I have two activities that work in so similar together, is it better to create separate activities and layout or I use just one activity and layout but control differences using if statements?
It depends on how much are the two activities different.
For example if you have AddSomethingActivity and EditSomethingActivity which are pretty much the same, except that EditSomethingActivity will pre-load some data into fields than yes, you should use the same Activity and layout for this two activities.
But if you would use much of if statements, it would not add to code readability and you should use two different Activities.
One more thing to know. If your layouts are the same, you can use the same layout in more than one Activity class.
Related
The title explains it all. I am very new to recycler views, let alone partitioning them into sections. I have looked at some examples as to how to do this, however, most of the examples are used with static data. Is this even possible to do with Realm? For example, I have an object, Schools, and I want to separate this into different sections such as -- nearby, etc. etc. I.e., I want to separate and sort the objects based on certain model properties. Any guidance as to how I can go about doing this?
Have you tried looking at https://github.com/thorbenprimke/realm-recyclerview. It is able to create section headers for your Realm data.
What is the best practice for having many different menus/screens/forms in a visual basic program? Would it be to just make a new form for each menu or screen that I want? Or are there other better options?
I am not trying to make this overly complicated, I have a group project to work on and we all have different skill levels. That said it has peaked my curiosity so I figured it wouldn't hurt to ask before I got started.
I can see this question being closed pretty quickly as being too open ended so allow me to get in my key gripe on this before that happens... no .Visible property for TabControl pages? Seriously, Microsoft??
Which brings me to the key point. If the forms are in some way related but not necessarily identical I prefer to use a single form with different tabs, despite that glaring shortcoming in the control. (Which you don't have to look far to find workarounds for on SO, but a workaround is still a workaround.) Dynamically manipulating controls at run time is another side of this coin, though one that I tend to use more rarely... but that's just a personal thing.
In a recent application, for instance, I had lists of several types of objects. They were related, but performed quite different functions and the user wouldn't really need to look at more than one list at once. As a result I used one form with a tab for each object list to keep the users' display less cluttered.
Similarly when doing a GL app recently I had the journal header and journal line entries (which go to different tables in the back-end database) in separate parts of the one form. On the other hand asset creation was sufficiently different that I created a different form, despite the creation process sharing some of the underlying data. (That is, journal line data.)
I don't believe in the concept of "best practice" because what's a good practice in one situation may be a very bad one in another. However the "rules of thumb" that I use are:
- Keep the number of forms to a minimum to keep overhead low and reduce maintenance BUT
- If there is no logical "tie" between two functions, don't be afraid to make a new form because trying to maintain one form which performs 7 different roles is a guaranteed path to madness and frustration, especially if you break something inadvertently.
Yes, the two rules conflict, but in a way I see this aspect of design as being akin to database normalisation; there's a sweet spot between over-normalising (a separate form for each and every display) and under-normalising (trying to shoe-horn too many unrelated functions into one form). At the very least the rules always give me pause to think "do I need this form, or does it relate to something that I've already done?"
And the third rule of thumb is, obviously... always look at it from the point of view of your user. Are they going to feel like you're bouncing them around too much? Do all of the forms share a look and feel and, more importantly, control layout so that they always know where to find something?
All of these things will vary from app to app, and there's never one size that will fit all IMHO.
In my case, when I am dealing with multiple forms, I use MDI Parent Form to avoid multiple items in the windows task bar.
Another unusual solution is to set each forms ShowInTaskbar property to false.
Maybe this is a shot in the dark here but I'm trying to find out if anyone has thoughts on this problem we have been presented with.
The situation is that we have a database that contains all kinds of data about a large list of projects. There are dozens of tables that all provide supporting info about a project, both in 1 to 1 manner, where some specific type of info about projects (say ProjectInfoTypeA) might be stored in a table called ProjectInfoTypeA, and we'd do a inner join between that and the projects table, as well as 1 to many, like maybe ProjectScopeKeywords, where a project can be assigned N attributes or in this case "keywords" for a number of different attribute/lookup tables.
In the end we need to have the user in our web app build up things like:
Show me all projects completed in the last 5 years that took at least 4 years to do, cost at least $1MM, and have all 3 of these keywords ( x,y,z ) associated with it.
We also want users to be able to save their queries so they, and other users, can select them from a list of saved queries.
Once we get the list of projects from their filter, we need to then work with it in all different ways: but not as a report. If this were a report I'd just give them some report builder of some kind, but we need to work with their filtered list in the web app.
Currently we are thinking of 2 different ideas:
1) being that we just try to write our own UI for building up the query, and then create some giant SQL statement.
2) we store the data about each of their filters in the database, and then when they slick "Search" we would essentially prune down the list of projects by iteratively stripping off the projects that didn't match each query, based on the data they stored in the database.
I'm guessing no one out there has had to deal with something like this, but if any of you had, I'd be interested to hear any suggestions/patterns that would be worth looking into.
I would recommend choosing option 1. I have used a query-builder approach on a number of projects, with varying degrees of sophistication depending on the complexity of the requirements.
If you are in a position to use a ready-made solution, you can find several on the web: http://www.google.com/search?q=sql+query+builder
For a custom built solution, at a minimum, you would probably want to provide flattened views for the user to query from; this will simplify the designer complexity, reduce the learning curve for the user, and provide some abstraction against future schema changes.
After defining your base data sources, you need to provide means by which the user can select specific columns, define filter criteria, specify value aggregation, and define sub-queries (based on your example query requirement). The column selection and filter definition should not be too difficult, but the value aggregation and sub-query creation would be non-trivial to define. You should be able to use the ready-made solutions as examples of how to present this functionality to the user.
i mostly need to know
- views and their purpose ?
- do they increase performance of an application ?
- in what kind of cicumstance will I need to use views?
As this is homework you should probably be doing research.
A quick Google yields plenty of links, one of which is http://www.techotopia.com/index.php/An_Introduction_to_MySQL_Views.
MySQL views are essentially a way to
package up SELECT statements into
re-usable virtual tables whereby the
data can be retrieved simply by
referencing the view, rather than
having to repeat the associated SELECT
statement.
The official site documentation is quite informative and readable too.
See: the MySQL FAQ page on Views and the Using Views documentation.
Views provide an abstraction layer over your tables.
They can be used to prevent access to certain sensitive columns (such as salary).
They are often used to encapsulate logic for reporting.
in what kind of cicumstance will I
need to use views?
If you're repeatedly using the same SELECT statement that uses lots of JOINs and/or function calls, a view makes it simpler to use.
I manage a research database with Ruby on Rails. The data that is entered is primarily used by scientists who prefer to have all the relevant information for a study in one single massive table for use in their statistics software of choice. I'm currently presenting it as CSV, as it's very straightforward to do and compatible with the tools people want to use.
I've written many views (the SQL kind, not the Rails HTML/ERB kind) to make the output they expect a reality. Some of these views are quite large and have a fair amount of complexity behind them. I wrote them in SQL because there are many calculations and comparisons that are more easily done with SQL. They're currently loaded into the database straight from a file named views.sql. To get the requested data, I do a select * from my_view;.
The views.sql file is getting quite large. Part of the problem is that we're still figuring out what the data we collect means, so there's a lot of changes being made to the views all the time -- and a ton of them are being created. Many of them need to be repeatable.
I've recently run into issues organizing and testing these views. Rails works great for user interface stuff and business logic, but I'm not aware of much existing structure for handling the reporting we require.
Some options I've thought of:
Should I move them into the most relevant models somehow? Several of the views interact with each other, which makes this situation more complex than just doing a single find_by_sql, so I don't know if they should only be part of the model.
Perhaps they should be treated as a "view" in the MVC sense? (That is, they could be moved into app/views/ and live alongside the HTML, perhaps as files named something like my_view.csv.sql which return CSV.)
How would you deal with a complex reporting problem like this?
UPDATE for Mladen Jablanović
It started by having a couple of views for reporting purposes. My boss(es) decided they wanted more, so I started writing more. Some give couple hundred columns of data, based on the requirements I've been given.
I have a couple thousand lines of views all shoved in a single file now. I don't like that situation, so I want to reorganize/refactor the code. I'd also like an easy way of providing CSVs -- I'm currently running queries and emailing them by hand, which could easily be automated. Finally, I would like to be able to write some tests on the output of the views, since a couple of regressions have already popped up.
I haven't worked much with SQL and views directly, so I can't help you there, but you can certainly build an ActiveRecord model on top of a view, very easily in fact. The book Enterprise Rails has a whole chapter on it (here it is at Google Books).
We are using views in our DB extensively and some of them are exposed as Rails models. You work with them as you would with tables, except for you can't update them of course.
Also, some of the columns may be calculated using other columns (different ratios for example) so we don't do it in the view, but in the model instead (ok, not entirely true, we construct SQL snippet and pass it to :select => '' portion of find call).
Presentation logic (such as date and number formatting) goes to Rails views.
I'm afraid I can't help you with more concrete advice, as the scope of the question is pretty wide.
EDIT:
Hundreds of columns doesn't sound reasonable. Sounds like immense amount of data in one place. How do they use it at all? We have web application where they can drill down and filter the results, narrow timespan and time step etc, so they never have more then 10-20 columns in the reports.
We store our views one view per SQL file. Also, you can combine it with a numerical prefix in order to ensure proper creation order (in case some of them depend on others). No migrations there, whole DB layer is app-agnostic.
For CSV, you can create either a set of scripts you can invoke either manually, or using cron, or you can use FasterCSV from your Rails app and generate CSVs by HTTP request.