Search Results

Search found 6690 results on 268 pages for 'worst practices'.

Page 87/268 | < Previous Page | 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94  | Next Page >

  • 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

  • Specification: Use cases for CRUD

    - by Mario Ortegón
    I am writing a Product requirements specification. In this document I must describe the ways that the user can interact with the system in a very high level. Several of these operations are "Create-Read-Update-Delete" on some objects. The question is, when writing use cases for these operations, what is the right way to do so? Can I write only one Use Case called "Manage Object x" and then have these operations as included Use Cases? Or do I have to create one use case per operation, per object? The problem I see with the last approach is that I would be writing quite a few pages that I feel do not really contribute to the understanding of the problem. What is the best practice?

    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

  • How sophisticated should be DAL?

    - by Andrew Florko
    Basically, DAL (Data Access Layer) should provide simple CRUD (Create/Read/Update/Delete) methods but I always have a temptation to create more sophisticated methods in order to minimize database access roundtrips from Business Logic Layer. What do you think about following extensions to CRUD (most of them are OK I suppose): Read: GetById, GetByName, GetPaged, GetByFilter... e.t.c. methods Create: GetOrCreate methods (model entity is returned from DB or created if not found and returned), Create(lots-of-relations) instead of Create and multiple AssignTo methods calls Update: Merge methods (entities list are updated, created and deleted in one call) Delete: Delete(bool children) - optional children delete, Cleanup methods Where do you usually implement Entity Cache capabilities? DAL or BLL? (My choice is BLL, but I have seen DAL implementations also) Where is the boundary when you decide: this operation is too specific so I should implement it in Business Logic Layer as DAL multiple calls? I often found insufficient BLL operations that were implemented in dozen database roundtrips because developer was afraid to create a bit more sophisticated DAL. Thank you in advance!

    Read the article

  • Command Pattern : How to pass parameters to a command ?

    - by Romain Verdier
    My question is related to the command pattern, where we have the following abstraction (C# code) : public interface ICommand { Execute(); } Let's take a simple concrete command, which aims to delete an entity from our application. A Person instance, for example. I'll have a DeletePersonCommand, which implements ICommand. This command needs the Person to delete as a parameter, in order to delete it when Execute method is called. What is the best way to manage parametrized commands ? How to pass parameters to commands, before executing them ?

    Read the article

  • What is the correct way to unit test areas around exceptions

    - by Codek
    Hi, Looking at our code coverage of our unit tests we're quite high. But the last few % is tricky because a lot of them are catching things like database exceptions - which in normal circumstances just dont happen. For example the code prevents fields being too long etc, so the only possible database exceptions are if the DB is broken/down, or if the schema is changed under our feet. So is the only way to Mock the objects such that the exception can be thrown? That seems a little bit pointless. Perhaps it's better to just accept not getting 100% code coverage? Thanks, Dan

    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

  • How can this PHP code be improved? What should change?

    - by Noctis Skytower
    This is a custom encryption library. I do not know much about PHP's standard library of functions and was wondering if the following code can be improved in any way. The implementation should yield the same results, the API should remain as it is, but ways to make is more PHP-ish would be greatly appreciated. Code <?php /*************************************** Create random major and minor SPICE key. ***************************************/ function crypt_major() { $all = range("\x00", "\xFF"); shuffle($all); $major_key = implode("", $all); return $major_key; } function crypt_minor() { $sample = array(); do { array_push($sample, 0, 1, 2, 3); } while (count($sample) != 256); shuffle($sample); $list = array(); for ($index = 0; $index < 64; $index++) { $b12 = $sample[$index * 4] << 6; $b34 = $sample[$index * 4 + 1] << 4; $b56 = $sample[$index * 4 + 2] << 2; $b78 = $sample[$index * 4 + 3]; array_push($list, $b12 + $b34 + $b56 + $b78); } $minor_key = implode("", array_map("chr", $list)); return $minor_key; } /*************************************** Create the SPICE key via the given name. ***************************************/ function named_major($name) { srand(crc32($name)); return crypt_major(); } function named_minor($name) { srand(crc32($name)); return crypt_minor(); } /*************************************** Check validity for major and minor keys. ***************************************/ function _check_major($key) { if (is_string($key) && strlen($key) == 256) { foreach (range("\x00", "\xFF") as $char) { if (substr_count($key, $char) == 0) { return FALSE; } } return TRUE; } return FALSE; } function _check_minor($key) { if (is_string($key) && strlen($key) == 64) { $indexs = array(); foreach (array_map("ord", str_split($key)) as $byte) { foreach (range(6, 0, 2) as $shift) { array_push($indexs, ($byte >> $shift) & 3); } } $dict = array_count_values($indexs); foreach (range(0, 3) as $index) { if ($dict[$index] != 64) { return FALSE; } } return TRUE; } return FALSE; } /*************************************** Create encode maps for encode functions. ***************************************/ function _encode_map_1($major) { return array_map("ord", str_split($major)); } function _encode_map_2($minor) { $map_2 = array(array(), array(), array(), array()); $list = array(); foreach (array_map("ord", str_split($minor)) as $byte) { foreach (range(6, 0, 2) as $shift) { array_push($list, ($byte >> $shift) & 3); } } for ($byte = 0; $byte < 256; $byte++) { array_push($map_2[$list[$byte]], chr($byte)); } return $map_2; } /*************************************** Create decode maps for decode functions. ***************************************/ function _decode_map_1($minor) { $map_1 = array(); foreach (array_map("ord", str_split($minor)) as $byte) { foreach (range(6, 0, 2) as $shift) { array_push($map_1, ($byte >> $shift) & 3); } } return $map_1; }function _decode_map_2($major) { $map_2 = array(); $temp = array_map("ord", str_split($major)); for ($byte = 0; $byte < 256; $byte++) { $map_2[$temp[$byte]] = chr($byte); } return $map_2; } /*************************************** Encrypt or decrypt the string with maps. ***************************************/ function _encode($string, $map_1, $map_2) { $cache = ""; foreach (str_split($string) as $char) { $byte = $map_1[ord($char)]; foreach (range(6, 0, 2) as $shift) { $cache .= $map_2[($byte >> $shift) & 3][mt_rand(0, 63)]; } } return $cache; } function _decode($string, $map_1, $map_2) { $cache = ""; $temp = str_split($string); for ($iter = 0; $iter < strlen($string) / 4; $iter++) { $b12 = $map_1[ord($temp[$iter * 4])] << 6; $b34 = $map_1[ord($temp[$iter * 4 + 1])] << 4; $b56 = $map_1[ord($temp[$iter * 4 + 2])] << 2; $b78 = $map_1[ord($temp[$iter * 4 + 3])]; $cache .= $map_2[$b12 + $b34 + $b56 + $b78]; } return $cache; } /*************************************** This is the public interface for coding. ***************************************/ function encode_string($string, $major, $minor) { if (is_string($string)) { if (_check_major($major) && _check_minor($minor)) { $map_1 = _encode_map_1($major); $map_2 = _encode_map_2($minor); return _encode($string, $map_1, $map_2); } } return FALSE; } function decode_string($string, $major, $minor) { if (is_string($string) && strlen($string) % 4 == 0) { if (_check_major($major) && _check_minor($minor)) { $map_1 = _decode_map_1($minor); $map_2 = _decode_map_2($major); return _decode($string, $map_1, $map_2); } } return FALSE; } ?> This is a sample showing how the code is being used. Hex editors may be of help with the input / output. Example <?php # get and process all of the form data @ $input = htmlspecialchars($_POST["input"]); @ $majorname = htmlspecialchars($_POST["majorname"]); @ $minorname = htmlspecialchars($_POST["minorname"]); @ $majorkey = htmlspecialchars($_POST["majorkey"]); @ $minorkey = htmlspecialchars($_POST["minorkey"]); @ $output = htmlspecialchars($_POST["output"]); # process the submissions by operation # CREATE @ $operation = $_POST["operation"]; if ($operation == "Create") { if (strlen($_POST["majorname"]) == 0) { $majorkey = bin2hex(crypt_major()); } if (strlen($_POST["minorname"]) == 0) { $minorkey = bin2hex(crypt_minor()); } if (strlen($_POST["majorname"]) != 0) { $majorkey = bin2hex(named_major($_POST["majorname"])); } if (strlen($_POST["minorname"]) != 0) { $minorkey = bin2hex(named_minor($_POST["minorname"])); } } # ENCRYPT or DECRYPT function is_hex($char) { if ($char == "0"): return TRUE; elseif ($char == "1"): return TRUE; elseif ($char == "2"): return TRUE; elseif ($char == "3"): return TRUE; elseif ($char == "4"): return TRUE; elseif ($char == "5"): return TRUE; elseif ($char == "6"): return TRUE; elseif ($char == "7"): return TRUE; elseif ($char == "8"): return TRUE; elseif ($char == "9"): return TRUE; elseif ($char == "a"): return TRUE; elseif ($char == "b"): return TRUE; elseif ($char == "c"): return TRUE; elseif ($char == "d"): return TRUE; elseif ($char == "e"): return TRUE; elseif ($char == "f"): return TRUE; else: return FALSE; endif; } function hex2bin($str) { if (strlen($str) % 2 == 0): $string = strtolower($str); else: $string = strtolower("0" . $str); endif; $cache = ""; $temp = str_split($str); for ($index = 0; $index < count($temp) / 2; $index++) { $h1 = $temp[$index * 2]; if (is_hex($h1)) { $h2 = $temp[$index * 2 + 1]; if (is_hex($h2)) { $cache .= chr(hexdec($h1 . $h2)); } else { return FALSE; } } else { return FALSE; } } return $cache; } if ($operation == "Encrypt" || $operation == "Decrypt") { # CHECK FOR ANY ERROR $errors = array(); if (strlen($_POST["input"]) == 0) { $output = ""; } $binmajor = hex2bin($_POST["majorkey"]); if (strlen($_POST["majorkey"]) == 0) { array_push($errors, "There must be a major key."); } elseif ($binmajor == FALSE) { array_push($errors, "The major key must be in hex."); } elseif (_check_major($binmajor) == FALSE) { array_push($errors, "The major key is corrupt."); } $binminor = hex2bin($_POST["minorkey"]); if (strlen($_POST["minorkey"]) == 0) { array_push($errors, "There must be a minor key."); } elseif ($binminor == FALSE) { array_push($errors, "The minor key must be in hex."); } elseif (_check_minor($binminor) == FALSE) { array_push($errors, "The minor key is corrupt."); } if ($_POST["operation"] == "Decrypt") { $bininput = hex2bin(str_replace("\r", "", str_replace("\n", "", $_POST["input"]))); if ($bininput == FALSE) { if (strlen($_POST["input"]) != 0) { array_push($errors, "The input data must be in hex."); } } elseif (strlen($bininput) % 4 != 0) { array_push($errors, "The input data is corrupt."); } } if (count($errors) != 0) { # ERRORS ARE FOUND $output = "ERROR:"; foreach ($errors as $error) { $output .= "\n" . $error; } } elseif (strlen($_POST["input"]) != 0) { # CONTINUE WORKING if ($_POST["operation"] == "Encrypt") { # ENCRYPT $output = substr(chunk_split(bin2hex(encode_string($_POST["input"], $binmajor, $binminor)), 58), 0, -2); } else { # DECRYPT $output = htmlspecialchars(decode_string($bininput, $binmajor, $binminor)); } } } # echo the form with the values filled echo "<P><TEXTAREA class=maintextarea name=input rows=25 cols=25>" . $input . "</TEXTAREA></P>\n"; echo "<P>Major Name:</P>\n"; echo "<P><INPUT id=textbox1 name=majorname value=\"" . $majorname . "\"></P>\n"; echo "<P>Minor Name:</P>\n"; echo "<P><INPUT id=textbox1 name=minorname value=\"" . $minorname . "\"></P>\n"; echo "<DIV style=\"TEXT-ALIGN: center\"><INPUT class=submit type=submit value=Create name=operation>\n"; echo "</DIV>\n"; echo "<P>Major Key:</P>\n"; echo "<P><INPUT id=textbox1 name=majorkey value=\"" . $majorkey . "\"></P>\n"; echo "<P>Minor Key:</P>\n"; echo "<P><INPUT id=textbox1 name=minorkey value=\"" . $minorkey . "\"></P>\n"; echo "<DIV style=\"TEXT-ALIGN: center\"><INPUT class=submit type=submit value=Encrypt name=operation> \n"; echo "<INPUT class=submit type=submit value=Decrypt name=operation> </DIV>\n"; echo "<P>Result:</P>\n"; echo "<P><TEXTAREA class=maintextarea name=output rows=25 readOnly cols=25>" . $output . "</TEXTAREA></P></DIV></FORM>\n"; ?> What should be editted for better memory efficiency or faster execution?

    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

  • 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

  • PHP Database connection practice

    - by Phill Pafford
    I have a script that connects to multiple databases (Oracle, MySQL and MSSQL), each database connection might not be used each time the script runs but all could be used in a single script execution. My question is, "Is it better to connect to all the databases once in the beginning of the script even though all the connections might not be used. Or is it better to connect to them as needed, the only catch is that I would need to have the connection call in a loop (so the database connection would be new for X amount of times in the loop). Yeah Example Code #1: // Connections at the beginning of the script $dbh_oracle = connect2db(); $dbh_mysql = connect2db(); $dbh_mssql = connect2db(); for ($i=1; $i<=5; $i++) { // NOTE: might not use all the connections $rs = queryDb($query,$dbh_*); // $dbh can be any of the 3 connections } Yeah Example Code #2: // Connections in the loop for ($i=1; $i<=5; $i++) { // NOTE: Would use all the connections but connecting multiple times $dbh_oracle = connect2db(); $dbh_mysql = connect2db(); $dbh_mssql = connect2db(); $rs_oracle = queryDb($query,$dbh_oracle); $rs_mysql = queryDb($query,$dbh_mysql); $rs_mssql = queryDb($query,$dbh_mssql); } now I know you could use a persistent connection but would that be one connection open for each database in the loop as well? Like mysql_pconnect(), mssql_pconnect() and adodb for Oracle persistent connection method. I know that persistent connection can also be resource hogs and as I'm looking for best performance/practice.

    Read the article

  • Use continue or Checked Exceptions when checking and processing objects

    - by Johan Pelgrim
    I'm processing, let's say a list of "Document" objects. Before I record the processing of the document successful I first want to check a couple of things. Let's say, the file referring to the document should be present and something in the document should be present. Just two simple checks for the example but think about 8 more checks before I have successfully processed my document. What would have your preference? for (Document document : List<Document> documents) { if (!fileIsPresent(document)) { doSomethingWithThisResult("File is not present"); continue; } if (!isSomethingInTheDocumentPresent(document)) { doSomethingWithThisResult("Something is not in the document"); continue; } doSomethingWithTheSucces(); } Or for (Document document : List<Document> documents) { try { fileIsPresent(document); isSomethingInTheDocumentPresent(document); doSomethingWithTheSucces(); } catch (ProcessingException e) { doSomethingWithTheExceptionalCase(e.getMessage()); } } public boolean fileIsPresent(Document document) throws ProcessingException { ... throw new ProcessingException("File is not present"); } public boolean isSomethingInTheDocumentPresent(Document document) throws ProcessingException { ... throw new ProcessingException("Something is not in the document"); } What is more readable. What is best? Is there even a better approach of doing this (maybe using a design pattern of some sort)? As far as readability goes my preference currently is the Exception variant... What is yours?

    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

  • 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

  • IEnumerable and IEnumerator in the same class, bad idea?

    - by David Rutten
    Is this a bad idea? Private Class GH_DataStructureEnumerator(Of Q As Types.IGH_Goo) Implements IEnumerable(Of Q) Implements IEnumerator(Of Q) .... .... 'Current, MoveNext, Reset etc.' .... .... Public Function GetEnumerator_Generic() As IEnumerator(Of Q) _ Implements IEnumerable(Of Q).GetEnumerator Return Me End Function End Class This class is only visible as an IEnumerable(Of T) readonly property, and it saves me an additional class that wraps IEnumerator(Of T). But somehow it just seems wrong. Is there a better way?

    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

  • 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

  • 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

  • Turning Floats into Their Closest (UTF-8 Character) Fraction.

    - by Mark Tomlin
    I want to take any real number, and return the closest number, with the closest fraction as available in the UTF-8 character set, appropriate. 0/4 = 0.00 = # < .125 1/4 = 0.25 = ¼ # > .125 & < .375 2/4 = 0.50 = ½ # > .375 & < .625 3/4 = 0.75 = ¾ # > .625 & < .875 4/4 = 1.00 = # > .875 I made this function to do that task: function displayFraction($realNumber) { if (!is_float($realNumber)) { return $realNumber; } list($number, $decimal) = explode('.', $realNumber); $decimal = '.' . $decimal; switch($decimal) { case $decimal < 0.125: return $number; case $decimal > 0.125 && $decimal < 0.375: return $number . '¼'; # 188 ¼ &#188; case $decimal > 0.375 && $decimal < 0.625: return $number . '½'; # 189 ½ &#189; case $decimal > 0.625 && $decimal < 0.875: return $number . '¾'; # 190 ¾ &#190; case $decimal < 0.875: return ++$number; } } What are the better / diffrent way to do this? echo displayFraction(3.1) . PHP_EOL; # Outputs: 3 echo displayFraction(3.141593) . PHP_EOL; # Outputs: 3¼ echo displayFraction(3.267432) . PHP_EOL; # Outputs: 3¼ echo displayFraction(3.38) . PHP_EOL; # Outputs: 3½ Expand my mind!

    Read the article

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