dry

问题 I need to convert between these two classes, and want to maintain DRY but not violate the Single Responsibility Pattern... public class Person { public string Name {get;set;} public int ID {get;set;} } public class PersonEntity : TableServiceEntity { public string Name {get;set;} public int ID {get;set;} // Code to set PartitionKey // Code to set RowKey } More Info I have some Model objects in my ASP.NET MVC application. Since I'm working with Azure storage I see the need to convert to and

问题 Often times I have elements hooked to added functionality, like: $('.myfav').autocomplete(); $('.myfav').datepicker(); $('.myfav').click(somefunction); But when more instances of this class are generated dynamically through some code, the new $('.myfav') are dead and need rewiring, so I do this: $("#somelink").click(function(){ //generate 10 new $('.myfav') and append them to the DOM //re-wire them again as in the block above $('.myfav').autocomplete(); $('.myfav').datepicker(); $('.myfav')

问题 I have a query that returns the results of three UNION'ed queries. Each query has a lengthy select statement. There are parts of the select statement that look like this: coalesce(a.fact1,'Fact1'), coalesce(b.fact1,'Fact2') ... the from/join section is huge as well from table1 t1 join table2 t2 on t1.id = t2.t1_id join table3 t3 on t2.id = t3.t2_id etc. Each of these blocks is repeated identically across all three SELECT statements. I was wondering if there was a way to put that piece of code

问题 Seems like there should be a good way via MP to DRY this up: class Dashboard def self.num_registrations_past_day return User.recent_registrations(24.hours.ago).count end def self.num_registrations_past_three_days return User.recent_registrations(3.days.ago).count end def self.num_registrations_past_seven_days return User.recent_registrations(7.days.ago).count end def self.num_registrations_past_month return User.recent_registrations(30.days.ago).count end def self.avg_registrations_past_three

问题 I have a parent class, which has constructor as: @Inject public AbstractResource(@Named("authorization") Authorization auth, @Named("helper") Helper helper) { this.authorization = authorization; this.helper = helper; } now in the children class, i have similar constructor: public class MyResource extends AbstractResource { private Manager manager; @Inject public MyResource(@Named("authorization") Authorization auth, @Named("helper") Helper helper) { super(auth, helper); this.manager = new

问题 In React and React Native the accepted practice to include <input> form fields is to include an onChange handler that updates the state on every keystroke. e.g. : <input type="text" value={this.state.valueField1} onChange={this.handleChangeField1} /> The state is updated in order to prevent the value from being restored to the original value while the user is typing. This leads to a lot of repeated code, thus violating the old DRY (Do not repeat your self) principle. e.g. (based in the React

问题 I just finished creating several models and a had to separately write all of their attributes in 1) a Rails ActiveRecord 2) a Rails database migration, and 3) a Backbone.js model. I'm not feeling very DRY. I assume the first step in DRYing up this problem would be to switch to node.js where I can use CoffeeScript on the back and front end (ideally reusing that same Backbone.js model), but what about the database schema? I realize I can create a framework that generates SQL from model

问题 Hi i would like to know if its possilbe to remove an association in rails. Well, i have something similar to this: class Home < ActiveRecord::Base include settings end On settings.rb i have something similar to this module Settings attr_reader :person attr_reader :address def self.included(base) base.belongs_to :city base.belongs_to :entity [...] end [...] end On Home class the city model association on my particular case don't make sense. And i have to find a way to remove it to maintain my

问题 So I know that if I define a const Nim will evaluate whatever I assign to it at compile time, so I could do something like this: proc compileTimeCode: bool = # Put code here return true const _ = compileTimeCode() and then I could put my code in the compileTimeCode proc. This works, but seems messy, overcomplicated and unintuitive. It also requires more typing than it should, and is difficult to DRY up. 回答1: What's the question? If there is a better way to run code at compile time? static: #

问题 So I have the following block of code inside a method: (all variables are local) // ... try { if (postXml != null) using (StreamWriter writer = new StreamWriter(req.GetRequestStream())) writer.Write(postXml.ToString()); } catch (WebException ex) { HttpWebResponse response = ex.Response as HttpWebResponse; if (response != null) result = HandleOtherResponse(response, out status); else result = HandleBadResponse(ex.ToString(), out status); } catch (Exception ex) { result = HandleBadResponse(ex