Search Results

Search found 10115 results on 405 pages for 'coding practices'.

Page 99/405 | < Previous Page | 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106  | Next Page >

  • VB Classes Best Practice - give all properties values?

    - by Becky Franklin
    Sorry if this is a bit random, but is it good practice to give all fields of a class a value when the class is instanciated? I'm just wondering if its better practice to have a constuctor that takes no parameters and gives all the fields default values, or whether fields that have values should be assigned and others left alone until required? I hope that makes sense, Becky

    Read the article

  • To be effective on your home projects is it better using the same technologies used at work?

    - by systempuntoout
    To be more productive and effective, is it better to start developing an home project using the same technologies used at work? I'm not talking about a simple hello world web page but an home project with all bells and whistles that one day, maybe, you could sell on internet. This dilemma is often subject of flames between me and a friend. He thinks that if you want to make a great home-made project you need to use the same technologies used daily at work staying in the same scope too; for example, a c++ computer game programmer should develope an home-made c++ game. I'm pretty sure that developing using the same technologies used at work can be more productive at beginning, but surely less exciting and stimulating of working with other languages\ides\libraries out of your daily job. What's your opinion about that?

    Read the article

  • Only perform jquery effects/operations on certain pages

    - by Galen
    Up until now i've been dropping all my jquery code right inside the document.ready function. I'm thinking that for certain situations this isnt the best way to go. for example: If i want an animation to perform when a certain page loads what is the best way to go about that. $(document).ready(function() { $("#element_1").fadeIn(); $("#element_2").delay('100').fadeIn(); $("#element_3").delay('200').fadeIn(); }); If this is right inside of document.ready then every time ANY page loads it's going to check each line and look for that element. What is the best way to tell jquery to only perform a chunk of code on a certain page to avoid this issue.

    Read the article

  • Security implications of writing files using PHP

    - by susmits
    I'm currently trying to create a CMS using PHP, purely in the interest of education. I want the administrators to be able to create content, which will be parsed and saved on the server storage in pure HTML form to avoid the overhead that executing PHP script would incur. Unfortunately, I could only think of a few ways of doing so: Setting write permission on every directory where the CMS should want to write a file. This sounds like quite a bad idea. Setting write permissions on a single cached directory. A PHP script could then include or fopen/fread/echo the content from a file in the cached directory at request-time. This could perhaps be carried out in a Mediawiki-esque fashion: something like index.php?page=xyz could read and echo content from cached/xyz.html at runtime. However, I'll need to ensure the sanity of $_GET['page'] to prevent nasty variations like index.php?page=http://www.bad-site.org/malicious-script.js. I'm personally not too thrilled by the second idea, but the first one sounds very insecure. Could someone please suggest a good way of getting this done?

    Read the article

  • Is there a compelling reason to use quantifiers in Perl regular expressions instead of just repeatin

    - by Morinar
    I was performing a code review for a colleague and he had a regular expression that looked like this: if ($value =~ /^\d\d\d\d$/) { #do stuff } I told him he should change it to: if ($value =~ /^\d{4}$/) { #do stuff } To which he replied that he preferred the first for readability (I find the second more readable, but that's a religious debate I'll save for another day). My question: is there an actual benefit to one over the other?

    Read the article

  • How to record different authentication types (username / password vs token based) in audit log

    - by RM
    I have two types of users for my system, normal human users with a username / password, and delegation authorized accounts through OAuth (i.e. using a token identifier). The information that is stored for each is quite different, and are managed by different subsytems. They do however interact with the same tables / data within the system, so I need to maintain the audit trail regardless of whether human user, or token-based user modified the data. My solution at the moment is to have a table called something like AuditableIdentity, and then have the two types inheriting off that table (either in the single table, or as two seperate tables with 1 to 1 PK with AuditableIdentity. All operations would use the common AuditableIdentity PK for CreatedBy, ModifiedBy etc columns. There isn't any FK constraint on the audit columns, so any text can go in there, but I want an easy way to easily determine whether it was a human or system that made the change, and joining to the one AuditableIdentity table seems like a clean way to do that? Is there a best practice for this scenario? Is this an appropriate way of approaching the problem - or would you not bother with the common table and just rely on joins (to the two seperate un-related user / token tables) later to determine which user type matches which audit records?

    Read the article

  • Refering to javascript instance methods with a pound/hash sign

    - by Josh
    This question is similar to http://stackoverflow.com/questions/736120/why-are-methods-in-ruby-documentation-preceded-by-a-pound-sign I understand why in Ruby instance methods are proceeded with a pound sign, helping to differentiate talking about SomeClass#someMethod from SomeObject.someMethod and allowing rdoc to work. And I understand that the authors of PrototypeJS admire Ruby (with good reason) and so they use the hash mark convention in their documentation. My question is: is this a standard practice amongst JavaScript developers or is it just Prototype developers who do this? Asked another way, is it proepr for me to refer to instance methods in comments/documentation as SomeClass#someMethod? Or should my documentation refer to `SomeClass.someMethod?

    Read the article

  • C# - Removing event handlers - FormClosing event or Dispose() method

    - by Andy
    Suppose I have a form opened via the .ShowDialog() method. At some point I attach some event handlers to some controls on the form. e.g. // Attach radio button event handlers. this.rbLevel1.Click += new EventHandler(this.RadioButton_CheckedChanged); this.rbLevel2.Click += new EventHandler(this.RadioButton_CheckedChanged); this.rbLevel3.Click += new EventHandler(this.RadioButton_CheckedChanged); When the form closes, I need to remove these handlers, right? At present, I am doing this when the FormClosing event is fired. e.g. private void Foo_FormClosing(object sender, FormClosingEventArgs e) { // Detach radio button event handlers. this.rbLevel1.Click -= new EventHandler(this.RadioButton_CheckedChanged); this.rbLevel2.Click -= new EventHandler(this.RadioButton_CheckedChanged); this.rbLevel3.Click -= new EventHandler(this.RadioButton_CheckedChanged); } However, I have seen some examples where handlers are removed in the Dispose() method. Is there a 'best-practice' way of doing this? (Using C#, Winforms, .NET 2.0) Thanks.

    Read the article

  • Is jQuery always the answer?

    - by Kibbee
    I've come across a couple questions, such as this one, and I really have to wonder why "Use jQuery" seems to be the answer when somebody asks how to do something in JavaScript. I understand that jQuery can save you a lot of time, and can help you out a lot, especially when you are doing a lot of fancy JavaScript in your site. However, in instances like this, and in many other instances, it seems like it's just jumping around the problem instead of answering the question. I also feel like this builds too much dependency into libraries. I've seen way too many developers that simply rely too much on libraries, and if they encounter a situation where they didn't have the library, they would be completely unable to function. I feel like there are already enough developers who don't know JavaScript, without just telling everybody to not learn JavaScript, and use jQuery. So, just to reiterate the question. Do you think there's too much of a tendency to use jQuery, for small pieces of JavaScript, when most of the functionality of jQuery isn't being used. Should developers be fluent in the use of bare JavaScript so they don't get too dependent on using libraries? [Additional related conversation topic] Does the existence of jQuery give too much slack to web browser developers who write the JavaScript engines? If we just have workarounds to cover all the inconsistencies in JavaScript, what pressure is there on browser makers to ensure that their JavaScript library works as it should. I feel like this extrapolates the same problem discussed in SO Podcast #36 of "be conservative in what you send, liberal in what you accept". By being so liberal with bad JavaScript engines, and using a common library to work around the flaws, we are promoting their use, and extending the problem.

    Read the article

  • Is it bad taste to include GPA in your resume?

    - by Gab Royer
    As I was typing my curriculum vitae, I was wondering if it was good idea to include my GPA. I'm currently in software engineering and have a 4.0 GPA, but don't like mentioning it too much as I fear people might see this as bragging... But at the same time, I feel like it is something that could help me land a job (or an interview, at least). What should I do?

    Read the article

  • What are the Worst Software Project Failures Ever?

    - by Warren P
    Is there a good list of "worst software project failures ever" in the history of software development? For example in Canada a "gun registry" project spent around two billion dollars. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_registry). This is of course, insane, even if the final product "sort of worked". I have heard of an FBI Case file system which there have been several attempts to rewrite, all of them so far, failures. There is a book on the subject (Software Runaways). There doesn't seem to be be a software "boondoggle" list or "fiasco" list on Wikipedia that I can see. (Update: Therac-25 would be the 'winner' of this question, except that I was internally thinking more of Software projects that had as their deliverable, mainly software, as opposed to firmware projects like Therac-25, where the hardware and firmware together are capable of killing people. In terms of pure software monetary debacles, which was my intended question, there are several contenders.)

    Read the article

  • Perform Grouping of Resultsets in Code, not on Database Level

    - by NinjaBomb
    Stackoverflowers, I have a resultset from a SQL query in the form of: Category Column2 Column3 A 2 3.50 A 3 2 B 3 2 B 1 5 ... I need to group the resultset based on the Category column and sum the values for Column2 and Column3. I have to do it in code because I cannot perform the grouping in the SQL query that gets the data due to the complexity of the query (long story). This grouped data will then be displayed in a table. I have it working for specific set of values in the Category column, but I would like a solution that would handle any possible values that appear in the Category column. I know there has to be a straightforward, efficient way to do it but I cannot wrap my head around it right now. How would you accomplish it? EDIT I have attempted to group the result in SQL using the exact same grouping query suggested by Thomas Levesque and both times our entire RDBMS crashed trying to process the query. I was under the impression that Linq was not available until .NET 3.5. This is a .NET 2.0 web application so I did not think it was an option. Am I wrong in thinking that? EDIT Starting a bounty because I believe this would be a good technique to have in the toolbox to use no matter where the different resultsets are coming from. I believe knowing the most concise way to group any 2 somewhat similar sets of data in code (without .NET LINQ) would be beneficial to more people than just me.

    Read the article

  • Performance Related features for migration from .net 2003 Framework 1.1 to .net 2008 framework 3.5?

    - by KuldipMCA
    I am work on VB.net 2003 Framework 1.1 for last 3.5 years in windows Application. We are currently migrating to VB.net 2008 framework 3.5, but i don't know about the features which related to ADO.net and which is important to performance. I know linq to SQL but our architecture is made in .net 2003 so we should follow this. Any features which is very important to enhance the performance?

    Read the article

  • Is there a way to avoid spaghetti code over the years?

    - by Yoni Roit
    I've had several programming jobs. Each one with 20-50 developers, project going on for 3-5 years. Every time it's the same. Some programmers are bright, some are average. Everyone has their CS degree, everyone read design patterns. Intentions are good, people are trying hard to write good code but still after a couple of years the code turns into spaghetti. Changes in module A suddenly break module B. There are always these parts of code that no one can understand except for the person who wrote it. Changing infrastructure is impossible and backwards compatibility issues prevent good features to get in. Half of the time you just want to rewrite everything from scratch. And people more experienced than me treat this as normal. Is it? Does it have to be? What can I do to avoid this or should I accept it as a fact of life? Edit: Guys, I am impressed with the amount and quality of responses here. This site and its community rock!

    Read the article

  • Abstract Factory Using Generics: Is Explicitly Converting a Specified Type to Generic a Bad Practice

    - by Merritt
    The question's title says it all. I like how it fits into the rest of my code, but does it smell? public interface IFoo<T> { T Bar { get; set; } } public class StringFoo : IFoo<string> { public string Bar { get; set; } } public static class FooFactory { public static IFoo<T> CreateFoo<T>() { if (typeof(T) == typeof(string)) { return new StringFoo() as IFoo<T>; } throw new NotImplementedException(); } } UPDATE: this is sort of a duplicate of Is the StaticFactory in codecampserver a well known pattern?

    Read the article

  • Which is better Java programming practice for looping up to an int value: a converted for-each loop

    - by Arvanem
    Hi folks, Given the need to loop up to an arbitrary int value, is it better programming practice to convert the value into an array and for-each the array, or just use a traditional for loop? FYI, I am calculating the number of 5 and 6 results ("hits") in multiple throws of 6-sided dice. My arbitrary int value is the dicePool which represents the number of multiple throws. As I understand it, there are two options: Convert the dicePool into an array and for-each the array: public int calcHits(int dicePool) { int[] dp = new int[dicePool]; for (Integer a : dp) { // call throwDice method } } Use a traditional for loop. public int calcHits(int dicePool) { for (int i = 0; i < dicePool; i++) { // call throwDice method } } I apologise for the poor presentation of the code above (for some reason the code button on the Ask Question page is not doing what it should). My view is that option 1 is clumsy code and involves unnecessary creation of an array, even though the for-each loop is more efficient than the traditional for loop in Option 2. Thanks in advance for any suggestions you might have.

    Read the article

  • "do it all" page structure and things to watch out for?

    - by Andrew Heath
    I'm still getting my feet wet in PHP (my 1st language) and I've reached the competency level where I can code one page that handles all sorts of different related requests. They generally have a structure like this: (psuedo code) <?php include 'include/functions.php'; IF authorized IF submit (add data) ELSE IF update (update data) ELSE IF list (show special data) ELSE IF tab switch (show new area) ELSE display vanilla (show default) ELSE "must be registered/logged-in" ?> <HTML> // snip <?php echo $output; ?> // snip </HTML> and it all works nicely, and quite quickly which is cool. But I'm still sorta feeling my way in the dark... and would like some input from the pros regarding this type of page design... is it a good long-term structure? (it seems easily expanded...) are there security risks particular to this design? are there corners I should avoid painting myself into? Just curious about what lies ahead, really...

    Read the article

  • Code Analysis - Treat as Error

    - by Brian Schmitt
    Looking to enable the "Enable code Analysis on Build" feature in Visual Studio. Obviously the Rules are a best practice, and I am working with an existing code base that currently fails many of the rules. I am looking for input as to which rules are the most egregious and should be treated as an Error.

    Read the article

  • What's the best practice way to convert enum to string?

    - by dario
    Hi. I have enum like this: public enum ObectTypes { TypeOne, TypeTwo, TypeThree, ... TypeTwenty } then I need to convert this enum to string. Now Im doing this that way: public string ConvertToCustomTypeName(ObjectTypes typeObj) { string result = string.Empty; switch (typeObj) { case ObjectTypes.TypeOne: result = "This is type T123"; break; case ObjectTypes.TypeTwo: result = "This is type T234"; break; ... case ObjectTypes.TypeTwenty: result = "This is type last"; break; } return result; } Im quite sure that there is better way do do this, Im looking for some good practice solution. Thanks in advance.

    Read the article

  • Should I worry about reigning in namespace number/length/scope?

    - by Jay
    I've recently reorganized a solution-in-progress from 24 projects to 4. To keep the copious files organized in the "main" project, things are in folders in folders in folders. I think I've preserved a logical, discoverable arrangement of the solution content. As a result, of course, I end up with namespaces like AppName.DataAccess.NHibernate.Fluent.Mappings. Is there any compelling reason that I should care about flattening out the namespace hierarchy when my project has a somewhat deeply nested folder structure? (I am not concerned about resolving or managing using directives; I let ReSharper do all the heavy lifting here.)

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106  | Next Page >