Search Results

Search found 5915 results on 237 pages for 'practices'.

Page 85/237 | < Previous Page | 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92  | Next Page >

  • Separation of interfaces and implementation

    - by bonefisher
    From assembly(or module) perspective, what do you think of separation of Interface (1.assembly) and its Implementation (2.assembly)? In this way we can use some IoC container to develop more decoupling desing.. Say we have an assembly 'A', which contains interfaces only. Then we have an assembly 'B' which references 'A' and implements those interfaces..It is dependent only on 'A'. In assembly 'C' then we can use the IoC container to create objects of 'A' using dependency injection of objects from 'B'. This way 'B' and 'C' are completely unaware (not dependent) of themselves..

    Read the article

  • Generic data input form in asp.net mvc application

    - by Diego
    Hello, I have an application that have EF 16 classes that share this information: They all are classes only with a key field and a description. I think it should be a waste if I make a controller with just 1 method just to present a form to fill these classes info, then I was thinking in to make a generic form(with key, description) and dynamically fill the right class through a sort of selection the selected info in any way, any good suggestion or pattern to do that? Where the generic methods should be located.

    Read the article

  • Using the using statement with WinForms... Good Practice?

    - by Nate Heinrich
    I understand the concept and reasons behind using the using statement, and I use it with things like file resources and remote connections, I was wondering if it is good practice to use the using statement with WinForm forms and dialogs? using (MyDialog dlg = new MyDialog()) { if (dlg.ShowDialog() == EDialogResult.OK) { // Do Something } } Thanks!

    Read the article

  • C#: What would you name an IEnumerable class?

    - by Svish
    When reading this question I started to wonder a bit. Say you have these two: class ProductCollection : ICollection<Product> class ProductList : IList<Product> What would you call one that were an IEnumerable<Product>? class Product--- : IEnumerable<Product> Before I read that other question I might have called it a ProductCollection actually, but taking the new info into account, that would have been a bit misleading since it does not implement ICollection<Product>. Could you call it Products? var products = new Products(); // products is/are products Almost works but sounds a bit strange... What would you call it?

    Read the article

  • Which of these is better practice?

    - by Fletcher Moore
    You have a sequence of functions to execute. Case A: They do not depend on each other. Which of these is better? function main() { a(); b(); c(); } or function main() { a(); } function a() { ... b(); } function b() { ... c(); } Case B: They do depend on successful completion of the previous. function main() { if (a()) if (b()) c(); } or function main() { if (!a()) return false; if (!b()) return false; c(); } or function main() { a(); } function a() { ... // maybe return false b(); } funtion b() { ... // maybe return false c(); } Better, of course, means more maintainable and easier to follow.

    Read the article

  • Is it OK to reference 'this' when initializing a field?

    - by parxier
    Is it OK to reference this when initializing a field? public class MainClass { private SomeFieldClass field = new SomeFieldClass(this); public MainClass() {} } Or is it better to do that in constructor? public class MainClass { private SomeFieldClass field; public MainClass() { this.field = new SomeFieldClass(this); } } What is the best practice? I believe first option is better for unit testing and dependency injection. Are there any problems with it?

    Read the article

  • Why Shouldn't I Programmatically Submit Username/Password to Facebook/Twitter/Amazon/etc?

    - by viatropos
    I wish there was a central, fully customizable, open source, universal login system that allowed you to login and manage all of your online accounts (maybe there is?)... I just found RPXNow today after starting to build a Sinatra app to login to Google, Facebook, Twitter, Amazon, OpenID, and EventBrite, and it looks like it might save some time. But I keep wondering, not being an authentication guru, why couldn't I just have a sleek login page saying "Enter username and password, and check your login service", and then in the background either scrape the login page from say EventBrite and programmatically submit the form with Mechanize, or use an API if there was one? It would be so much cleaner and such a better user experience if they didn't have to go through popups and redirects and they could use any previously existing accounts. My question is: What are the reasons why I shouldn't do something like that? I don't know much about the serious details of cookies/sessions/security, so if you could be descriptive or point me to some helpful links that would be awesome. Thanks!

    Read the article

  • PHP MVC Framework Structure

    - by bigstylee
    I am sorry about the amount of code here. I have tried to show enough for understanding while avoiding confusion (I hope). I have included a second copy of the code at Pastebin. (The code does execute without error/notice/warning.) I am currently creating a Content Management System while trying to implement the idea of Model View Controller. I have only recently come across the concept of MVC (within the last week) and trying to implement this into my current project. One of the features of the CMS is dynamic/customisable menu areas and each feature will be represented by a controller. Therefore there will be multiple versions of the Controller Class, each with specific extended functionality. I have looked at a number of tutorials and read some open source solutions to the MVC Framework. I am now trying to create a lightweight solution for my specific requirements. I am not interested in backwards compatibility, I am using PHP 5.3. An advantage of the Base class is not having to use global and can directly access any loaded class using $this->Obj['ClassName']->property/function();. Hoping to get some feedback using the basic structure outlined (with performance in mind). Specifically; a) Have I understood/implemented the concept of MVC correctly? b) Have I understood/implemented Object Orientated techniques with PHP 5 correctly? c) Should the class propertise of Base be static? d) Improvements? Thank you very much in advance! <?php /* A "Super Class" that creates/stores all object instances */ class Base { public static $Obj = array(); // Not sure this is the correct use of the "static" keyword? public static $var; static public function load_class($directory, $class) { echo count(self::$Obj)."\n"; // This does show the array is getting updated and not creating a new array :) if (!isset(self::$Obj[$class]) && !is_object(self::$Obj[$class])) //dont want to load it twice { /* Locate and include the class file based upon name ($class) */ return self::$Obj[$class] = new $class(); } return TRUE; } } /* Loads general configuration objects into the "Super Class" */ class Libraries extends Base { public function __construct(){ $this->load_class('library', 'Database'); $this->load_class('library', 'Session'); self::$var = 'Hello World!'; //testing visibility /* Other general funciton classes */ } } class Database extends Base { /* Connects to the the database and executes all queries */ public function query(){} } class Session extends Base { /* Implements Sessions in database (read/write) */ } /* General functionality of controllers */ abstract class Controller extends Base { protected function load_model($class, $method) { /* Locate and include the model file */ $this->load_class('model', $class); call_user_func(array(self::$Obj[$class], $method)); } protected function load_view($name) { /* Locate and include the view file */ #include('views/'.$name.'.php'); } } abstract class View extends Base { /* ... */ } abstract class Model extends Base { /* ... */ } class News extends Controller { public function index() { /* Displays the 5 most recent News articles and displays with Content Area */ $this->load_model('NewsModel', 'index'); $this->load_view('news', 'index'); echo $this->var; } public function menu() { /* Displays the News Title of the 5 most recent News articles and displays within the Menu Area */ $this->load_model('news/index'); $this->load_view('news/index'); } } class ChatBox extends Controller { /* ... */ } /* Lots of different features extending the controller/view/model class depending upon request and layout */ class NewsModel extends Model { public function index() { echo $this->var; self::$Obj['Database']->query(/*SELECT 5 most recent news articles*/); } public function menu() { /* ... */ } } $Libraries = new Libraries; $controller = 'News'; // Would be determined from Query String $method = 'index'; // Would be determined from Query String $Content = $Libraries->load_class('controller', $controller); //create the controller for the specific page if (in_array($method, get_class_methods($Content))) { call_user_func(array($Content, $method)); } else { die('Bad Request'. $method); } $Content::$var = 'Goodbye World'; echo $Libraries::$var . ' - ' . $Content::$var; ?> /* Ouput */ 0 1 2 3 Goodbye World! - Goodbye World

    Read the article

  • What is the best practice of using return keyword?

    - by Artic
    What is the best practice of using return keyword? If i need to return something from method which pattern is better to use? public boolean method(){ if (case1){ return true; } if (case 2){ return false; } return false; } or public boolean method(){ boolean result = false; if (case1){ result = true; } if (case 2){ result = false; } return result; }

    Read the article

  • What is the most elegant way to validate the presence of ONLY one out of two attributes using Rails?

    - by marcgg
    class Followup < ActiveRecord::Base belongs_to :post belongs_to :comment end This model needs to only have either a post or a comment, but only one of the two. Here's the rspec for what I'm trying to do: it "should be impossible to have both a comment and a post" do followup = Followup.make followup.comment = Comment.make followup.should be_valid followup.post = Post.make followup.should_not be_valid end I can see a bunch of ways of doing this, but what would be the most elegant way of doing this?

    Read the article

  • Bad method names and what it says about code structure.

    - by maxfridbe
    (Apologies in advance if this is a re-post but I didn't find similar posts) What bad method name patterns have you seen in code and what did it tell you about the code. For instance, I keep seeing: public void preform___X___IfNecessary(...); I believe that this is bad because the operation X has an inversion of conditions. Note that this is a public method because classes methods might legitimately require private helpers like this

    Read the article

  • What are the worst examples of moral failure in the history of software engineering?

    - by Amanda S
    Many computer science curricula include a class or at least a lecture on disasters caused by software bugs, such as the Therac-25 incidents or Ariane 5 Flight 501. Indeed, Wikipedia has a list of software bugs with serious consequences, and a question on StackOverflow addresses some of them too. We study the failures of the past so that we don't repeat them, and I believe that rather than ignoring them or excusing them, it's important to look at these failures squarely and remind ourselves exactly how the mistakes made by people in our profession cost real money and real lives. By studying failures caused by uncaught bugs and bad process, we learn certain lessons about rigorous testing and accountability, and we make sure that our innocent mistakes are caught before they cause major problems. There are kinds of less innocent failure in software engineering, however, and I think it's just as important to study the serious consequences caused by programmers motivated by malice, greed, or just plain amorality. Thus we can learn about the ethical questions that arise in our profession, and how to respond when we are faced with them ourselves. Unfortunately, it's much harder to find lists of these failures--the only one I can come up with is that apocryphal "DOS ain't done 'til Lotus won't run" story. What are the worst examples of moral failure in the history of software engineering?

    Read the article

  • NHibernate session management in ASP.NET MVC

    - by Kevin Pang
    I am currently playing around with the HybridSessionBuilder class found on Jeffrey Palermo's blog post: http://jeffreypalermo.com/blog/use-this-nhibernate-wrapper-to-keep-your-repository-classes-simple/ Using this class, my repository looks like this: public class UserRepository : IUserRepository { private readonly ISessionBuilder _sessionBuilder; public UserRepository(ISessionBuilder sessionBuilder) { _sessionBuilder = sessionBuilder; } public User GetByID(string userID) { using (ISession session = _sessionBuilder.GetSession()) { return session.Get<User>(userID); } } } Is this the best way to go about managing the NHibernate session / factory? I've heard things about Unit of Work and creating a session per web request and flushing it at the end. From what I can tell, my current implementation isn't doing any of this. It is basically relying on the Repository to grab the session from the session factory and use it to run the queries. Are there any pitfalls to doing database access this way?

    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

  • Create UML diagrams after or before coding?

    - by ajsie
    I can clearly see the benefits of having UML diagrams showing your infrastructure of the application (class names, their members, how they communicate with each other etc). I'm starting a new project right now and have already structured the database (with visual paradigm). I want to use some design patterns to guide me how to code the classes. I wonder, should I code the classes first before I create UML diagram of it (maybe out of the code... seems possible) or should I first create UML diagram and then code (or generate code from the UML, seems possible that too). What are you experiences telling you is the best way?

    Read the article

  • QT/PyQT best practice for using QT Designer

    - by pierocampanelli
    What is your development approach with QT/PYQT and QT Designer ? Are you doing this: Put all components on the panel (without any layout) and arrange them Put components in layout (Align Vertically/Horizontally/Form/Grid) Generate UI file and start coding how do you manage when you have custom widget ? For example when you have to fine tune behaviour of a QButton or QLineEdit ? Is it possible to add this custom widget to designer?

    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

  • actionscript-3: refactor interface inheritance to get rid of ambiguous reference error

    - by maxmc
    hi! imagine there are two interfaces arranged via composite pattern, one of them has a dispose method among other methods: interface IComponent extends ILeaf { ... function dispose() : void; } interface ILeaf { ... } some implementations have some more things in common (say an id) so there are two more interfaces: interface ICommonLeaf extends ILeaf { function get id() : String; } interface ICommonComponent extends ICommonLeaf, IComponent { } so far so good. but there is another interface which also has a dispose method: interface ISomething { ... function dispose() : void; } and ISomething is inherited by ICommonLeaf: interface ICommonLeaf extends ILeaf, ISomething { function get id() : String; } As soon as the dispose method is invoked on an instance which implements the ICommonComponent interface, the compiler fails with an ambiguous reference error because ISomething has a method called dispose and ILeaf also has a dispose method, both living in different interfaces (IComponent, ISomething) within the inheritace tree of ICommonComponent. I wonder how to deal with the situation if the IComponent, the ILeaf and the ISomething can't change. the composite structure must also work for for the ICommonLeaf & ICommonComponent implementations and the ICommonLeaf & ICommonComponent must conform to the ISomething type. this might be an actionscript-3 specific issue. i haven't tested how other languages (for instance java) handle stuff like this.

    Read the article

  • Checking for empty arrays: count vs empty

    - by Dan McG
    This question on 'How to tell if a PHP array is empty' had me thinking of this question Is there a reason that count should be used instead of empty when determining if an array is empty or not? My personal thought would be if the 2 are equivalent for the case of empty arrays you should use empty because it gives a boolean answer to a boolean question. From the question linked above, it seems that count($var) == 0 is the popular method. To me, while technically correct, makes no sense. E.g. Q: $var, are you empty? A: 7. Hmmm... Is there a reason I should use count == 0 instead or just a matter of personal taste? As pointed out by others in comments for a now deleted answer, count will have performance impacts for large arrays because it will have to count all elements, whereas empty can stop as soon as it knows it isn't empty. So, if they give the same results in this case, but count is potentially inefficient, why would we ever use count($var) == 0?

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92  | Next Page >