Search Results

Search found 30964 results on 1239 pages for 'tutor best practice'.

Page 93/1239 | < Previous Page | 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100  | Next Page >

• Is this a "valid" css image replacement technique?

  - by user278457

  I just came up with this, it seems to work in all modern browsers, I just tested it then on (IE8/compatibility, Chrome, Safari, Moz) HTML <img id="my_image" alt="my text" src="images/small_transparent.gif" /> CSS #my_image{ background-image:url('images/my_image.png'); width:100px; height:100px;} Pro's: image alt text is best-practice for accessibility/seo no extra HTML markup, and the css is pretty minimal too gets around the css on/images off issue where "text-indent" techniques hide text from low bandwidth users The biggest disadvantage that I can think of is the css off/images on situation, because you'll only send a transparent gif. I'd like to know, who uses images without stylesheets? some kind of mobile phone or something? I'm making some sites for clients in regional Australia (hundreds of km from the nearest city), where many users will be suffering from dial-up connections, and often outdated browsers too, so the "images off" issue is an important consideration. are there any other side effects with this technique that I haven't considered?

  Read the article

• Is wrapping new within the constructor good or bad?

  - by Timothy

  I watched John Resig's Best Practices in JavaScript Library Design presentation; one slide suggested "tweaking" the object constructor so it instantiates itself. function jQuery(str, con) { if (window === this) { return new jQuery(str, con); } // ... } With that, new jQuery("#foo") becomes jQuery("# foo"). I thought it was rather interesting, but I haven't written a constructor like that in my own code. A little later I read a post here on SO. (Sorry, I don't remember which or I'd supply a link. I will update the question if I can find it again.) One of the comments said it was bad practice to hide new from the programmer like that, but didn't go into details. My question is, it the above generally considered good, bad, or indifferent, and why?

  Read the article

• Suggestions: Anti-Pattern counter-examples

  - by Tom W

  It doesn't seem that this exact question has been asked before, so I'll fire away: Most of us are familiar with the concept of an anti-pattern. However, avoiding implementation of anti-patterns can in principle swing too far the other way and cause problems itself. As an example, "Design by Committee" has a counter-example that I'd call "Design by Maverick" - wherein the design of an important feature is handed off to an individual to do what they think best, with the intention of reviewing their work later and deciding whether it should be finalised or go through another iteration. This takes much longer in practice as the rest of the team are occupied by other things, and can end up with a feature that's useful to nobody, particularly if the Maverick is not themselves an experienced end-user. Does anyone have any more examples of anti-pattern counter-examples?

  Read the article

• How to code for Alternate Course AKA Rainy Day Scenary?

  - by janetsmith

  Alternate course is something when user doesn't do what you expected, e.g. key in wrong password, pressing back button, or database error. For any programming project, alternate course accounts for more than 50% of a project timeline. It is important. However, most computer books only focus on Basic Course (when everything goes fine). Basic course is rather simple, compared to Alternate course, because this is normally given by client. Alternate course is what we, as a programmer or Business Analyst needs to take care of. Java has some built-in mechanism (try-catch) to force us to handle those unexpected behavior. The question is, how to handle them? Any pattern to follow? Any guideline or industry practice for handling alternate course?

  Read the article

• Should my internal API classes be all in one package?

  - by Chris

  I'm hard at work packaging up an API for public consumption. As such I'm trying to limit the methods that are exposed to only those that I wish to be public and supportable. Underneath this of course there are a multitude of limited access methods. The trouble is that I have a lot of internal code that needs to access these restricted methods without making those methods public. This creates two issues: I can't create interfaces to communicate between classes as this would make these my internal methods public. I can't access protected or default methods unless I put the majority of my internal classes in the same package. So, I have around 70 or 80 internal classes in cleanly segregated packages BUT with overly permissive access modifiers. Would you say that a single package is the lesser of two evils or is there a better way to be able to mask my internal methods whilst keeping more granular packages? I'd be interested to find out the best practice here. I'm already aware of This

  Read the article

• Resetting Objects vs. Constructing New Objects

  - by byronh

  Is it considered better practice and/or more efficient to create a 'reset' function for a particular object that clears/defaults all the necessary member variables to allow for further operations, or to simply construct a new object from outside? I've seen both methods employed a lot, but I can't decide which one is better. Of course, for classes that represent database connections, you'd have to use a reset method rather than constructing a new one resulting in needless connecting/disconnecting, but I'm talking more in terms of abstraction classes. Can anyone give me some real-world examples of when to use each method? In my particular case I'm thinking mostly in terms of ORM or the Model in MVC. For example, if I would want to retrieve a bunch of database objects for display and modify them in one operation.

  Read the article

• Style of if: to nest or not to nest

  - by Marco

  A colleague of mine and me had a discussion about the following best-practice issue. Most functions/methods start with some parameter checking. I advocate the following style, which avoids nesting. if (parameter one is ugly) return ERROR; if (parameter two is nonsense || it is raining) return ERROR; // do the useful stuff return result; He, who comes from a more functional/logic programming background, prefers the following, because it reduces the number of exit points from the function. if (parameter one is ok) { if (parameter two is ok && the sun is shining) { // do the useful stuff return result } } return ERROR; Which one would you prefer and why?

  Read the article

• Writing a custom iterator -- what to do if you're at the end of the array?

  - by Goose Bumper

  I'm writing a custom iterator for a Matrix class, and I want to implement the increment method, which gets called when the iterator is incremented: void MatrixIterator::increment() { // go to the next element } Suppose the iterator has been incremented too many times and now points to past the end of the matrix (i.e. past the one-past-the-end point). What is the best practice for this situation? Should I catch this with an assert, or should I just say it's the user's responsibility to keep track of where the iterator is pointing and it's none of my business?

  Read the article

• Should Factories Persist Entities?

  - by mxmissile

  Should factories persist entities they build? Or is that the job of the caller? Pseudo Example Incoming: public class OrderFactory { public Order Build() { var order = new Order(); .... return order; } } public class OrderController : Controller { public OrderController(IRepository repository) { this.repository = repository; } public ActionResult MyAction() { var order = factory.Build(); repository.Insert(order); ... } } or public class OrderFactory { public OrderFactory(IRepository repository) { this.repository = repository; } public Order Build() { var order = new Order(); ... repository.Insert(order); return order; } } public class OrderController : Controller { public ActionResult MyAction() { var order = factory.Build(); ... } } Is there a recommended practice here?

  Read the article

• Is there a more correct type for passing in the file path and file name to a method

  - by Rihan Meij

  Hi What I mean by this question is, when you need to store or pass a URL around, using a string is probably a bad practice, and a better approach would be to use a URI type. However it is so easy to make complex things more complex and bloated. So if I am going to be writing to a file on disk, do I pass it a string, as the file name and file path, or is there a better type that will be better suited to the requirement? This code seems to be clunky, and error prone? I would also need to do a whole bit of checking if it is a valid file name, if the string contains data and the list goes on. private void SaveFile(string fileNameAndPath) { //The normal stuff to save the file }

  Read the article

• Passing HttpFileCollectionBase to the Business Layer - Bad?

  - by Terry_Brown

  hopefully there's an easy solution to this one. I have my MVC2 project which allows uploads of files on certain forms. I'm trying to keep my controllers lean, and handle the processing within the business layer of this sort of thing. That said, HttpFileCollectionBase is obviously in the System.Web assembly. Ideally I want to call to something like: UserService.SaveEvidenceFiles(MyUser user, HttpFileCollectionBase files); or something similar and have my business layer handle the logic of how and where these things are saved. But, it feels a little icky to have my models layer with a reference to System.Web in terms of separation of concerns etc. So, we have (that I'm aware of) a few options: the web project handling this, and my controllers getting fatter mapping the HttpFileCollectionBase to something my business layer likes passing the collection through, and accepting that I reference System.Web from my business project Would love some feedback here on best practice approaches to this sort of thing - even if not specifically within the context of the above.

  Read the article

• Configuration and Model-View

  - by HH

  I am using the Model-View pattern on a small application I'm writing. Here's the scenario: The model maintains a list of directories from where it can extract the data that it needs. The View has a Configuration or a Setting dialog where the user can modify this list of directories (the dialog has a JList displaying the list in addition to add and remove buttons). I need some advice from the community: The View needs to communicate these changes to the model. I thought first of adding to the model these methods: addDirectory() and removeDirectory(). But I am trying to limit the number of methods (or channels) that the View can use to communicate with and manipulate the model. Is there any good practice for this? Thank you.

  Read the article

• In ASP.NET MVC Should A Form Post To Itself Or Another Action?

  - by Sohnee

  Which of these two scenario's is best practice in ASP.NET MVC? 1 Post to self In the view you use using (Html.BeginForm) { ... } And in the controller you have [HttpGet] public ActionResult Edit(int id) [HttpPost] public ActionResult Edit(EditModel model) 2 Post from Edit to Save In the view you use using (Html.BeginForm("Save", "ControllerName")) { And in the controller you have [HttpGet] public ActionResult Edit(int id) [HttpPost] public ActionResult Save(EditModel model) Summary I can see the benefits of each of these, the former gives you a more restful style, with the same address being used in conjunction with the correct HTTP verb (GET, POST, PUT, DELETE and so on). The latter has a URL schema that makes each address very specific. Which is the correct way to do this?

  Read the article

• How to insert an n:m-relationship with technical primary keys generated by a sequence?

  - by bitschnau

  Let's say I have two tables with several fields and in every table there is a primary key which is a technical id generated by a database sequence: table1 table2 ------------- ------------- field11 <pk> field21 <pk> field12 field22 field11 and field21 are generated by sequences. Also there is a n:m-relationship between table1 und table2, designed in table3: table3 ------------- field11 <fk> field21 <fk> The ids in table1 und table2 are generated during the insert statement: INSERT INTO table1 VALUES (table1_seq1.NEXTVAL, ... INSERT INTO table2 VALUES (table2_seq1.NEXTVAL, ... Therefore I don't know the primary key of the added row in the data-access-layer of my program, because the generation of the pk happens completely in the database. What's the best practice to update table3 now? How can I gain access to the primary key of the rows I just inserted?

  Read the article

• How to synchronize static method in java.

  - by Summer_More_More_Tea

  Hi there: I come up with this question when implementing singleton pattern in Java. Even though the example listed blow is not my real code, yet very similar to the original one. public class ConnectionFactory{ private static ConnectionFactory instance; public static synchronized ConnectionFactory getInstance(){ if( instance == null ){ instance = new ConnectionFactory(); } return instance; } private ConnectionFactory(){ // private constructor implementation } } Because I'm not quite sure about the behavior of a static synchronized method, I get some suggestion from google -- do not have (or as less as possible) multiple static synchronized methods in the same class. I guess when implementing static synchronized method, a lock belongs to Class object is used so that multiple static synchronized methods may degrade performance of the system. Am I right? or JVM use other mechanism to implement static synchronized method? What's the best practice if I have to implement multiple static synchronized methods in a class? Thank you all! Kind regards!

  Read the article

• Why do I need to give my options a value attribute in my dropdown? JQuery.

  - by Alex

  So far in my web developing experiences, I've noticed that almost all web developers/designers choose to give their options in a select a value like so: <select name="foo"> <option value="bar">BarCheese</option> // etc. // etc. </select> Is this because it is best practice to do so? I ask this because I have done a lot of work with jQuery and dropdown's lately, and sometimes I get really annoyed when I have to check something like: $('select[name=foo]').val() == "bar"); To me, many times that seems less clear than just being able to check the val() against BarCheese. So why is it that most web developers/designers specify a value paramater instead of just letting the options actual value be its value?

  Read the article

• On Mac OS X, do you use the shipped python or your own?

  - by The MYYN

  On Tiger, I used a custom python installation to evaluate newer versions and I did not have any problems with that*. Now Snow Leopard is a little more up-to-date and by default ships with $ ls /System/Library/Frameworks/Python.framework/Versions/ 2.3 2.5 2.6 @Current What could be considered best practice? Using the python shipped with Mac OS X or a custom compiled version in, say $HOME. Are there any advantages/disadvantages using the one option over the other? My setup was fairly simple so far and looked like this: Custom compiled Python in $HOME and a $PATH that would look into $HOME/bin first, and subsequently would use my private Python version. Also $PYTHONPATH pointed to this local installation. This way, I did not need to sudo–install packages - virtualenv took care of the rest.

  Read the article

• Pattern for database-wrapper in java

  - by Space_C0wb0y

  I am currently writing a java-class that wraps an SQLite database. This class has two ways to be instantiated: Open an existing database. Create a new database. This is what I cam up with: public class SQLiteDatabaseWrapper { public static SQLiteDatabaseWrapper openExisting(File PathToDB) { return new SQLiteDatabaseWrapper(PathToDB); } public static SQLiteDatabaseWrapper createNew(File PathToDB) { CreateAndInitializeNewDatabase(PathToDB); return new SQLiteDatabaseWrapper(PathToDB); } private SQLiteDatabaseWrapper(File PathToDB) { // Open connection and setup wrapper } } Is this the way to go in Java, or is there any other best practice for this situation?

  Read the article

• WCF. Robust big file transfer.

  - by Sharov

  Hello everybody! I want to transfer big files (1GB) over unreliable transport channels. When connection is interrupted, I don't want start file transfering from the begining. I can partially store it in a temp table and store last readed position, so when connection is reestablished I can request continue uploading of file from this position. Is there any best-practice for such kind of things. I'm currently use chunking channel. Thanks in advance.

  Read the article

• Should I use block identifiers ("end;") in my code?

  - by JosephStyons

  Code Complete says it is good practice to always use block identifiers, both for clarity and as a defensive measure. Since reading that book, I've been doing that religiously. Sometimes it seems excessive though, as in the case below. Is Steve McConnell right to insist on always using block identifiers? Which of these would you use? //naughty and brief with myGrid do for currRow := FixedRows to RowCount - 1 do if RowChanged(currRow) then if not(RecordExists(currRow)) then InsertNewRecord(currRow) else UpdateExistingRecord(currRow); //well behaved and verbose with myGrid do begin for currRow := FixedRows to RowCount - 1 do begin if RowChanged(currRow) then begin if not(RecordExists(currRow)) then begin InsertNewRecord(currRow); end //if it didn't exist, so insert it else begin UpdateExistingRecord(currRow); end; //else it existed, so update it end; //if any change end; //for each row in the grid end; //with myGrid

  Read the article

• Why would you precede the main() function in C with a data type?

  - by Milktrader

  Many are familiar with the hello world program in C #include <stdio.h> main () { printf ("hello world"); return 0; } Why do some precede the main () function with int as in: int main() Also, I've seen the word 'void' entered inside the () as in: int main(void) It seems like extra typing for nothing, but maybe it's a best practice that pays dividends in other situations? Also, why precede main() with an int if you're returning a character string? If anything, one would expect: char main(void) I'm also foggy about why we return 0 at the end of the function.

  Read the article

• Concatenating Strings in Obj C

  - by eco_bach

  Hi It seems that Objective C jumps thru hoops to make seemingly simple tasks extremely difficult. I simply need to create a sequence of strings, image1.jpg, image2.jpg, etc etc ie in a loop var imgString:String='image'+i+'.jpg; I assume a best practice is to use a NSMutableString with appendString method? What am I doing wrong?? NSMutableString *imgString; for(int i=1;i<=NUMIMAGES;i++){ imgString.appendString(@"image"+i+@".jpg"); } I get the following error error: request for member 'appendString' in something not a structure or union

  Read the article

• Is there anything wrong with taking immediate actions in constructors?

  - by pestaa

  I have classes like this one: class SomeObject { public function __construct($param1, $param2) { $this->process($param1, $param2); } ... } So I can instantly "call" it as some sort of global function just like new SomeObject($arg1, $arg2); which has the benefits of staying concise, being easy to understand, but might break unwritten rules of semantics by not waiting till a method is called. Should I continue to feel bad because of a bad practice, or there's really nothing to worry about? Clarification: I do want an instance of the class. I do use internal methods of the class only. I initialize the object in the constructor, but call the "important" action-taker methods too. I am selfish in the light of these sentences.

  Read the article

• Java Interfaces Methodology: Should every class implement an interface?

  - by Amir Rachum

  I've been programming in Java for a few courses in the University and I have the following question: Is it methodologically accepted that every class should implement an interface? Is it considered bad practice not to do so? Can you describe a situation where it's not a good idea to use interfaces? Edit: Personally, I like the notion of using Interfaces for everything as a methodology and habit, even if it's not clearly beneficial. Eclipse automatically created a class file with all the methods, so it doesn't waste any time anyway.

  Read the article

• The standard map/associative-array structure to use in flash actionscript 3?

  - by tstyle

  I'm relatively new to flash, and is confused about what I should use to store and retrieve key value pairs. After some googling I've found various map-like things to choose from: 1) Use a Object: var map:Object = new Object(); map["key"] = "value"; The problem is that it seems to lack some very basic features. For example to even get the size of map I'd have to write a util method. 2) Use a Dictionary What does this standard library class provide over the simple object? It seems silly for it to exist if it's functionally identical to Object. 3) Go download some custom HashMap/HashTable implementation from the web. I've used a lot of modern languages, and this is the first time I haven't been able to find a library implementation of an associative array within 5 minutes. So I'd like to get some best-practice advice from an experienced flash developer. Thanks!

  Read the article

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