Search Results

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

Page 93/1341 | < Previous Page | 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100  | Next Page >

• In JSF - What is the correct way to do this? Two dropdown lists with dependency.

  - by Ben

  Hi, I'm making two dropdown lists in JSF which are dependent. Specifically, one list has all the languages and the second list contains values that are displayed in the currently selected language. I've implemented this by having the second list use information from a Hash and rebuilding that Hash in the setter of the currently selected language. JSF Code Bit: <rich:dropDownMenu value="#{bean.currentlySelectedLanguage}" id="languageSelector"> ... (binding to languages hash) ... <rich:dropDownMenu value="#{bean.currentlySelectedScript}" id="ScriptPullDown"> ... (binding to scripts hash) ... Backing Bean Code Bit: setCurrentlySelectedLanguage(String lang){ this.currentlySelectedLanguage = lang; rebuildScriptNames(lang); } I'm wondering if that's a good way of doing this or if theres a better method that I am not aware of. Thank you! EDIT - Adding info.. I used a a4j:support that with event="onchange" and ReRender="ScriptPullDown" to rerender the script pull down. I could probably add an action expression to run a method when the value changes. But is there a benefit to doing this over using code in the setter function?

  Read the article

• How 'terse' is too terse? -- Practical guidelines for expressing as much intent in as few characters

  - by Christopher Altman

  First, I love writing as little code as possible. I think, and please correct me, one of the golden rules of programming is to express your code in as few of character as possible while maintaining human readability. But I can get a little carried away. I can pack three or four lines into one statement, something like $startDate = $dateTime > time() ? mktime(0,0,0,date('m',time()-86400),date('d',time()*2),2011) : time(); (Note: this is a notional example) I can comprehend the above code when reading it. I prefer 'mushing' it all together because having less lines per page is a good thing to me. So my question: When writing code and thinking about how compact or terse you can express yourself, what are some guidelines you use? Do you write multiple lines because you think it helps other people? Do you write as little as possible, but use comments? Or do you always look for the way to write as little code as possible and enjoy the rewards of compact statements? (Just one slightly off topic comment: I love the Perl one-liners, but that is not what I am talking about here)

  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

• Extension methods for encapsulation and reusability

  - by tzaman

  In C++ programming, it's generally considered good practice to "prefer non-member non-friend functions" instead of instance methods. This has been recommended by Scott Meyers in this classic Dr. Dobbs article, and repeated by Herb Sutter and Andrei Alexandrescu in C++ Coding Standards (item 44); the general argument being that if a function can do its job solely by relying on the public interface exposed by the class, it actually increases encapsulation to have it be external. While this confuses the "packaging" of the class to some extent, the benefits are generally considered worth it. Now, ever since I've started programming in C#, I've had a feeling that here is the ultimate expression of the concept that they're trying to achieve with "non-member, non-friend functions that are part of a class interface". C# adds two crucial components to the mix - the first being interfaces, and the second extension methods: Interfaces allow a class to formally specify their public contract, the methods and properties that they're exposing to the world. Any other class can choose to implement the same interface and fulfill that same contract. Extension methods can be defined on an interface, providing any functionality that can be implemented via the interface to all implementers automatically. And best of all, because of the "instance syntax" sugar and IDE support, they can be called the same way as any other instance method, eliminating the cognitive overhead! So you get the encapsulation benefits of "non-member, non-friend" functions with the convenience of members. Seems like the best of both worlds to me; the .NET library itself providing a shining example in LINQ. However, everywhere I look I see people warning against extension method overuse; even the MSDN page itself states: In general, we recommend that you implement extension methods sparingly and only when you have to. So what's the verdict? Are extension methods the acme of encapsulation and code reuse, or am I just deluding myself?

  Read the article

• C# using the "this" keyword in this situation?

  - by Alex

  Hi, I've completed a OOP course assignment where I design and code a Complex Number class. For extra credit, I can do the following: Add two complex numbers. The function will take one complex number object as a parameter and return a complex number object. When adding two complex numbers, the real part of the calling object is added to the real part of the complex number object passed as a parameter, and the imaginary part of the calling object is added to the imaginary part of the complex number object passed as a parameter. Subtract two complex numbers. The function will take one complex number object as a parameter and return a complex number object. When subtracting two complex numbers, the real part of the complex number object passed as a parameter is subtracted from the real part of the calling object, and the imaginary part of the complex number object passed as a parameter is subtracted from the imaginary part of the calling object. I have coded this up, and I used the this keyword to denote the current instance of the class, the code for my add method is below, and my subtract method looks similar: public ComplexNumber Add(ComplexNumber c) { double realPartAdder = c.GetRealPart(); double complexPartAdder = c.GetComplexPart(); double realPartCaller = this.GetRealPart(); double complexPartCaller = this.GetComplexPart(); double finalRealPart = realPartCaller + realPartAdder; double finalComplexPart = complexPartCaller + complexPartAdder; ComplexNumber summedComplex = new ComplexNumber(finalRealPart, finalComplexPart); return summedComplex; } My question is: Did I do this correctly and with good style? (using the this keyword)?

  Read the article

• What is the cleanest way to use anonymous functions?

  - by Fletcher Moore

  I've started to use Javascript a lot more, and as a result I am writing things complex enough that organization is becoming a concern. However, this question applies to any language that allows you to nest functions. Essentially, when should you use an anonymous function over a named global or inner function? At first I thought it was the coolest feature ever, but I think I am going overboard. Here's an example I wrote recently, ommiting all the variable delcarations and conditionals so that you can see the structure. function printStream() { return fold(function (elem, acc) { ... var comments = (function () { return fold(function (comment, out) { ... return out + ...; }, '', elem.comments); return acc + ... + comments; }, '', data.stream); } I realized though (I think) there's some kind of beauty in being so compact, it is probably isn't a good idea to do this in the same way you wouldn't want a ton of code in a double for loop.

  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

• Checking for nil in view in Ruby on Rails

  - by seaneshbaugh

  I've been working with Rails for a while now and one thing I find myself constantly doing is checking to see if some attribute or object is nil in my view code before I display it. I'm starting to wonder if this is always the best idea. My rationale so far has been that since my application(s) rely on user input unexpected things can occur. If I've learned one thing from programming in general it's that users inputting things the programmer didn't think of is one of the biggest sources of run-time errors. By checking for nil values I'm hoping to sidestep that and have my views gracefully handle the problem. The thing is though I typically for various reasons have similar nil or invalid value checks in either my model or controller code. I wouldn't call it code duplication in the strictest sense, but it just doesn't seem very DRY. If I've already checked for nil objects in my controller is it okay if my view just assumes the object truly isn't nil? For attributes that can be nil that are displayed it makes sense to me to check every time, but for the objects themselves I'm not sure what is the best practice. Here's a simplified, but typical example of what I'm talking about: controller code def show @item = Item.find_by_id(params[:id]) @folders = Folder.find(:all, :order => 'display_order') if @item == nil or @item.folder == nil redirect_to(root_url) and return end end view code <% if @item != nil %> display the item's attributes here <% if @item.folder != nil %> <%= link_to @item.folder.name, folder_path(@item.folder) %> <% end %> <% else %> Oops! Looks like something went horribly wrong! <% end %> Is this a good idea or is it just silly?

  Read the article

• How to handle management trying to interfere with the project (including architecture decision)

  - by Zwei Steinen

  I feel this is not a very good question to post on SO, but I need some advice from experienced developers... (I'm a second year developer) I guess this is a problem to many, many projects, but in our case, it is getting intense. There were so much interference from people that don't know a bit about software development, that our development came to an almost complete stop. We had to literary escape to another location to get any useful job done. Now we were happily producing results, but then I get a request for a "meeting" and it's them again. I have a friendly relationship with them, but I feel very daunted at the thought of talking about non-sense all over again. Should I be firm and tell them to shut up and wait for our results? Or should I be diplomatic and create an illusion they are making a positive contribution or something?? My current urge is to be unfriendly and murmur some stuff so they will give up or something. What would you do if you were in this situation?

  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

• Should java try blocks be scoped as tightly as possible?

  - by isme

  I've been told that there is some overhead in using the Java try-catch mechanism. So, while it is necessary to put methods that throw checked exception within a try block to handle the possible exception, it is good practice performance-wise to limit the size of the try block to contain only those operations that could throw exceptions. I'm not so sure that this is a sensible conclusion. Consider the two implementations below of a function that processes a specified text file. Even if it is true that the first one incurs some unnecessary overhead, I find it much easier to follow. It is less clear where exactly the exceptions come from just from looking at statements, but the comments clearly show which statements are responsible. The second one is much longer and complicated than the first. In particular, the nice line-reading idiom of the first has to be mangled to fit the readLine call into a try block. What is the best practice for handling exceptions in a funcion where multiple exceptions could be thrown in its definition? This one contains all the processing code within the try block: void processFile(File f) { try { // construction of FileReader can throw FileNotFoundException BufferedReader in = new BufferedReader(new FileReader(f)); // call of readLine can throw IOException String line; while ((line = in.readLine()) != null) { process(line); } } catch (FileNotFoundException ex) { handle(ex); } catch (IOException ex) { handle(ex); } } This one contains only the methods that throw exceptions within try blocks: void processFile(File f) { FileReader reader; try { reader = new FileReader(f); } catch (FileNotFoundException ex) { handle(ex); return; } BufferedReader in = new BufferedReader(reader); String line; while (true) { try { line = in.readLine(); } catch (IOException ex) { handle(ex); break; } if (line == null) { break; } process(line); } }

  Read the article

• Choosing between instance methods and separate functions?

  - by StackedCrooked

  Adding functionality to a class can be done by adding a method or by defining a function that takes an object as its first parameter. Most programmers that I know would choose for the solution of adding a instance method. However, I sometimes prefer to create a separate function. For example, in the example code below Area and Diagonal are defined as separate functions instead of methods. I find it better this way because I think these functions provide enhancements rather than core functionality. Is this considered a good/bad practice? If the answer is "it depends", then what are the rules for deciding between adding method or defining a separate function? class Rect { public: Rect(int x, int y, int w, int h) : mX(x), mY(y), mWidth(w), mHeight(h) { } int x() const { return mX; } int y() const { return mY; } int width() const { return mWidth; } int height() const { return mHeight; } private: int mX, mY, mWidth, mHeight; }; int Area(const Rect & inRect) { return inRect.width() * inRect.height(); } float Diagonal(const Rect & inRect) { return std::sqrt(std::pow(static_cast<float>(inRect.width()), 2) + std::pow(static_cast<float>(inRect.height()), 2)); }

  Read the article

• Is there any reason to use C instead of C++ for embedded development?

  - by Piotr Czapla

  Question I have two compilers on my hardware C++ and C89 I'm thinking about using C++ with classes but without polymorphism (to avoid vtables). The main reasons I’d like to use C++ are: I prefer to use “inline” functions instead of macro definitions. I’d like to use namespaces as I prefixes clutter the code. I see C++ a bit type safer mainly because of templates, and verbose casting. I really like overloaded functions and constructors (used for automatic casting). Do you see any reason to stick with C89 when developing for very limited hardware (4kb of RAM)? Conclusion Thank you for your answers, they were really helpful! I though the subject through and I will stick with C mainly because: It is easier to predict actual code in C and this is really important if you have only 4kb of ram. My team consists of C developers mainly so advance features of C++ won't be frequently used. I've found a way to inline functions in my C compiler (C89). It is hard to accept one answer as you provided so many good answers. Unfortunately I can't create a wiki and accept it so I will choose one answer that made me think most.

  Read the article

• Usage of Assert.Inconclusive

  - by Johannes Rudolph

  Hi, Im wondering how someone should use Assert.Inconclusive(). I'm using it if my Unit test would be about to fail for a reason other than what it is for. E.g. i have a method on a class that calculates the sum of an array of ints. On the same class there is also a method to calculate the average of the element. It is implemented by calling sum and dividing it by the length of the array. Writing a Unit test for Sum() is simple. However, when i write a test for Average() and Sum() fails, Average() is likely to fail also. The failure of Average is not explicit about the reason it failed, it failed for a reason other than what it should test for. That's why i would check if Sum() returns the correct result, otherwise i Assert.Inconclusive(). Is this to be considered good practice? What is Assert.Inconclusive intended for? Or should i rather solve the previous example by means of an Isolation Framework?

  Read the article

• How do you deal with naming conventions for rails partials?

  - by DJTripleThreat

  For example, I might have an partial something like: <div> <%= f.label :some_field %><br/> <%= f.text_field :some_field %> </div> which works for edit AND new actions. I also will have one like: <div> <%=h some_field %> </div> for the show action. So you would think that all your partials go under one directory like shared or something. The problem that I see with this is that both of these would cause a conflict since they are essentially the same partial but for different actions so what I do is: <!-- for edit and new actions --> <%= render "shared_edit/some_partial" ... %> <!-- for show action --> <%= render "shared_show/some_partial" ... %> How do you handle this? Is a good idea or even possible to maybe combine all of these actions into one partial and render different parts by determining what the current action is?

  Read the article

• What is the best way to identify which form has been submitted?

  - by Rupert

  Currently, when I design my forms, I like to keep the name of the submit button equal to the id of the form. Then, in my php, I just do if(isset($_POST['submitName'])) in order to check if a form has been submitted and which form has been submitted. Firstly, are there any security problems or design flaws with this method? One problem I have encountered is when I wish to overlay my forms with javascript in order to provide faster validation to the user. For example, whilst I obviously need to retain server side validation, it is more convenient for the user if an error message is displayed inline, upon blurring an input. Additionally, it would be good to provide entire form validation, upon clicking the submit button. Therefore, when the user clicks on the form's submit button, I am stopping the default action, doing my validation, and then attempting to renable the traditional submit functionality, if the validation passes. In order to do this, I am using the form.submit() method but, unfortunately, this doesn't send the submit button variable (as it should be as form.submit() can be called without any button being clicked). This means my PHP script fails to detect that the form has been submitted. What is the correct way to work around this? It seems like the standard solution is to add a hidden field into the form, upon passing validation, which has the name of form's id. Then when form.submit() is called, this is passed along in place of the submit button. However, this solution seems very ungraceful to me and so I am wondering whether I should: a) Use an alternative method to detect which form has been submitted which doesn't rely rely on passing the submit button. If so what alternative is there? Obviously, just having an extra hidden field from the start isn't any better. b) Use an alternative Javascript solution which allows me to retain my non-Javascript design. For example, is there an alternative to form.submit() which allows me to pass in extra data? c) Suck it up and just insert a hidden field using Javascript.

  Read the article

• Exposing a service to external systems - How should I design the contract?

  - by Larsi

  Hi! I know this question is been asked before here but still I'm not sure what to select. My service will be called from many 3 party system in the enterprise. I'm almost sure the information the service will collect (MyBigClassWithAllInfo) will change during the products lifetime. Is it still a good idea to expose objects? This is basically what my two alternatives: [ServiceContract] public interface ICollectStuffService { [OperationContract] SetDataResponseMsg SetData(SetDataRequestMsg dataRequestMsg); } // Alternative 1: Put all data inside a xml file [DataContract] public class SetDataRequestMsg { [DataMember] public string Body { get; set; } [DataMember] public string OtherPropertiesThatMightBeHandy { get; set; } // ?? } // Alternative 2: Expose the objects [DataContract] public class SetDataRequestMsg { [DataMember] public Header Header { get; set; } [DataMember] public MyBigClassWithAllInfo ExposedObject { get; set; } } public class SetDataResponseMsg { [DataMember] public ServiceError Error { get; set; } } The xml file would look like this: <?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?> <Message>   <Header>     <InfoAboutTheSender>...</InfoAboutTheSender>   </Header>   <StuffToCollectWithAllTheInfo>   <stuff1>...</stuff1> </StuffToCollectWithAllTheInfo> </Message> Any thought on how this service should be implemented? Thanks Larsi

  Read the article

• Is Assert.Fail() considered bad practice?

  - by Mendelt

  I use Assert.Fail a lot when doing TDD. I'm usually working on one test at a time but when I get ideas for things I want to implement later I quickly write an empty test where the name of the test method indicates what I want to implement as sort of a todo-list. To make sure I don't forget I put an Assert.Fail() in the body. When trying out xUnit.Net I found they hadn't implemented Assert.Fail. Of course you can always Assert.IsTrue(false) but this doesn't communicate my intention as well. I got the impression Assert.Fail wasn't implemented on purpose. Is this considered bad practice? If so why? @Martin Meredith That's not exactly what I do. I do write a test first and then implement code to make it work. Usually I think of several tests at once. Or I think about a test to write when I'm working on something else. That's when I write an empty failing test to remember. By the time I get to writing the test I neatly work test-first. @Jimmeh That looks like a good idea. Ignored tests don't fail but they still show up in a separate list. Have to try that out. @Matt Howells Great Idea. NotImplementedException communicates intention better than assert.Fail() in this case @Mitch Wheat That's what I was looking for. It seems it was left out to prevent it being abused in another way I abuse it.

  Read the article

• What is the procedure for debugging a production-only error?

  - by Lord Torgamus

  Let me say upfront that I'm so ignorant on this topic that I don't even know whether this question has objective answers or not. If it ends up being "not," I'll delete or vote to close the post. Here's the scenario: I just wrote a little web service. It works on my machine. It works on my team lead's machine. It works, as far as I can tell, on every machine except for the production server. The exception that the production server spits out upon failure originates from a third-party JAR file, and is skimpy on information. I search the web for hours, but don't come up with anything useful. So what's the procedure for tracking down an issue that occurs only on production machines? Is there a standard methodology, or perhaps category/family of tools, for this? The error that inspired this question has already been fixed, but that was due more to good fortune than a solid approach to debugging. I'm asking this question for future reference. Some related questions: Test accounts and products in a production system Running test on Production Code/Server

  Read the article

• anti-if campaign

  - by Andrew Siemer

  I recently ran against a very interesting site that expresses a very interesting idea - the anti-if campaign. You can see this here at www.antiifcampaign.com. I have to agree that complex nested IF statements are an absolute pain in the rear. I am currently on a project that up until very recently had some crazy nested IFs that scrolled to the right for quite a ways. We cured our issues in two ways - we used Windows Workflow Foundation to address routing (or workflow) concerns. And we are in the process of implementing all of our business rules utilizing ILOG Rules for .NET (recently purchased by IBM!!). This for the most part has cured our nested IF pains...but I find myself wondering how many people cure their pains in the manner that the good folks at the AntiIfCampaign suggest (see an example here) by creating numerous amounts of abstract classes to represent a given scenario that was originally covered by the nested IF. I wonder if another way to address the removal of this complexity might also be in using an IoC container such as StructureMap to move in and out of different bits of functionality. Either way... Question: Given a scenario where I have a nested complex IF or SWITCH statement that is used to evaluate a given type of thing (say evaluating an Enum) to determine how I want to handle the processing of that thing by enum type - what are some ways to do the same form of processing without using the IF or SWITCH hierarchical structure? public enum WidgetTypes { Type1, Type2, Type3, Type4 } ... WidgetTypes _myType = WidgetTypes.Type1; ... switch(_myType) { case WidgetTypes.Type1: //do something break; case WidgetTypes.Type2: //do something break; //etc... }

  Read the article

• Delphi: How to avoid EIntOverflow underflow when subtracting?

  - by Ian Boyd

  Microsoft already says, in the documentation for GetTickCount, that you could never compare tick counts to check if an interval has passed. e.g.: Incorrect (pseudo-code): DWORD endTime = GetTickCount + 10000; //10 s from now ... if (GetTickCount > endTime) break; The above code is bad because it is suceptable to rollover of the tick counter. For example, assume that the clock is near the end of it's range: endTime = 0xfffffe00 + 10000 = 0x00002510; //9,488 decimal Then you perform your check: if (GetTickCount > endTime) Which is satisfied immediatly, since GetTickCount is larger than endTime: if (0xfffffe01 > 0x00002510) The solution Instead you should always subtract the two time intervals: DWORD startTime = GetTickCount; ... if (GetTickCount - startTime) > 10000 //if it's been 10 seconds break; Looking at the same math: if (GetTickCount - startTime) > 10000 if (0xfffffe01 - 0xfffffe00) > 10000 if (1 > 10000) Which is all well and good in C/C++, where the compiler behaves a certain way. But what about Delphi? But when i perform the same math in Delphi, with overflow checking on ({Q+}, {$OVERFLOWCHECKS ON}), the subtraction of the two tick counts generates an EIntOverflow exception when the TickCount rolls over: if (0x00000100 - 0xffffff00) > 10000 0x00000100 - 0xffffff00 = 0x00000200 What is the intended solution for this problem? Edit: i've tried to temporarily turn off OVERFLOWCHECKS: {$OVERFLOWCHECKS OFF}] delta = GetTickCount - startTime; {$OVERFLOWCHECKS ON} But the subtraction still throws an EIntOverflow exception. Is there a better solution, involving casts and larger intermediate variable types?

  Read the article

• Partial class or "chained inheritance"

  - by Charlie boy

  Hi From my understanding partial classes are a bit frowned upon by professional developers, but I've come over a bit of an issue; I have made an implementation of the RichTextBox control that uses user32.dll calls for faster editing of large texts. That results in quite a bit of code. Then I added spellchecking capabilities to the control, this was made in another class inheriting RichTextBox control as well. That also makes up a bit of code. These two functionalities are quite separate but I would like them to be merged so that I can drop one control on my form that has both fast editing capabilities and spellchecking built in. I feel that simply adding the code form one class to the other would result in a too large code file, especially since there are two very distinct areas of functionality, so I seem to need another approach. Now to my question; To merge these two classes should I make the spellchecking RichTextBox inherit from the fast edit one, that in turn inherits RichTextBox? Or should I make the two classes partials of a single class and thus making them more “equal” so to speak? This is more of a question of OO principles and exercise on my part than me trying to reinvent the wheel, I know there are plenty of good text editing controls out there. But this is just a hobby for me and I just want to know how this kind of solution would be managed by a professional. Thanks!

  Read the article

• Are there any downsides in using C++ for network daemons?

  - by badcat

  Hey guys! I've been writing a number of network daemons in different languages over the past years, and now I'm about to start a new project which requires a new custom implementation of a properitary network protocol. The said protocol is pretty simple - some basic JSON formatted messages which are transmitted in some basic frame wrapping to have clients know that a message arrived completely and is ready to be parsed. The daemon will need to handle a number of connections (about 200 at the same time) and do some management of them and pass messages along, like in a chat room. In the past I've been using mostly C++ to write my daemons. Often with the Qt4 framework (the network parts, not the GUI parts!), because that's what I also used for the rest of the projects and it was simple to do and very portable. This usually worked just fine, and I didn't have much trouble. Being a Linux administrator for a good while now, I noticed that most of the network daemons in the wild are written in plain C (of course some are written in other languages, too, but I get the feeling that 80% of the daemons are written in plain C). Now I wonder why that is. Is this due to a pure historic UNIX background (like KISS) or for plain portability or reduction of bloat? What are the reasons to not use C++ or any "higher level" languages for things like daemons? Thanks in advance! Update 1: For me using C++ usually is more convenient because of the fact that I have objects which have getter and setter methods and such. Plain C's "context" objects can be a real pain at some point - especially when you are used to object oriented programming. Yes, I'm aware that C++ is a superset of C, and that C code is basically C++. But that's not the point. ;)

  Read the article

• C++ Matrix class hierachy

  - by bpw1621

  Should a matrix software library have a root class (e.g., MatrixBase) from which more specialized (or more constrained) matrix classes (e.g., SparseMatrix, UpperTriangluarMatrix, etc.) derive? If so, should the derived classes be derived publicly/protectively/privately? If not, should they be composed with a implementation class encapsulating common functionality and be otherwise unrelated? Something else? I was having a conversation about this with a software developer colleague (I am not per se) who mentioned that it is a common programming design mistake to derive a more restricted class from a more general one (e.g., he used the example of how it was not a good idea to derive a Circle class from an Ellipse class as similar to the matrix design issue) even when it is true that a SparseMatrix "IS A" MatrixBase. The interface presented by both the base and derived classes should be the same for basic operations; for specialized operations, a derived class would have additional functionality that might not be possible to implement for an arbitrary MatrixBase object. For example, we can compute the cholesky decomposition only for a PositiveDefiniteMatrix class object; however, multiplication by a scalar should work the same way for both the base and derived classes. Also, even if the underlying data storage implementation differs the operator()(int,int) should work as expected for any type of matrix class. I have started looking at a few open-source matrix libraries and it appears like this is kind of a mixed bag (or maybe I'm looking at a mixed bag of libraries). I am planning on helping out with a refactoring of a math library where this has been a point of contention and I'd like to have opinions (that is unless there really is an objective right answer to this question) as to what design philosophy would be best and what are the pros and cons to any reasonable approach.

  Read the article

• WPF binding to a boolean on a control

  - by Jose

  I'm wondering if someone has a simple succinct solution to binding to a dependency property that needs to be the converse of the property. Here's an example I have a textbox that is disabled based on a property in the datacontext e.g.: <TextBox IsEnabled={Binding CanEdit} Text={Binding MyText}/> The requirement changes and I want to make it ReadOnly instead of disabled, so without changing my ViewModel I could do this: In the UserControl resources: <UserControl.Resources> <m:NotConverter x:Key="NotConverter"/> </UserControl.Resources> And then change the TextBox to: <TextBox IsReadOnly={Binding CanEdit,Converter={StaticResource NotConverter}} Text={Binding MyText}/> Which I personally think is EXTREMELY verbose I would love to be able to just do this(notice the !): <TextBox IsReadOnly={Binding !CanEdit} Text={Binding MyText}/> But alas, that is not an option that I know of. I can think of two options. Create an attached property IsNotReadOnly to FrameworkElement(?) and bind to that property If I change my ViewModel then I could add a property CanEdit and another CannotEdit which I would be kind of embarrassed of because I believe it adds an irrelevant property to a class, which I don't think is a good practice. The main reason for the question is that in my project the above isn't just for one control, so trying to keep my project as DRY as possible and readable I am throwing this out to anyone feeling my pain and has come up with a solution :)

  Read the article

< Previous Page | 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100  | Next Page >