interval { get; set; } bool IsEnabled { get; set; } object Tag { get; set; } #endregion #region Public Methods void Start(); void Stop(); #endregion } /// <summary> /// Adapts the DispatcherTimer class to implement the <see cref="IDispatcherTimer"/> interface. /// </summary> public class DispatcherTimerAdapter : DispatcherTimer, IDispatcherTimer { } Although this is not the end of the world, I wonder, why the .Net developers didn't take the minute to make their classes implement these interfaces from the get go. It puzzles me especially since now there is a big push for good practices from inside Microsoft. Does anyone have any (maybe inside) information why this contradiction exists?

    Read the article

  • Multi-level shop, xml or sql. best practice?

    - by danrichardson
    Hello, i have a general "best practice" question regarding building a multi-level shop, which i hope doesn't get marked down/deleted as i personally think it's quite a good "subjective" question. I am a developer in charge (in most part) of maintaining and evolving a cms system and associated front-end functionality. Over the past half year i have developed a multiple level shop system so that an infinite level of categories may exist down into a product level and all works fine. However over the last week or so i have questioned by own methods in front-end development and the best way to show the multi-level data structure. I currently use a sql server database (2000) and pull out all the shop levels and then process them into an enumerable typed list with child enumerable typed lists, so that all levels are sorted. This in my head seems quite process heavy, but we're not talking about thousands of rows, generally only 1-500 rows maybe. I have been toying with the idea recently of storing the structure in an XML document (as well as the database) and then sending last modified headers when serving/requesting the document for, which would then be processed as/when nessecary with an xsl(t) document - which would be processed server side. This is quite a handy, reusable method of storing the data but does it have more overheads in the fact im opening and closing files? And also the xml will require a bit of processing to pull out blocks of xml if for instance i wanted to show two level mid way through the tree for a side menu. I use the above method for sitemap purposes so there is currently already code i have built which does what i require, but unsure what the best process is to go about. Maybe a hybrid method which pulls out the data, sorts it and then makes an xml document/stream (XDocument/XmlDocument) for xsl processing is a good way? - This is the way i currently make the cms work for the shop. So really (and thanks for sticking with me on this), i am just wandering which methods other people use or recommend as being the best/most logical way of doing things. Thanks Dan

    Read the article

  • How much of STL is too much?

    - by Darius Kucinskas
    I am using a lot of STL code with std::for_each, bind, and so on, but I noticed that sometimes STL usage is not good idea. For example if you have a std::vector and want to do one action on each item of the vector, your first idea is to use this: std::for_each(vec.begin(), vec.end(), Foo()) and it is elegant and ok, for a while. But then comes the first set of bug reports and you have to modify code. Now you should add parameter to call Foo(), so now it becomes: std::for_each(vec.begin(), vec.end(), std::bind2nd(Foo(), X)) but that is only temporary solution. Now the project is maturing and you understand business logic much better and you want to add new modifications to code. It is at this point that you realize that you should use old good: for(std::vector::iterator it = vec.begin(); it != vec.end(); ++it) Is this happening only to me? Do you recognise this kind of pattern in your code? Have you experience similar anti-patterns using STL?

    Read the article

  • Alternatives to using web.config to store settings (for complex solutions)

    - by Brian MacKay
    In our web applications, we seperate our Data Access Layers out into their own projects. This creates some problems related to settings. Because the DAL will eventually need to be consumed from perhaps more than one application, web.config does not seem like a good place to keep the connection strings and some of the other DAL-related settings. To solve this, on some of our recent projects we introduced a third project just for settings. We put the setting in a system of .Setting files... With a simple wrapper, the ability to have different settings for various enviroments (Dev, QA, Staging, Production, etc) was easy to achieve. The only problem there is that the settings project (including the .Settings class) compiles into an assembly, so you can't change it without doing a build/deployment, and some of our customers want to be able to configure their projects without Visual Studio. So, is there a best practice for this? I have that sense that I'm reinventing the wheel. Some solutions such as storing settings in a fixed directory on the server in, say, our own XML format occurred to us. But again, I would rather avoid having to re-create encryption for sensitive values and so on. And I would rather keep the solution self-contained if possible. EDIT: The original question did not contain the really penetrating reason that we can't (I think) use web.config ... That puts a few (very good) answers out of context, my bad.

    Read the article

  • Have I taken a wrong path in programming by being excessively worried about code elegance and style?

    - by Ygam
    I am in a major stump right now. I am a BSIT graduate, but I only started actual programming less than a year ago. I observed that I have the following attitude in programming: I tend to be more of a purist, scorning unelegant approaches to solving problems using code I tend to look at anything in a large scale, planning everything before I start coding, either in simple flowcharts or complex UML charts I have a really strong impulse on refactoring my code, even if I miss deadlines or prolong development times I am obsessed with good directory structures, file naming conventions, class, method, and variable naming conventions I tend to always want to study something new, even, as I said, at the cost of missing deadlines I tend to see software development as something to engineer, to architect; that is, seeing how things relate to each other and how blocks of code can interact (I am a huge fan of loose coupling) i.e the OOP thinking I tend to combine OOP and procedural coding whenever I see fit I want my code to execute fast (thus the elegant approaches and refactoring) This bothers me because I see my colleagues doing much better the other way around (aside from the fact that they started programming since our first year in college). By the other way around I mean, they fire up coding, gets the job done much faster because they don't have to really look at how clean their codes are or how elegant their algorithms are, they don't bother with OOP however big their projects are, they mostly use web APIs, piece them together and voila! Working code! CLients are happy, they get paid fast, at the expense of a really unmaintainable or hard-to-read code that lacks structure and conventions, or slow executions of certain actions (which the common reasoning against would be that internet connections are much faster these days, hardware is more powerful). The excuse I often receive is clients don't care about how you write the code, but they do care about how long you deliver it. If it works then all is good. Now, did my "purist" approach to programming may have been the wrong way to start programming? Should I just dump these purist concepts and just code the hell up because I have seen it: clients don't really care how beautifully coded it is?

    Read the article

  • Should a setter return immediately if assigned the same value?

    - by Andrei Rinea
    In classes that implement INotifyPropertyChanged I often see this pattern : public string FirstName { get { return _customer.FirstName; } set { if (value == _customer.FirstName) return; _customer.FirstName = value; base.OnPropertyChanged("FirstName"); } } Precisely the lines if (value == _customer.FirstName) return; are bothering me. I've often did this but I am not that sure it's needed nor good. After all if a caller assigns the very same value I don't want to reassign the field and, especially, notify my subscribers that the property has changed when, semantically it didn't. Except saving some CPU/RAM/etc by freeing the UI from updating something that will probably look the same on the screen/whatever_medium what do we obtain? Could some people force a refresh by reassigning the same value on a property (NOT THAT THIS WOULD BE A GOOD PRACTICE HOWEVER)? 1. Should we do it or shouldn't we? 2. Why?

    Read the article

  • Returning true or error message in Ruby

    - by seaneshbaugh
    I'm wondering if writing functions like this is considered good or bad form. def test(x) if x == 1 return true else return "Error: x is not equal to one." end end And then to use it we do something like this: result = test(1) if result != true puts result end result = test(2) if result != true puts result end Which just displays the error message for the second call to test. I'm considering doing this because in a rails project I'm working on inside my controller code I make calls to a model's instance methods and if something goes wrong I want the model to return the error message to the controller and the controller takes that error message and puts it in the flash and redirects. Kinda like this def create @item = Item.new(params[:item]) if [email protected]? result = @item.save_image(params[:attachment][:file]) if result != true flash[:notice] = result redirect_to(new_item_url) and return end #and so on... That way I'm not constructing the error messages in the controller, merely passing them along, because I really don't want the controller to be concerned with what the save_image method itself does just whether or not it worked. It makes sense to me, but I'm curious as to whether or not this is considered a good or bad way of writing methods. Keep in mind I'm asking this in the most general sense pertaining mostly to ruby, it just happens that I'm doing this in a rails project, the actual logic of the controller really isn't my concern.

    Read the article

  • What is your favorite API developer community site? And why? [closed]

    - by whatupwilly
    There are a lot of great sites out there that offer good documentation, tools, tips, best-practices, sample code, etc. for the API's they are publishing. A sample: http://apiwiki.twitter.com http://developer.netflix.com/ http://developers.facebook.com/ https://affiliate-program.amazon.com/gp/advertising/api/detail/main.html http://code.google.com/ http://remix.bestbuy.com/ http://www.flickr.com/services/api/misc.overview.html http://products.wolframalpha.com/api/webserviceapi.html There are some no-brainers that I think a good developer site should have: Hi level introduction Quick start guide API specific details - showing example request and responses Links to sample code and/or 3rd party libraries Developer registration (e.g. get an API key) Blog But what about some other things: Online-Forum or Msg Board vs. Google Group (or similar) Galleries/ShowCases - spotlighting great apps built on the API - who has done nice galleries? Community Wiki - How do people feel about letting the community have edit rights on API documentation pages Online testing tools (like Facebook has a lot of nice interactive tools to simulate request/responses) What are some packages that you would recommend to put this all together: pbwiki Google Group pages MediaWiki API vendor package such as Sonoa Systems that offers a customizable developer portal So, to summarize: What are some other great API developer portals out there What are some nice features you like on them Any recommendations on what to use to build these features out Thanks, Will Zappos.com Public API (soon to launch) Product Manager

    Read the article

  • What are Code Smells? What is the best way to correct them?

    - by Rob Cooper
    OK, so I know what a code smell is, and the Wikipedia Article is pretty clear in its definition: In computer programming, code smell is any symptom in the source code of a computer program that indicates something may be wrong. It generally indicates that the code should be refactored or the overall design should be reexamined. The term appears to have been coined by Kent Beck on WardsWiki. Usage of the term increased after it was featured in Refactoring. Improving the Design of Existing Code. I know it also provides a list of common code smells. But I thought it would be great if we could get clear list of not only what code smells there are, but also how to correct them. Some Rules Now, this is going to be a little subjective in that there are differences to languages, programming style etc. So lets lay down some ground rules: ** ONE SMELL PER ANSWER PLEASE! & ADVISE ON HOW TO CORRECT! ** See this answer for a good display of what this thread should be! DO NOT downmod if a smell doesn't apply to your language or development methodology We are all different. DO NOT just quickly smash in as many as you can think of Think about the smells you want to list and get a good idea down on how to work around. DO downmod answers that just look rushed For example "dupe code - remove dupe code". Let's makes it useful (e.g. Duplicate Code - Refactor into separate methods or even classes, use these links for help on these common.. etc. etc.). DO upmod answers that you would add yourself If you wish to expand, then answer with your thoughts linking to the original answer (if it's detailed) or comment if its a minor point. DO format your answers! Help others to be able to read it, use code snippets, headings and markup to make key points stand out!

    Read the article

  • Should my validator have access to my entire model?

    - by wb
    As the title states I'm wondering if it's a good idea for my validation class to have access to all properties from my model. Ideally, I would like to do that because some fields require 10+ other fields to verify whether it is valid or not. I could but would rather not have functions with 10+ parameters. Or would that make the model and validator too coupled with one another? Here is a little example of what I mean. This code however does not work because it give an infinite loop! Class User Private m_UserID Private m_Validator Public Sub Class_Initialize() End Sub Public Property Let Validator(value) Set m_Validator = value m_Validator.Initialize(Me) End Property Public Property Get Validator() Validator = m_Validator End Property Public Property Let UserID(value) m_UserID = value End property Public Property Get UserID() UserID = m_Validator.IsUserIDValid() End property End Class Class Validator Private m_User Public Sub Class_Initialize() End Sub Public Sub Initialize(value) Set m_User = value End Sub Public Function IsUserIDValid() IsUserIDValid = m_User.UserID > 13 End Function End Class Dim mike : Set mike = New User mike.UserID = 123456 mike.Validator = New Validator Response.Write mike.UserID If I'm right and it is a good idea, how can I go a head and fix the infinite loop with the get property UserID? Thank you.

    Read the article

  • Atomic operations on several transactionless external systems

    - by simendsjo
    Say you have an application connecting 3 different external systems. You need to update something in all 3. In case of a failure, you need to roll back the operations. This is not a hard thing to implement, but say operation 3 fails, and when rolling back, the rollback for operation 1 fails! Now the first external system is in an invalid state... I'm thinking a possible solution is to shut down the application and forcing a manual fix of the external system, but then again... It might already have used this information (and perhaps that's why it failed), or we might not have sufficient access. Or it might not even be a good way to rollback the action! Are there some good ways of handling such cases? EDIT: Some application details.. It's a multi user web application. Most of the work is done with scheduled jobs (through Quartz.Net), so most operations is run in it's own thread. Some user actions should trigger jobs that update several systems though. The external systems are somewhat unstable. I Was thinking of changing the application to use the Command and Unit Of Work pattern

    Read the article

  • Does it ever make sense to make a fundamental (non-pointer) parameter const?

    - by Scott Smith
    I recently had an exchange with another C++ developer about the following use of const: void Foo(const int bar); He felt that using const in this way was good practice. I argued that it does nothing for the caller of the function (since a copy of the argument was going to be passed, there is no additional guarantee of safety with regard to overwrite). In addition, doing this prevents the implementer of Foo from modifying their private copy of the argument. So, it both mandates and advertises an implementation detail. Not the end of the world, but certainly not something to be recommended as good practice. I'm curious as to what others think on this issue. Edit: OK, I didn't realize that const-ness of the arguments didn't factor into the signature of the function. So, it is possible to mark the arguments as const in the implementation (.cpp), and not in the header (.h) - and the compiler is fine with that. That being the case, I guess the policy should be the same for making local variables const. One could make the argument that having different looking signatures in the header and source file would confuse others (as it would have confused me). While I try to follow the Principle of Least Astonishment with whatever I write, I guess it's reasonable to expect developers to recognize this as legal and useful.

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88  | Next Page >