Search Results

Search found 130 results on 6 pages for 'idiom'.

Page 1/6 | 1 2 3 4 5 6  | Next Page >

• The pImpl idiom and Testability

  - by Rimo

  The pImpl idiom in c++ aims to hide the implementation details (=private members) of a class from the users of that class. However it also hides some of the dependencies of that class which is usually regarded bad from a testing point of view. For example if class A hides its implementation details in Class AImpl which is only accessible from A.cpp and AImpl depends on a lot of other classes, it becomes very difficult to unit test class A since the testing framework has no access to the methods of AImpl and also no way to inject dependency into AImpl. This has been a problem for me lately and I am beginning to think that the pImpl idiom and writing testable code don't mix well. Has anyone come across this problem before? and have you found a solution?

  Read the article

• Java - is this an idiom or pattern, behavior classes with no state

  - by Berlin Brown

  I am trying to incorporate more functional programming idioms into my java development. One pattern that I like the most and avoids side effects is building classes that have behavior but they don't necessarily have any state. The behavior is locked into the methods but they only act on the parameters passed in. The code below is code I am trying to avoid: public class BadObject { private Map<String, String> data = new HashMap<String, String>(); public BadObject() { data.put("data", "data"); } /** * Act on the data class. But this is bad because we can't * rely on the integrity of the object's state. */ public void execute() { data.get("data").toString(); } } The code below is nothing special but I am acting on the parameters and state is contained within that class. We still may run into issues with this class but that is an issue with the method and the state of the data, we can address issues in the routine as opposed to not trusting the entire object. Is this some form of idiom? Is this similar to any pattern that you use? public class SemiStatefulOOP { /** * Private class implies that I can access the members of the <code>Data</code> class * within the <code>SemiStatefulOOP</code> class and I can also access * the getData method from some other class. * * @see Test1 * */ class Data { protected int counter = 0; public int getData() { return counter; } public String toString() { return Integer.toString(counter); } } /** * Act on the data class. */ public void execute(final Data data) { data.counter++; } /** * Act on the data class. */ public void updateStateWithCallToService(final Data data) { data.counter++; } /** * Similar to CLOS (Common Lisp Object System) make instance. */ public Data makeInstance() { return new Data(); } } // End of Class // Issues with the code above: I wanted to declare the Data class private, but then I can't really reference it outside of the class: I can't override the SemiStateful class and access the private members. Usage: final SemiStatefulOOP someObject = new SemiStatefulOOP(); final SemiStatefulOOP.Data data = someObject.makeInstance(); someObject.execute(data); someObject.updateStateWithCallToService(data);

  Read the article

• C++ pimpl idiom wastes an instruction vs. C style?

  - by Rob

  (Yes, I know that one machine instruction usually doesn't matter. I'm asking this question because I want to understand the pimpl idiom, and use it in the best possible way; and because sometimes I do care about one machine instruction.) In the sample code below, there are two classes, Thing and OtherThing. Users would include "thing.hh". Thing uses the pimpl idiom to hide it's implementation. OtherThing uses a C style – non-member functions that return and take pointers. This style produces slightly better machine code. I'm wondering: is there a way to use C++ style – ie, make the functions into member functions – and yet still save the machine instruction. I like this style because it doesn't pollute the namespace outside the class. Note: I'm only looking at calling member functions (in this case, calc). I'm not looking at object allocation. Below are the files, commands, and the machine code, on my Mac. thing.hh: class ThingImpl; class Thing { ThingImpl *impl; public: Thing(); int calc(); }; class OtherThing; OtherThing *make_other(); int calc(OtherThing *); thing.cc: #include "thing.hh" struct ThingImpl { int x; }; Thing::Thing() { impl = new ThingImpl; impl->x = 5; } int Thing::calc() { return impl->x + 1; } struct OtherThing { int x; }; OtherThing *make_other() { OtherThing *t = new OtherThing; t->x = 5; } int calc(OtherThing *t) { return t->x + 1; } main.cc (just to test the code actually works...) #include "thing.hh" #include <cstdio> int main() { Thing *t = new Thing; printf("calc: %d\n", t->calc()); OtherThing *t2 = make_other(); printf("calc: %d\n", calc(t2)); } Makefile: all: main thing.o : thing.cc thing.hh g++ -fomit-frame-pointer -O2 -c thing.cc main.o : main.cc thing.hh g++ -fomit-frame-pointer -O2 -c main.cc main: main.o thing.o g++ -O2 -o $@ $^ clean: rm *.o rm main Run make and then look at the machine code. On the mac I use otool -tv thing.o | c++filt. On linux I think it's objdump -d thing.o. Here is the relevant output: Thing::calc(): 0000000000000000 movq (%rdi),%rax 0000000000000003 movl (%rax),%eax 0000000000000005 incl %eax 0000000000000007 ret calc(OtherThing*): 0000000000000010 movl (%rdi),%eax 0000000000000012 incl %eax 0000000000000014 ret Notice the extra instruction because of the pointer indirection. The first function looks up two fields (impl, then x), while the second only needs to get x. What can be done?

  Read the article

• Why is the recursion idiom in Haskell "'n+1' and 'n'" and not "'n' and 'n-1'"?

  - by rulfzid

  I'm working my way through Graham Hutton's Haskell book, and in his recursion chapter, he often pattern-matches on "n+1", as in: myReplicate1 0 _ = [] myReplicate1 (n+1) x = x : myReplicate1 n x Why that and not the following, which (1) seems functionally identical and (2) more intuitive in terms of understanding what's happening with the recursion: myReplicate2 0 _ = [] myReplicate2 n x = x : myReplicate2 (n-1) x Is there something I'm missing here? Or is it just a matter of style?

  Read the article

• Idiom vs. pattern

  - by Roger Pate

  In the context of programming, how do idioms differ from patterns? I use the terms interchangeably and normally follow the most popular way I've heard something called, or the way it was called most recently in the current conversation, e.g. "the copy-swap idiom" and "singleton pattern". The best difference I can come up with is code which is meant to be copied almost literally is more often called pattern while code meant to be taken less literally is more often called idiom, but such isn't even always true. This doesn't seem to be more than a stylistic or buzzword difference. Does that match your perception of how the terms are used? Is there a semantic difference?

  Read the article

• Using interface classes and non-virtual interface idiom in C++

  - by andreas buykx

  Hi all, In C++ an interface can be implemented by a class with all its methods pure virtual: class IFoo { public: virtual void method() = 0; }; Now I want to implement this interface by a hierarchy of classes: class FooBase : public IFoo // implement interface IFoo { public: void method(); // calls methodImpl; private: virtual void methodImpl(); }; For the class hierarchy I would like to use the non-virtual interface (NVI) idiom, to deny derived classes the possibility of overriding the common behavior implemented in FooBase::method(), but it seems that all derived classes have the opportunity to override the FooBase::method() because it is declared in the interface class. Is my observation correct? And if so are there other options to both use interface classes and the NVI idiom?

  Read the article

• Better Way To Use C++ Named Parameter Idiom?

  - by Head Geek

  I've been developing a GUI library for Windows (as a personal side project, no aspirations of usefulness). For my main window class, I've set up a hierarchy of option classes (using the Named Parameter Idiom), because some options are shared and others are specific to particular types of windows (like dialogs). The way the Named Parameter Idiom works, the functions of the parameter class have to return the object they're called on. The problem is that, in the hierarchy, each one has to be a different class -- the createWindowOpts class for standard windows, the createDialogOpts class for dialogs, and the like. I've dealt with that by making all the option classes templates. Here's an example: template <class T> class _sharedWindowOpts: public detail::_baseCreateWindowOpts { public: /////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// // No required parameters in this case. _sharedWindowOpts() { }; typedef T optType; // Commonly used options optType& at(int x, int y) { mX=x; mY=y; return static_cast<optType&>(*this); }; // Where to put the upper-left corner of the window; if not specified, the system sets it to a default position optType& at(int x, int y, int width, int height) { mX=x; mY=y; mWidth=width; mHeight=height; return static_cast<optType&>(*this); }; // Sets the position and size of the window in a single call optType& background(HBRUSH b) { mBackground=b; return static_cast<optType&>(*this); }; // Sets the default background to this brush optType& background(INT_PTR b) { mBackground=HBRUSH(b+1); return static_cast<optType&>(*this); }; // Sets the default background to one of the COLOR_* colors; defaults to COLOR_WINDOW optType& cursor(HCURSOR c) { mCursor=c; return static_cast<optType&>(*this); }; // Sets the default mouse cursor for this window; defaults to the standard arrow optType& hidden() { mStyle&=~WS_VISIBLE; return static_cast<optType&>(*this); }; // Windows are visible by default optType& icon(HICON iconLarge, HICON iconSmall=0) { mIcon=iconLarge; mSmallIcon=iconSmall; return static_cast<optType&>(*this); }; // Specifies the icon, and optionally a small icon // ...Many others removed... }; template <class T> class _createWindowOpts: public _sharedWindowOpts<T> { public: /////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// _createWindowOpts() { }; // These can't be used with child windows, or aren't needed optType& menu(HMENU m) { mMenuOrId=m; return static_cast<optType&>(*this); }; // Gives the window a menu optType& owner(HWND hwnd) { mParentOrOwner=hwnd; return static_cast<optType&>(*this); }; // Sets the optional parent/owner }; class createWindowOpts: public _createWindowOpts<createWindowOpts> { public: /////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// createWindowOpts() { }; }; It works, but as you can see, it requires a noticeable amount of extra work: a type-cast on the return type for each function, extra template classes, etcetera. My question is, is there an easier way to implement the Named Parameter Idiom in this case, one that doesn't require all the extra stuff?

  Read the article

• Extracting pair member in lambda expressions and template typedef idiom

  - by Nazgob

  Hi, I have some complex types here so I decided to use nifty trick to have typedef on templated types. Then I have a class some_container that has a container as a member. Container is a vector of pairs composed of element and vector. I want to write std::find_if algorithm with lambda expression to find element that have certain value. To get the value I have to call first on pair and then get value from element. Below my std::find_if there is normal loop that does the trick. My lambda fails to compile. How to access value inside element which is inside pair? I use g++ 4.4+ and VS 2010 and I want to stick to boost lambda for now. #include <vector> #include <algorithm> #include <boost\lambda\lambda.hpp> #include <boost\lambda\bind.hpp> template<typename T> class element { public: T value; }; template<typename T> class element_vector_pair // idiom to have templated typedef { public: typedef std::pair<element<T>, std::vector<T> > type; }; template<typename T> class vector_containter // idiom to have templated typedef { public: typedef std::vector<typename element_vector_pair<T>::type > type; }; template<typename T> bool operator==(const typename element_vector_pair<T>::type & lhs, const typename element_vector_pair<T>::type & rhs) { return lhs.first.value == rhs.first.value; } template<typename T> class some_container { public: element<T> get_element(const T& value) const { std::find_if(container.begin(), container.end(), bind(&typename vector_containter<T>::type::value_type::first::value, boost::lambda::_1) == value); /*for(size_t i = 0; i < container.size(); ++i) { if(container.at(i).first.value == value) { return container.at(i); } }*/ return element<T>(); //whatever } protected: typename vector_containter<T>::type container; }; int main() { some_container<int> s; s.get_element(5); return 0; }

  Read the article

• Looking for a good explanation of the table generation macro idiom

  - by detly

  I want to make this clear up front : I know how this trick works, what I want is a link to a clear explanation to share with others. One of the answers to a C macro question talks about the "X macro" or "not yet defined macro" idiom. This involves defining something like: #define MAGIC_LIST \ X(name_1, default_1) \ X(name_2, default_2) \ ... Then to create, say, an array of values with named indices you do: typedef enum { #define X(name, val) name, MAGIC_LIST #undef X } NamedDefaults; You can repeat the procedure with a different #define for X() to create an array of values, and maybe debugging strings, etc. I'd like a link to a clear explanation of how this works, pitched at someone who is passably familiar with C. I have no idea what everyone usually calls this pattern, though, so my attempts to search the web for it have failed thus far. (If there is such an explanation on SO, that'd be fine...)

  Read the article

• Which programming idiom to choose for this open source library?

  - by Walkman

  I have an interesting question about which programming idiom is easier to use for beginner developers writing concrete file parsing classes. I'm developing an open source library, which one of the main functionality is to parse plain text files and get structured information from them. All of the files contains the same kind of information, but can be in different formats like XML, plain text (each of them is structured differently), etc. There are a common set of information pieces which is the same in all (e.g. player names, table names, some id numbers) There are formats which are very similar to each other, so it's possible to define a common Base class for them to facilitate concrete format parser implementations. So I can clearly define base classes like SplittablePlainTextFormat, XMLFormat, SeparateSummaryFormat, etc. Each of them hints the kind of structure they aim to parse. All of the concrete classes should have the same information pieces, no matter what. To be useful at all, this library needs to define at least 30-40 of these parsers. A couple of them are more important than others (obviously the more popular formats). Now my question is, which is the best programming idiom to choose to facilitate the development of these concrete classes? Let me explain: I think imperative programming is easy to follow even for beginners, because the flow is fixed, the statements just come one after another. Right now, I have this: class SplittableBaseFormat: def parse(self): "Parses the body of the hand history, but first parse header if not yet parsed." if not self.header_parsed: self.parse_header() self._parse_table() self._parse_players() self._parse_button() self._parse_hero() self._parse_preflop() self._parse_street('flop') self._parse_street('turn') self._parse_street('river') self._parse_showdown() self._parse_pot() self._parse_board() self._parse_winners() self._parse_extra() self.parsed = True So the concrete parser need to define these methods in order in any way they want. Easy to follow, but takes longer to implement each individual concrete parser. So what about declarative? In this case Base classes (like SplittableFormat and XMLFormat) would do the heavy lifting based on regex and line/node number declarations in the concrete class, and concrete classes have no code at all, just line numbers and regexes, maybe other kind of rules. Like this: class SplittableFormat: def parse_table(): "Parses TABLE_REGEX and get information" # set attributes here def parse_players(): "parses PLAYER_REGEX and get information" # set attributes here class SpecificFormat1(SplittableFormat): TABLE_REGEX = re.compile('^(?P<table_name>.*) other info \d* etc') TABLE_LINE = 1 PLAYER_REGEX = re.compile('^Player \d: (?P<player_name>.*) has (.*) in chips.') PLAYER_LINE = 16 class SpecificFormat2(SplittableFormat): TABLE_REGEX = re.compile(r'^Tournament #(\d*) (?P<table_name>.*) other info2 \d* etc') TABLE_LINE = 2 PLAYER_REGEX = re.compile(r'^Seat \d: (?P<player_name>.*) has a stack of (\d*)') PLAYER_LINE = 14 So if I want to make it possible for non-developers to write these classes the way to go seems to be the declarative way, however, I'm almost certain I can't eliminate the declarations of regexes, which clearly needs (senior :D) programmers, so should I care about this at all? Do you think it matters to choose one over another or doesn't matter at all? Maybe if somebody wants to work on this project, they will, if not, no matter which idiom I choose. Can I "convert" non-programmers to help developing these? What are your observations? Other considerations: Imperative will allow any kind of work; there is a simple flow, which they can follow but inside that, they can do whatever they want. It would be harder to force a common interface with imperative because of this arbitrary implementations. Declarative will be much more rigid, which is a bad thing, because formats might change over time without any notice. Declarative will be harder for me to develop and takes longer time. Imperative is already ready to release. I hope a nice discussion will happen in this thread about programming idioms regarding which to use when, which is better for open source projects with different scenarios, which is better for wide range of developer skills. TL; DR: Parsing different file formats (plain text, XML) They contains same kind of information Target audience: non-developers, beginners Regex probably cannot be avoided 30-40 concrete parser classes needed Facilitate coding these concrete classes Which idiom is better?

  Read the article

• Common idiom in Java to Scala, traverse/Iterate Java list into Scala list

  - by Berlin Brown

  I am processing a XML document and iterating through nodes. I want to iterate through the nodes and build a new List of some type. How would I do this with Scala: Here is my XML traverse code: def findClassRef(xmlNode: Elem) = { xmlNode\"classDef" foreach { (entry) => val name = entry \ "@name" val classid = entry \ "@classId" println(name + "//" + classid) } } Where the line of println is, I want to append elements to a list.

  Read the article

• Python "Every Other Element" Idiom

  - by Matt Luongo

  Hey guys, I feel like I spend a lot of time writing code in Python, but not enough time creating Pythonic code. Recently I ran into a funny little problem that I thought might have an easy, idiomatic solution. Paraphrasing the original, I needed to collect every sequential pair in a list. For example, given the list [1,2,3,4,5,6], I wanted to compute [(1,2),(3,4),(5,6)]. I came up with a quick solution at the time that looked like translated Java. Revisiting the question, the best I could do was l = [1,2,3,4,5,6] [(l[2*x],l[2*x+1]) for x in range(len(l)/2)] which has the side effect of tossing out the last number in the case that the length isn't even. Is there a more idiomatic approach that I'm missing, or is this the best I'm going to get?

  Read the article

• class << self idiom in Ruby

  - by randombits

  I suppose my question is exactly what the subject depicts, what does: class << self do in Ruby?

  Read the article

• Ruby switch like idiom

  - by Eef

  Hey, I have recently started a project in Ruby on Rails. I used to do all my projects before in Python but decided to give Ruby a shot. In the projects I wrote in Python I used a nice little technique explained by the correct answer in this post: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/277965/dictionary-or-if-statements-jython I use this technique due to Python not having a native switch function and it also get rid of big if else blocks I have been trying to do recreate the above method in Ruby but can't seem to quite get it. Could anyone help me out? Thanks Eef

  Read the article

• Why is "#{String}" a common idiom in Ruby

  - by Tetsujin no Oni

  A Ruby dev I know asked this; my answer is below... Are there other, better reasons? Why do so many Ruby programmers do "{string}" rather than string since the second form is simpler and more efficient?

  Read the article

• The ** idiom in C++ for object construction

  - by bobobobo

  In a lot of C++ API'S (COM-based ones spring to mind) that make something for you, the pointer to the object that is constructed is usually required as a ** pointer (and the function will construct and init it for you) You usually see signatures like: HRESULT createAnObject( int howbig, Object **objectYouWantMeToInitialize ) ; -- but you seldom see the new object being passed as a return value. Besides people wanting to see error codes, what is the reason for this? Is it better to use the ** pattern rather than a returned pointer for simpler operations such as: wchar_t* getUnicode( const char* src ) ; Or would this better be written as: void getUnicode( const char* src, wchar_t** dst ) ; The most important thing I can think of is to remember to free it, and the ** way, for some reason, tends to remind me that I have to deallocate it as well.

  Read the article

• best scala idiom for find & return

  - by IttayD

  This is something I encounter frequently, but I don't know the elegant way of doing. I have a collection of Foo objects. Foo has a method bar() that may return null or a Bar object. I want to scan the collection, calling each object's bar() method and stop on the first one returning an actual reference and return that reference from the scan. Obviously: foos.find(_.bar != null).bar does the trick, but calls #bar twice.

  Read the article

• Putting all methods in class definition

  - by Amnon

  When I use the pimpl idiom, is it a good idea to put all the methods definitions inside the class definition? For example: // in A.h class A { class impl; boost::scoped_ptr<impl> pimpl; public: A(); int foo(); } // in A.cpp class A::impl { // method defined in class int foo() { return 42; } // as opposed to only declaring the method, and defining elsewhere: float bar(); }; A::A() : pimpl(new impl) { } int A::foo() { return pimpl->foo(); } As far as I know, the only problems with putting a method definition inside a class definition is that (1) the implementation is visible in files that include the class definition, and (2) the compiler may make the method inline. These are not problems in this case since the class is defined in a private file, and inlining has no effect since the methods are called in only one place. The advantage of putting the definition inside the class is that you don't have to repeat the method signature. So, is this OK? Are there any other issues to be aware of?

  Read the article

• How to implement an interface class using the non-virtual interface idiom in C++?

  - by andreas buykx

  Hi all, In C++ an interface can be implemented by a class with all its methods pure virtual. Such a class could be part of a library to describe what methods an object should implement to be able to work with other classes in the library: class Lib::IFoo { public: virtual void method() = 0; }; : class Lib::Bar { public: void stuff( Lib::IFoo & ); }; Now I want to to use class Lib::Bar, so I have to implement the IFoo interface. For my purposes I need a whole of related classes so I would like to work with a base class that guarantees common behavior using the NVI idiom: class FooBase : public IFoo // implement interface IFoo { public: void method(); // calls methodImpl; private: virtual void methodImpl(); }; The non-virtual interface (NVI) idiom ought to deny derived classes the possibility of overriding the common behavior implemented in FooBase::method(), but since IFoo made it virtual it seems that all derived classes have the opportunity to override the FooBase::method(). If I want to use the NVI idiom, what are my options other than the pImpl idiom already suggested (thanks space-c0wb0y).

  Read the article

• delegating into private parts

  - by FredOverflow

  Sometimes, C++'s notion of privacy just baffles me :-) class Foo { struct Bar; Bar* p; public: Bar* operator->() const { return p; } }; struct Foo::Bar { void baz() { std::cout << "inside baz\n"; } }; int main() { Foo::Bar b; // error: 'struct Foo::Bar' is private within this context Foo f; f->baz(); // fine } Since Foo::Bar is private, I cannot declare b in main. Yet I can call methods from Foo::Bar just fine. Why the hell is this allowed? Was that an accident or by design?

  Read the article

• Python file iterator over a binary file with newer idiom.

  - by drewk

  In Python, for a binary file, I can write this: buf_size=1024*64 # this is an important size... with open(file, "rb") as f: while True: data=f.read(buf_size) if not data: break # deal with the data.... With a text file that I want to read line-by-line, I can write this: with open(file, "r") as file: for line in file: # deal with each line.... Which is shorthand for: with open(file, "r") as file: for line in iter(file.readline, ""): # deal with each line.... This idiom is documented in PEP 234 but I have failed to locate a similar idiom for binary files. I have tried this: >>> with open('dups.txt','rb') as f: ... for chunk in iter(f.read,''): ... i+=1 >>> i 1 # 30 MB file, i==1 means read in one go... I tried putting iter(f.read(buf_size),'') but that is a syntax error because of the parens after the callable in iter(). I know I could write a function, but is there way with the default idiom of for chunk in file: where I can use a buffer size versus a line oriented? Thanks for putting up with the Python newbie trying to write his first non-trivial and idiomatic Python script.

  Read the article

• What is the OCaml idiom equivalent to Python's range function?

  - by Pramod

  I want to create a list of integers from 1 to n. I can do this in Python using range(1, n+1), and in Haskell using: take n (iterate (1+) 1). What is the right OCaml idiom for this?

  Read the article

• Is str.replace(..).replace(..) ad nauseam a standard idiom in Python?

  - by meeselet

  For instance, say I wanted a function to escape a string for use in HTML (as in Django's escape filter): def escape(string): """ Returns the given string with ampersands, quotes and angle brackets encoded. """ return string.replace('&', '&amp;').replace('<', '&lt;').replace('>', '&gt;').replace("'", '&#39;').replace('"', '&quot;') This works, but it gets ugly quickly and appears to have poor algorithmic performance (in this example, the string is repeatedly traversed 5 times). What would be better is something like this: def escape(string): """ Returns the given string with ampersands, quotes and angle brackets encoded. """ # Note that ampersands must be escaped first; the rest can be escaped in # any order. return replace_multi(string.replace('&', '&amp;'), {'<': '&lt;', '>': '&gt;', "'": '&#39;', '"': '&quot;'}) Does such a function exist, or is the standard Python idiom to use what I wrote before?

  Read the article

• does a switch idiom make sense in this case?

  - by the ungoverned

  I'm writing a parser/handler for a network protocol; the protocol is predefined and I am writing an adapter, in python. In the process of decoding the incoming messages, I've been considering using the idiom I've seen suggested elsewhere for "switch" in python: use a hash table whose keys are the field you want to match on (a string in this case) and whose values are callable expressions: self.switchTab = { 'N': self.handleN, 'M': self.handleM, ... } Where self.handleN, etc., are methods on the current class. The actual switch looks like this: self.switchTab[selector]() According to some profiling I've done with cProfile (and Python 2.5.2) this is actually a little bit faster than a chain of if..elif... statements. My question is, do folks think this is a reasonable choice? I can't imagine that re-framing this in terms of objects and polymorphism would be as fast, and I think the code looks reasonably clear to a reader.

  Read the article

• What is the best / proper idiom in django for modifying a field during a .save() where you need to o

  - by MDBGuy

  Hi, say I've got: class LogModel(models.Model): message = models.CharField(max_length=512) class Assignment(models.Model): someperson = models.ForeignKey(SomeOtherModel) def save(self, *args, **kwargs): super(Assignment, self).save() old_person = #????? LogModel(message="%s is no longer assigned to %s"%(old_person, self).save() LogModel(message="%s is now assigned to %s"%(self.someperson, self).save() My goal is to save to LogModel some messages about who Assignment was assigned to. Notice that I need to know the old, presave value of this field. I have seen code that suggests, before super().save(), retrieve the instance from the database via primary key and grab the old value from there. This could work, but is a bit messy. In addition, I plan to eventually split this code out of the .save() method via signals - namely pre_save() and post_save(). Trying to use the above logic (Retrieve from the db in pre_save, make the log entry in post_save) seemingly fails here, as pre_save and post_save are two seperate methods. Perhaps in pre_save I can retrieve the old value and stick it on the model as an attribute? I was wondering if there was a common idiom for this. Thanks.

  Read the article

1 2 3 4 5 6  | Next Page >