Search Results

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

Page 87/237 | < Previous Page | 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94  | Next Page >

  • index 'enabled' fields good idea?

    - by sibidiba
    Content of a website is stored in a MySQL database. 99% of the content will be enabled, but some (users, posts etc.) will be disabled. Most of the queries end as WHERE (...) AND enabled Is it a good idea to create an index on the field 'enabled'?

    Read the article

  • ASP.Net MVC: Showing the same data using different layouts...

    - by vdh_ant
    Hi guys I'm wanting to create a page that allows the users to select how they would like to view their data - i.e. summary (which supports grouping), grid (which supports grouping), table (which supports grouping), map, time line, xml, json etc. Now each layout would probably have different use a different view model, which inherit from a common base class/view model. The reason being that each layout needs the object structure that it deals with to be different (some need hierarchical others a flatter structure). Each layout would call the same repository method and each layout would support the same functionality, i.e. searching and filtering (hence these controls would be shared between layouts). The main exception to this would be sorting which only grid and table views would need to support. Now my question is given this what do people think is the best approach. Using DisplayFor to handle the rendering of the different types? Also how do I work this with the actions... I would imagine that I would use the one action, and pass in the layout types, but then how does this support the grouping required for the summary, grid and table views. Do i treat each grouping as just a layout type Also how would this work from a URL point of view - what do people think is the template to support this layout functionality Cheers Anthony

    Read the article

  • What's the best method in ASP.NET to obtain the current domain?

    - by Graphain
    Hi, I am wondering what the best way to obtain the current domain is in ASP.NET? For instance: http://www.domainname.com/subdir/ should yield http://www.domainname.com http://www.sub.domainname.com/subdir/ should yield http://sub.domainname.com As a guide, I should be able to add a url like "/Folder/Content/filename.html" (say as generated by Url.RouteUrl() in ASP.NET MVC) straight onto the URL and it should work.

    Read the article

  • How to properly document programming languages?

    - by roydukkey
    Where can I find information on how to properly document a programming language? What I mean is that there seems to be a standard way to document code. php.net and api.jquery.com seem to document there code the a similar way. For example, the trim() description on php.net. string trim ( string $str [, string $charlist ] ) And likewise on jquery.com .animate( properties, [ duration ], [ easing ], [ callback ] ) Does anyone even know what this syntax is called?

    Read the article

  • What is the advantage of the 'src/main/java'' convention?

    - by Chris
    I've noticed that a lot of projects have the following structure: Project-A bin lib src main java RootLevelPackageClass.java I currently use the following convention (as my projects are 100% java): Project-A bin lib src RootLevelPackageClass.java I'm not currently using Maven but am wondering if this is a Maven convention or not or if there is another reason. Can someone explain why the first version is so popular these days and if I should adopt this new convention or not? Chris

    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

  • 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

  • How to organize code using an optional assembly reference?

    - by apoorv020
    I am working on a project and want to optionally use an assembly if available. This assembly is only available on WS 2008 R2, and my ideal product whould be a common binary for both computers with and without the assembly. However, I'm primarily developing on a Windows 7 machine, where I cannot install the assembly. How can I organize my code so that I can (with minimum changes) build my code on a machine without the assembly and secondly, how do I ensure that I call the assembly functions only when it is present. (NOTE : The only use of the optional assembly is to instantiate a class in the library and repeatedly call a (single) function of the class, which returns a boolean. The assembly is fsrmlib, which exposes advanced file system management operations on WS08R2.) I'm currently thinking of writing a wrapper class, which will always return true if the assembly is not present. Is this the right way to go about doing this?

    Read the article

  • Simplest PHP Routing framework .. ?

    - by David
    I'm looking for the simplest implementation of a routing framework in PHP, in a typical PHP environment (Running on Apache, or maybe nginx) .. It's the implementation itself I'm mostly interested in, and how you'd accomplish it. I'm thinking it should handle URL's, with the minimal rewriting possible, (is it really a good idea, to have the same entrypoint for all dynamic requests?!), and it should not mess with the querystring, so I should still be able to fetch GET params with $_GET['var'] as you'd usually do.. So far I have only come across .htaccess solutions that puts everything through an index.php, which is sort of okay. Not sure if there are other ways of doing it. How would you "attach" what URL's fit to what controllers, and the relation between them? I've seen different styles. One huge array, with regular expressions and other stuff to contain the mapping. The one I think I like the best is where each controller declares what map it has, and thereby, you won't have one huge "global" map, but a lot of small ones, each neatly separated. So you'd have something like: class Root { public $map = array( 'startpage' => 'ControllerStartPage' ); } class ControllerStartPage { public $map = array( 'welcome' => 'WelcomeControllerPage' ); } // Etc ... Where: 'http://myapp/' // maps to the Root class 'http://myapp/startpage' // maps to the ControllerStartPage class 'http://myapp/startpage/welcome' // maps to the WelcomeControllerPage class 'http://myapp/startpage/?hello=world' // Should of course have $_GET['hello'] == 'world' What do you think? Do you use anything yourself, or have any ideas? I'm not interested in huge frameworks already solving this problem, but the smallest possible implementation you could think of. I'm having a hard time coming up with a solution satisfying enough, for my own taste. There must be something pleasing out there that handles a sane bootstrapping process of a PHP application without trying to pull a big magic hat over your head, and force you to use "their way", or the highway! ;)

    Read the article

  • How to avoid repetition when working with primitive types?

    - by I82Much
    I have the need to perform algorithms on various primitive types; the algorithm is essentially the same with the exception of which type the variables are. So for instance, /** * Determine if <code>value</code> is the bitwise OR of elements of <code>validValues</code> array. * For instance, our valid choices are 0001, 0010, and 1000. * We are given a value of 1001. This is valid because it can be made from * ORing together 0001 and 1000. * On the other hand, if we are given a value of 1111, this is invalid because * you cannot turn on the second bit from left by ORing together those 3 * valid values. */ public static boolean isValid(long value, long[] validValues) { for (long validOption : validValues) { value &= ~validOption; } return value != 0; } public static boolean isValid(int value, int[] validValues) { for (int validOption : validValues) { value &= ~validOption; } return value != 0; } How can I avoid this repetition? I know there's no way to genericize primitive arrays, so my hands seem tied. I have instances of primitive arrays and not boxed arrays of say Number objects, so I do not want to go that route either. I know there are a lot of questions about primitives with respect to arrays, autoboxing, etc., but I haven't seen it formulated in quite this way, and I haven't seen a decisive answer on how to interact with these arrays. I suppose I could do something like: public static<E extends Number> boolean isValid(E value, List<E> numbers) { long theValue = value.longValue(); for (Number validOption : numbers) { theValue &= ~validOption.longValue(); } return theValue != 0; } and then public static boolean isValid(long value, long[] validValues) { return isValid(value, Arrays.asList(ArrayUtils.toObject(validValues))); } public static boolean isValid(int value, int[] validValues) { return isValid(value, Arrays.asList(ArrayUtils.toObject(validValues))); } Is that really much better though? Any thoughts in this matter would be appreciated.

    Read the article

  • Passing arguments and values form HTML to jQuery (events)

    - by Jaroslav Moravec
    What is the practice to pass arguments from HTML to jQuery events function. For example getting id of row from db: <tr class="jq_killMe" id="thisItemId-id"> ... </tr> and jQuery: $(".jq_killMe").click(function () { var tmp = $(this).attr('id).split("-"); var id = tmp[0] // ... } What's the best practise, if I want to pass more than one argument? Is it better not to use jQuery? For example: <tr onclick="killMe('id')"> ... </tr> I didn't find the answer on my question, I will be glad even for links. Thanks.

    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

  • keep viewdata on RedirectToAction

    - by Thomas Stock
    [AcceptVerbs(HttpVerbs.Post)] public ActionResult CreateUser([Bind(Exclude = "Id")] User user) { ... db.SubmitChanges(); ViewData["info"] = "The account has been created."; return RedirectToAction("Index", "Admin"); } This doesnt keep the "info" text in the viewdata after the redirectToAction. How would I get around this issue in the most elegant way? My current idea is to put the stuff from the Index controlleraction in a [NonAction] and call that method from both the Index action and in the CreateUser action, but I have a feeling there must be a better way. Thanks.

    Read the article

  • How to solve the problem of not being informed of successful payments by the 3rd party system used b

    - by user68759
    I have a subscription based website that interacts with a 3rd party system to handle the payments. The steps to process a new subscriber registration are as follow: The subscriber enters his/her details in the subscription form and click on the submit button. Assuming the details specified are valid, a new record is created in the database to store these details. The subscriber is then redirected to the website of the 3rd party system (similar to paypal) to process the payment. Once the payment is succesful, the 3rd party website then redirect the subscriber back to our website. At this time, I know that the payment was succesful, so the record in the database is updated to indicate that payment has been made successfully. A problem that I have found occurring quite often is that if a subscriber pays but does not complete the process correctly (e.g. uses the back browser, closes the window), his/her record in the database doesn't get updated about this. Accordingly, I don't know if s/he has paid by just looking the record and need to wait for the report from the 3rd party system to find this out. How do you solve this problem? PS. One of the main reasons to store their details into the database before the payment process is done is so they can come back to complete the payment without re-entering their details again. For example, when their credit cards were rejected by the 3rd party system and they need to sort this out with their financial institution which may take a while.

    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

  • Where do you keep your code?

    - by skiphoppy
    Your code is of course checked into a repository somewhere, but where do you keep your working copy/copies? C:\Program Files isn't right, as it's for installed packages. My Documents somehow doesn't seem right, either—a My Code folder next to My Music and My Pictures? Dumping in C:\ is messy, but seems to be "working" for other people in my office.

    Read the article

  • Avoid loading unnecessary data from db into objects (web pages)

    - by GmGr
    Really newbie question coming up. Is there a standard (or good) way to deal with not needing all of the information that a database table contains loaded into every associated object. I'm thinking in the context of web pages where you're only going to use the objects to build a single page rather than an application with longer lived objects. For example, lets say you have an Article table containing id, title, author, date, summary and fullContents fields. You don't need the fullContents to be loaded into the associated objects if you're just showing a page containing a list of articles with their summaries. On the other hand if you're displaying a specific article you might want every field loaded for that one article and maybe just the titles for the other articles (e.g. for display in a recent articles sidebar). Some techniques I can think of: Don't worry about it, just load everything from the database every time. Have several different, possibly inherited, classes for each table and create the appropriate one for the situation (e.g. SummaryArticle, FullArticle). Use one class but set unused properties to null at creation if that field is not needed and be careful. Give the objects access to the database so they can load some fields on demand. Something else? All of the above seem to have fairly major disadvantages. I'm fairly new to programming, very new to OOP and totally new to databases so I might be completely missing the obvious answer here. :)

    Read the article

  • Extension Methods - IsNull and IsNotNull, good or bad use?

    - by Jaimal Chohan
    I like readability. So, I came up with an extension mothod a few minutes ago for the (x =! null) type syntax, called IsNotNull. Inversly, I also created a IsNull extension method, thus if(x == null) becomes if(x.IsNull()) and if(x != null) becomes if(x.IsNotNull()) However, I'm worried I might be abusing extension methods. Do you think that this is bad use of Extenion methods?

    Read the article

  • Does the optimizer filter subqueries with outer where clauses

    - by Mongus Pong
    Take the following query: select * from ( select a, b from c UNION select a, b from d ) where a = 'mung' Will the optimizer generally work out that I am filtering a on the value 'mung' and consequently filter mung on each of the queries in the subquery. OR will it run each query within the subquery union and return the results to the outer query for filtering (as the query would perhaps suggest) In which case the following query would perform better : select * from ( select a, b from c where a = 'mung' UNION select a, b from d where a = 'mung' ) Obviously query 1 is best for maintenance, but is it sacrificing much performace for this? Which is best?

    Read the article

  • Using a "vo" for joined data?

    - by keithjgrant
    I'm building a small financial system. Because of double-entry accounting, transactions always come in batches of two or more, so I've got a batch table and a transaction table. (The transaction table has batch_id, account_id, and amount fields, and shared data like date and description are relegated to the batch table). I've been using basic vo-type models for each table so far. Because of this table structure structure, though, transactions will almost always be selected with a join on the batch table. So should I take the selected records and splice them into two separate vo objects, or should I create a "shared" vo that contains both batch and transaction data? There are a few cases in which batch records and/or transaction records. Are there possible pitfalls down the road if I have "overlapping" vo classes?

    Read the article

  • 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

< Previous Page | 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94  | Next Page >