This may seem like a dumb topic, but I'm trying to learn some good coding practices.
I'm making a windows.forms application and I have reached a point where my partial Form class has 7 global variables (and their corresponding properties) declared and used - to name a few: one to determine if the app is registered, a Settings object that I need to access in many events, a Logger object, etc.
Is this bad coding? I mean, is it ok to declare a bunch of global variables and make use of them in the various event handlers/methods, or is there some better practice and I should rethink my code, to avoid having them?
I have a lot of work left to do in this application so it's in a first phase now, and with my coding style it looks like it will end up having even more than 20 global variables.
You might consider adding an App.config file and using this for your global settings (such as logger setup, etc). An advantage of this approach is that you can change these settings and restart the app without making code changes.
You can add key/value pairs in your App.config:
<appSettings>
<add key="YourKey" value="YourValue"/>
</appSettings>
and access them in code:
string yourValue = ConfigurationManager.AppSettings["YourKey"];
Performing the proper parsing (e.g. Int32.TryParse(..)) you can store data besides strings there.
Related
Globals are evil right? At least everything I read says so, because something might alter the state of the global at any point.
However, I've a DB object that's a bit of a tramp in regards class parameters. The property below is an instance of a wrapper class that automatically works in MS Access or SQL - hence why it's not EF or some other ORM.
Public Property db As New DBI.DBI(DBI.DBI.modeenum.access, String.Format("Provider=Microsoft.ACE.OLEDB.12.0;Data Source={0} ;Persist Security Info=True;Jet OLEDB:Database Password=""lkjhgfds8928""", GetRpcd("c:\cms")))
The code itself does have PostSharp for exception handling, so I'm thinking that I can conditionally handle oledb errors by logging them and re initialising the DB if it is Null.
Up till now, the solution has been to continually pass the db around as a parameter to every single class that needs it. Most of the data classes have a shared observablecollection that is built from structures that individually implement inotifyproperty changed. One of these is asynchronously built. The collection property checks if it's empty before firing off the private Async buildCollection sub.
Given that we don't use dependency injection (yet) as I need to learn it; is the Global property all that bad? Db is needed everywhere that data is pulled in or saved. The only places I don't need it at all is the View and its code behind.
It's not a customer facing project but it does need to be solid.
Any advice gratefully recieved!!
Passing the DB connection as a parameter into your classes IS using dependency injection, perhaps you just didn't recognize it as such. Hard coding the connection string in the callers is still code that is not free of dependencies, but at least your database accessors themselves are free of the dependency upon a global connection.
Globals aren't just evil because they change without notice - that's just one effect you see resulting from the bad design choice. They're evil because a design using them is brittle. Code that depends upon globals requires invisible stuff to be set correctly before calling it, and that leads to inter-dependencies between unrelated code. The invisible stuff becomes critically important stuff. Reading just the interface of a module that internally uses globals, how would I know that I have to call the SetupGlobalThing() method before calling it? What happens if I call IncrementGlobalThing() and DecrementGlobalThing() and MultiplyGlobalThing() in varying orders, depending on the function the user selects?
Instead, prefer stateless methods where you pass in all the stuff to be changed and used: IncrementThing(Integer thing) doesn't rely on hidden setup steps. It clearly does one thing: it increments the thing passed in.
It may help to think about it from a unit testing viewpoint. If you were to write a unit test to prove a specific module of code works, would you need to pass in a real database connection (hard*), or would you be able to pass in a fake database reference that meets your testing needs easily?
The best way to test your logic is to unit test it. The best way to test your class interfaces and method structure is to write unit tests that call them. If the class is hard to test, it's likely due to dependencies upon external things (globals, singletons, databases, inappropriate member variables, etc.)
The reason I called using a real database "hard" is that a unit test needs to be easy and fast to run. It shouldn't rely on slow or breakable or complex external things. Think about unit testing your software on the bus, with no network connection. Think about how much work it is to create a dummy database: you have to add users, you have to have the right version of schema in it, it has to be installed, it has to be filled with the right kind of testing data, you need network connectivity to it, all those things can make your testing unreliable. Instead, in a unit test you pass in a mock database, which simply returns values that exercise your code being tested.
This is something I have been struggling about for some time now. The thing is: I have many (20 or so) static arrays of values. I say static because that is how I'm actually storing them, as static arrays inside some domains. For example, if I have a list of known websites, I do:
class Website {
...
static websites = ["web1", "web2" ...]
}
But I do this just while developing, because I can easily change the arrays if needed, but what I'm going to do when the application is ready for deployment? In my project it is very probable that, at some point, these arrays of values change. I've been researching on that matter, one can store application properties inside an external .properties file, but it will be impossible to store an array, even futile, because if some array gets an additional value, the application can't recognize it until the name of the new property is added where needed.
Another approach is to store this information in the database, but for some reason it seems like a waste to add 20 or more tables that will have just two rows, an id and a name.
And the last option, as far as I know, would be an XML, but I'm not very experienced with those. It seems groovy has a way of creating and reading XML files relatively easy, but I don't know how difficult would be to modify an XML whose layout is predefined in the application.
Needless to say that storing them in the config.groovy is not an option since any change will require to recompile.
I haven't come across some "standard" (maybe a best practice?) way of dealing with these.
So the questions is: Where to store these arrays?
Use Enum for a fixed set of attributes. Do this, if you rely at some places in your code on some concrete values.
If you do not rely on the attributes within your code (which you obviously don't), use a String-type. In this case, if you need to provide a select box, just do a distinct-query on this property in your database.
Default: Use a domain class per dynamic set of attributes. Another table is OK.
For something as simple as arrays you should use groovy own type of property files. They allow you too define properties as proper groovy variables (not just strings) and obviously loading them would be done dinamically in a simple way by using ConfigSlurper. For an example on how to use this kind of file you can have a look at the following ConfigSlurper:
For defining properties:
my.property.array=[1,2,3,4]
For loading property files:
def config = new ConfigSlurper().parse(new File('myconfig.groovy').toURL())
assert [1,2,3,4] == config.my.property.array
Tip: When you want to access the property files you want to do it in a way that can work for any environment. To make paths environment-independent use the following path as the root path:
import org.codehaus.groovy.grails.commons.ApplicationHolder
def ctx = ApplicationHolder.application.mainContext.servletContext
def rootPath = ctx.contextPath
Me and my colleague are developing an ms access based application. We are designing and coding different pages/forms in order to divide work. We plan to merge our work later. How can we do that without any problems like spoiling the design and macros? We are using Ms access 2007 for front end and sqlserver 2005 as the datasource.
I found an idea somewhere on bytes.com. I can import forms, reports, queries,data and tables that I want.I'm going to try this. However, it's just an idea.So, need to study this approach by trial and error techniques.
The most important requirement is to complete the overall design before you start coding. For example:
All the forms must have the same style. Help and error information must be provided in the same way on each form. If a user can divide the forms into two sets, you have failed.
The database design must be finished with a complete, written description of each table, its relationships and its attributes.
The purpose and parameters for each major macro must be defined. If macro A1 exists only to service macro A then A1 is not a major macro and only A's author need know of its details until coding is complete.
Agreed a documentation style and detail level. If the application needs enhancement in six or twelve months' time, you should be able to work on the others macros and forms as easily as on your own.
If one of you thinks a change to the design is required after coding has started, this change must be documented, agreed with the other and the change specification added to the master specification.
Many years ago I lectured on (Electronic Data interchange (EDI). With EDI, the specification is divided into two with one set of organisations providing applications for message senders and another set providing applications for message receivers. I often used an example in my lectures to help my audience understand the importance of a complete, unambiguous specification.
I want two shapes, an E and a reverse-E, which I can fit together to create a 10 cm square. I do not care what they are made of providing they fit together perfectly.
If I give this task to a single organisation, this specification will be enough. One organisation might use cardboard, another metal, but I do not care. But suppose I ask one organisation to create the E and another the reverse-E. How detailed does my specification have to be if I am to get my 10 cm square? I would suggest: material, thickness and dimensions of the E. My audience would compete to suggest more and more obscure characteristics that had to match: density, colour, pattern, texture, etc, etc.
I was not always convinced my audience listened to the rest of my lecture because they were searching for a characteristic that would cap all the others. No matter, I had got across my major point which was why EDI specifications were no mind-blowingly detailed.
Your situation will not be so difficult since you and your colleague are probably in the same room and can talk whenever you want. But I hope this example helps you understand how easy is it for the interface between your two parts to be less than seamless if you do not agree the complete design at the beginning. It's the little assumptions - I though you knew I was doing it that way - that will kill your application.
New section
OK, probably most of my earlier advice was inappropriate in your situation.
So you are trying to modify code you did not write in a language you do not know. Good luck; you will need it.
I think scope is going to be your biggest problem. Most modern languages have namespaces allowing you to give a variable or a routine as much or as little scope as you require. VBA only has three levels.
A variable declared within a function or subroutine is automatically private to that function or subroutine.
A variable declared as Private within a module is invisible to functions and subroutines in other modules but is visible to any function or subroutine within the module.
A variable declared as Public within a module is visible to any function or subroutine within the project.
Anything declared within a form is private to that form. If a form wishes to pass a value to an outside function or subroutine, it can do so by writing to a public variable or by passing it in a parameter to a public function or subroutine.
Avoiding Naming Conflicts within VBA Help gives useful advice.
Form and module names will have to be unique across the merged project. You will not be able to avoid have constants, variables, functions and sub-routines which are visible to the other's functions and sub-routines. Avoiding Naming Conflicts offers one approach. An approach I have used successfully is to divide the application into sub-applications and, if necessary, sub-sub-applications and to assign a prefix to each. If every public constant, variable, function and sub-routine name has the appropriate prefix you can simulate namespace type control.
i have read several answers on stackoverflow with this question in my mind, but my question is a little different.
what i want to know is for variables that are not dependent on other variables of the class, why can't i declare the variable public like we do in java and then access the variable directly?
i mean in objective c, if i have a variable which i have declared in the interface of a class, why can't i directly (without making its getters and setters) access with,
self.variable or instanceofclass.variable....?
this is what we usually do in java and other object oriented languages.
getters and setters have their own advantages, but when you are doing simple things,would it not be better if you access variables in the way i have mentioned above.
PS: i am very new to objective c, so if we can access the variables in the way that i am claiming we cannot , please excuse. i have tried doing so, but there was an error, hence i am asking, but it very well could have been due to something else. so again please excuse.
thank you in advance.
because it is fundamentally wrong. If you expose a member variable as public, you are exposing internal details of a storage strategy which is not supposed to be known to the client. This will make your life much harder if, in the future, you want to implement smart strategies like allocation on the fly, or even just putting a print statement every time the variable is accessed, for debug purposes. Accessing a public variable gives you much less freedom than calling a method, and you are bound to your choice because accessing a member var and calling a member function use different syntaxes, so you will have to go around and fix your code everywhere.
The only situation where this is not an issue is when you have a pure struct, a class whose members are purely to hold and carry around a bunch of data under a collective name, and the storage strategy is already exposed by the very nature of the bunch of data you are carrying around.
"Make things as simple as possible, but no simpler."
Can we find the solution/s that fix the Python database world?
Update: A 'lustdb' prototype has been written by Alex Martelli - if you know any somewhat lightweight, high-level database libraries with multiple backends we could wrap in syntax sugar honey, please weigh in!
from someAmazingDB import *
#we imported a smart model class and db object which talk to database adapter/s
class Task (model):
title = ''
done = False #native types not a custom object we have to think about!
db.taskList = []
#or
db.taskList = expandableTypeCollection(Task) #not sure what this syntax would be
db['taskList'].append(Task(title='Beat old sql interfaces',done=False))
db.taskList.append(Task('Illustrate different syntax modes',True)) # ok maybe we should just use kwargs
#at this point it should be autosaved to a default db option
#by default we should be able to reload the console and access the default db:
>> from someAmazingDB import *
>> print 'Done tasks:'
>> for task in db.taskList:
>> if task.done:
>> print task.title
'Illustrate different syntax modes'
I'm a fan of Python, webPy and Cherry Py, and KISS in general.
We're talking automatic Python to SQL type translation or NoSQL.
We don't have to totally be SQL compatible! Just a scalable subset or ignore it!
Re:model changes, it's ok to ask the developer when they try to change it or have a set of sensible defaults.
Here is the challenge: The above code should work with very little modification or thinking required. Why must we put up with compromise when we know better?
It's 2010, we should be able to code scalable, simple databases in our sleep.
If you think this is important, please upvote!
What you request cannot be done in Python 2.whatever, for a very specific reason. You want to write:
class Task(model):
title = ''
isDone = False
In Python 2.anything, whatever model may possibly be, this cannot ever allow you to predict any "ordering" for the two fields, because the semantics of a class statement are:
execute the body, thus preparing a dict
locate the metaclass and run special methods thereof
Whatever the metaclass may be, step 1 has destroyed any predictability of the fields' order.
Therefore, your desired use of positional parameters, in the snippet:
Task('Illustrate different syntax modes', True)
cannot associate the arguments' values with the model's various fields. (Trying to guess by type association -- hoping no two fields ever have the same type -- would be even more horribly unpythonic than your expressed desire to use db.tasklist and db['tasklist'] indifferently and interchangeably).
One of the backwards-incompatible changes in Python 3 was introduced specifically to deal with situations of this ilk. In Python 3, a custom metaclass can define a __prepare__ function which runs before "step 1" in the above simplified list, and this lets it have more control about the class's body. Specifically, quoting PEP 3115...:
__prepare__ returns a dictionary-like object which is used to store
the class member definitions during evaluation of the class body.
In other words, the class body is evaluated as a function block
(just like it is now), except that the local variables dictionary
is replaced by the dictionary returned from __prepare__. This
dictionary object can be a regular dictionary or a custom mapping
type.
...
An example would be a metaclass that
uses information about the
ordering of member declarations to create a C struct. The metaclass
would provide a custom dictionary that simply keeps a record of the
order of insertions.
You don't want to "create a C struct" as in this example, but the order of fields is crucial (to allow the use of positional parameters that you want) and so the custom metaclass (obtained through base model) would have a __prepare__ classmethod returning an ordered dictionary. This removes the specific issue, but, of course, only if you're willing to switch all of your code using this "magic ORM" to Python 3. Would you be?
Once that's settled, the issue is, what database operations do you want to perform, and how. Your example, of course, does not clarify this at all. Is the taskList attribute name special, or should any other attribute assigned to the db object be "autosaved" (by name and, what other characteristic[s]?) and "autoretrieved" upon use? Are there to be ways to remove entities, alter them, locate them (otherwise than by having once been listed in the same attribute of the db object)? How does your sample code know what DB service to use and how to authenticate to it (e.g. by userid and password) if it requires authentication?
The specific tasks you list would not be hard to implement (e.g. on top of Google App Engine's storage service, which does not require authentication nor specification of "what DB service to use"). model's metaclass would introspect the class's fields and generate a GAE Model for the class, the db object would use __setattr__ to set an atexit trigger for storing the final value of an attribute (as an entity in a different kind of Model of course), and __getattr__ to fetch that attribute's info back from storage. Of course without some extra database functionality this all would be pretty useless;-).
Edit: so I did a little prototype (Python 2.6, and based on sqlite) and put it up on http://www.aleax.it/lustdb.zip -- it's a 3K zipfile including 225-lines lustdb.py (too long to post here) and two small test files roughly equivalent to the OP's originals: test0.py is...:
from lustdb import *
class Task(Model):
title = ''
done = False
db.taskList = []
db.taskList.append(Task(title='Beat old sql interfaces', done=False))
db.taskList.append(Task(title='Illustrate different syntax modes', done=True))
and test1.p1 is...:
from lustdb import *
print 'Done tasks:'
for task in db.taskList:
if task.done:
print task
Running test0.py (on a machine with a writable /tmp directory -- i.e., any Unix-y OS, or, on Windows, one on which a mkdir \tmp has been run at any previous time;-) has no output; after that, running test1.py outputs:
Done tasks:
Task(done=True, title=u'Illustrate different syntax modes')
Note that these are vastly less "crazily magical" than the OP's examples, in many ways, such as...:
1. no (expletive delete) redundancy whereby `db.taskList` is a synonym of `db['taskList']`, only the sensible former syntax (attribute-access) is supported
2. no mysterious (and totally crazy) way whereby a `done` attribute magically becomes `isDone` instead midway through the code
3. no mysterious (and utterly batty) way whereby a `print task` arbitrarily (or magically?) picks and prints just one of the attributes of the task
4. no weird gyrations and incantations to allow positional-attributes in lieu of named ones (this one the OP agreed to)
The prototype of course (as prototypes will;-) leaves a lot to be desired in many respects (clarity, documentation, unit tests, optimization, error checking and diagnosis, portability among different back-ends, and especially DB features beyond those implied in the question). The missing DB features are legion (for example, the OP's original examples give no way to identify a "primary key" for a model, or any other kinds of uniqueness constraints, so duplicates can abound; and it only gets worse from there;-). Nevertheless, for 225 lines (190 net of empty lines, comments and docstrings;-), it's not too bad in my biased opinion.
The proper way to continue playing with this project would of course be to initiate a new lustdb open source project on the hosting part of code.google.com (or any other good open source hosting site with issue tracker, wiki, code reviews support, online browsing, DVCS support, etc, etc) - I'd do it myself but I'm close to the limit in terms of number of open source projects I can initiate on code.google.com and don't want to "burn" the last one or two in this way;-).
BTW, the lustdb name for the module is a play of word with the OP's initials (first two letters each of first and last names), in the tradition of awk and friends -- I think it sounds nicely (and most other obvious names such as simpledb and dumbdb are taken;-).
I think you should try ZODB. It is object oriented database designed for storing python objects. Its API is quite close to example you have provided in your question, just take a look at tutorial.
What about using Elixir?
Forget ORM! I like vanilla SQL. The python wrappers like psycopg2 for postgreSQL do automatic type conversion, offer pretty good protection against SQL injection, and are nice and simple.
sql = "SELECT * FROM table WHERE id=%s"
data = (5,)
cursor.execute(sql, data)
The more I think on't the more the Smalltalk model of operation seems more relevant. Indeed the OP may not have reached far enough by using the term "database" to describe a thing which should have no need for naming.
A running Python interpreter has a pile of objects that live in memory. Their inter-relationships can be arbitrarily complex, but namespaces and the "tags" that objects are bound to are very flexible. And as pickle can explicitly serialize arbitrary structures for persistence, it doesn't seem that much of a reach to consider each Python interpreter living in that object space. Why should that object space evaporate with the interpreter's close? Semantically, this could be viewed as an extension of the anydbm tied dictionaries. And since most every thing in Python is dictionary-like, the mechanism is almost already there.
I think this may be the generic model that Alex Martelli was proposing above, it might be nice to say something like:
class Book:
def __init__(self, attributes):
self.attributes = attributes
def __getattr__(....): pass
$ python
>>> import book
>>> my_stuff.library = {'garp':
Book({'author': 'John Irving', 'title': 'The World According to Garp',
'isbn': '0-525-23770-4', 'location': 'kitchen table',
'bookmark': 'page 127'}),
...
}
>>> exit
[sometime next week]
$ python
>>> import my_stuff
>>> print my_stuff.library['garp'].location
'kitchen table'
# or even
>>> for book in my_stuff.library where book.location.contains('kitchen'):
print book.title
I don't know that you'd call the resultant language Python, but it seems like it is not that hard to implement and makes backing store equivalent to active store.
There is a natural tension between the inherent structure imposed - and sometimes desired - by RDBMs and the rather free-form navel-gazing put here, but NoSQLy databases are already approaching the content addressable memory model and probably better approximates how our minds keep track of things. Contrariwise, you wouldn't want to keep all the corporate purchase orders such a storage system, but perhaps you might.
How about you give an example of how "simple" you want your "dealing with database" to be, and I then tell you all the stuff that is needed for that "simplicity" to get working ?
(And of which it will still be YOU that will be required to give the information/config to the database interface engine, somewhere, somehow.)
To name but one example :
If your database management engine is some external machine with which you/your app interfaces over IP or some such, there is no way around the fact that the IP identity of where that database engine is running, will have to be provided by your app's database interface client, somewhere, somehow. Regardless of whether that gets explicitly exposed in the code or not.
I've been busy, here it is, released under LGPL:
http://github.com/lukestanley/lustdb
It uses JSON as it's backend at the moment.
This is not the same codebase Alex Martelli did.
I wanted to make the code more readable and reusable with different
backends and such.
Elsewhere I have been working on object oriented HTML elements
accessable in Python in similar ways, AND a library for making web.py
more minimalist.
I'm thinking of ways of using all 3 elements together with automatic
MVC prototype construction or smart mapping.
While old fashioned text based template web programming will be around
for a while still because of legacy systems and because it doesn't
require any particular library or implementation, I feel soon we'll
have a lot more efficent ways of building robust, prototype friendly
web apps.
Please see the mailing list for those interested.
If you like CherryPy, you might like the complementary ORMs I wrote: GeniuSQL (which follows a Table Data gateway model) and Dejavu (which is a complete Data Mapper).
There's far too much in this question and all its subcomments to address completely, but one thing I wanted to point out was that GeniuSQL and Dejavu have a very robust system for mapping native Python types to the types that your particular backend is using. There are very sane defaults, which can be overridden as needed, and even extended if you make a new backend or use types from a backend that isn't yet supported. See http://www.aminus.net/geniusql/chrome/common/doc/trunk/advanced.html#custom for more discussion on that.