|
If there's version control in place, have a look - it might be that previous versions had some code between .Start() and .Join().
|
|
|
|
|
Hi Friends...
I have AJAX calender control in my application.
But i am not able to select the day before from current date.
Only able to select after the current date.
What can i Do.
Collapse | Copy Code
<asp:Label ID="lblstartdate" Text="Start Date" CssClass="lbl" runat="server"></asp:Label>
<AjaxToolkit:ToolkitScriptManager ID="ToolkitScriptManager1" runat="server">
</AjaxToolkit:ToolkitScriptManager>
<asp:TextBox ID="txtstartdate" CssClass="txtbox" runat="server"></asp:TextBox>
<ajaxtoolkit:calendarextender runat="server" ID="calExtender2"
PopupButtonID="btnDate3" TargetControlID="txtstartdate" Format="MMMM d, yy" />
<asp:ImageButton ID="btnDate3" ImageUrl="~/images/CalendarIcon.jpg" Width="20px"
runat="server" />
modified 23-May-12 1:20am.
|
|
|
|
|
Little confused. why is this in "Hall of shame"?
|
|
|
|
|
Pretty obvious, OP should be ashamed for posting this here 
It's an OO world.
public class Naerling : Lazy<Person>{
public void DoWork(){ throw new NotImplementedException(); }
}
|
|
|
|
|
How right you are!  
Just because the code works, it doesn't mean that it is good code.
|
|
|
|
|
I think he 'mis-responded'.
---------------------------------
I will never again mention that I was the poster of the One Millionth Lounge Post, nor that it was complete drivel. Dalek Dave
CCC Link[ ^]
English League Tables - Live
|
|
|
|
|
Rahul Rajat Singh wrote:
Little confused. why is this in "Hall of
shame"?
Naerling may be right, but maybe the original OP was ashamed he didn't understand the code and didn't understand the point of this forum.
|
|
|
|
|
Just found this gem in my own code  Worst part is that this runs quite often in tight loops in production code, haha.
public class SomeClass()
{
private PropertyInfo _propertyInfo;
public SomeClass(PropertyInfo propertyInfo)
{
_propertyInfo = propertyInfo;
}
public void ProcessStuff(object obj, object value)
{
obj.GetType().GetProperty(_propertyInfo.Name).SetValue(obj, value, null);
}
}
Who can spot the blunder?
|
|
|
|
|
Wow!!!
obj.GetType().GetProperty(_propertyInfo.Name)
LOL
But it might be useful, if you want to set a value on a different type that has a property with same name!! otherwise 
|
|
|
|
|
Haha, I guess that might be an unlikely scenario in some weird situation, but not the case here unfortunately lol, just pure sillyness 
|
|
|
|
|
If he has several classes with common properties or methods, then why does he not simply use an interface and pass objects that inherit from that interface? Reflection can be very useful at times, but it should not be misused to work around flaws in the class design.
Edit: And yes, that code must fall on its nose with an exception when objects are passed which do not have the property he's looking for. It's also not assured that _propertyInfo has ever been set, so a null reference is also possible.
At least artificial intelligence already is superior to natural stupidity
|
|
|
|
|
Perhaps the classes aren't known at compile time? Or maybe you want to dynamically copy properties of one object to matching properties in another? I have no idea lol, but I'm sure there exists some sort of valid use case for code like that.
|
|
|
|
|
There sure is use for this, if you take a look at what happens when objects are instantiated with XAML or when you do data binding to controls. Some of that code must look similar internally. Below he also wrote that checking for null references was removed to reduce the amount of code. Still, reflection is something that should be used sparingly. Reflection is slow and can kill your program's performance if you rely too much on it.
Wise words from somebody who uses XAML as markup for UI styles and layouts and even to load scene elements for a 3D engine.
At least artificial intelligence already is superior to natural stupidity
|
|
|
|
|
Countered the univote. (I couldn't see why this was downvoted)
public class SysAdmin : Employee
{
public override void DoWork(IWorkItem workItem)
{
if (workItem.User.Type == UserType.NoLearn){
throw new NoIWillNotFixYourComputerException(new Luser(workItem.User));
}else{
base.DoWork(workItem);
}
}
}
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks. Who knows, but probably it was just an accident. When someone really disagrees it would be more interesting to read his reply.
At least artificial intelligence already is superior to natural stupidity
|
|
|
|
|
I can't tell if you picked up the silly mistake or not - I cut out all the noisy code (I.e. Null checking), the point was to show that I already have a PropertyInfo object but I'm needlessly looking it up again each time by doing GetProperty(_propertyInfo.Name).
|
|
|
|
|
You must have done it because reflection is really cool, right?
I did know a coder who did that, he didn't realize that there was a serious performance penalty. 
Just because the code works, it doesn't mean that it is good code.
|
|
|
|
|
That depends very much on your goals. This looks like you wanted to be able to assign any data to any object's property. In that case you would have to check wether the object in question really has the property you were looking for. I would expect something similar to this in the code that loads XAML markup and then creates object instances from it. It obviously must be able to assign values to any of an object's properties.
If that kind of general purpose use was not intended, then I would not call your little mistake a code horror. It can be changed and optimized easily enough. Personally, I would be more concerned about two things: Performance and type safety. Reflection is slow and can kill your code's performance if you use it carelessly all over the place. That's why I would like to have all of it hidden away in some class and separated from the rest of the application. Then performance issues can be tracked down easily to the places where those classes are used, should they arise.
Also, an application that passes around objects and relies on reflection in each and every method really would be a horror. All the checking that would be needed would be error prone and obfuscate the real intention behind each method. Debugging such a thing would be a pain and maintaining it a nightmare. That's why I again would prefer to use type safety to my advantage as much as possible and use reflection as sparingly as possible. And I would again hide it away in some class, so that the application stays clean of such generic and complicated code.
At least artificial intelligence already is superior to natural stupidity
|
|
|
|
|
It's really not that complicated, I'm simply trying to show that the cached instance of PropertyInfo isn't really used.
|
|
|
|
|
So, you changed the "object obj" parameter to "SomeTypeWithPropertyInfo obj"?
and replaced the shamed line with...
obj._propertyInfo = value;
This seems to be what you are implying in your hint...
|
|
|
|
|
No, the point is I have a cached instance of PropertyInfo that I'm not really using.
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, this is duplicate effort, but not if you have two object types with properties of the same name and you want the value of one object's property based on the property name of the other. Not that I can see a reason for doing this...
I also read posts about how you take great performance hits using reflection, but this is often a non-issue. Many programs I write process at the speed that the user types, and reflection works faster than they do. Reflection has made my life dramatically easier and enabled me to create needed programs with a fraction of the code.
Brian Payne
|
|
|
|
|
Nice way of redundantly using property info.
|
|
|
|
|
I was reading some of the legacy code that is being used by one of our applications. there are some .js files which are meant to be used by new developments so that we dont have to "reinvent the wheel" (thats what we have been told)
I opened the first file and first function and i saw
function somefucntion()
{
.
.
.
if (!flag)
{
retVal = false;
return false;
}
retVal = true;
return true;
}
What the heck? Is this some kind of javascript return value optimization that I am unaware of because i think i can simply replace these lines with return flag;
P.S. even after pointing in out I am not allowed to change is as we are not allowed to change this code as "it might break something" (WT Elephant?)
|
|
|
|
|
Rahul Rajat Singh wrote: "it might break something" (WT Elephant?)
Yes it might break original coder's heart 
I once saw this in production code:
bool func(bool check)
{
if(check)
{
if(check)
{
}
}
}
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
