Search Results

Search found 37902 results on 1517 pages for 'object methods'.

Page 1/1517 | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >

  • Architecture Best Practice (MVC): Repository Returns Object & Object Member Accessed Directly or Repository Returns Object Member

    - by coderabbi
    Architecturally speaking, which is the preferable approach (and why)? $validation_date = $users_repository->getUser($user_id)->validation_date; Seems to violate Law of Demeter by accessing member of object returned by method call Seems to violate Encapsulation by accessing object member directly $validation_date = $users_repository->getUserValidationDate($user_id); Seems to violate Single Responsibility Principle as $users_repository no longer just returns User objects

    Read the article

  • Can't I just use all static methods?

    - by Reddy S R
    What's the difference between the two UpdateSubject methods below? I felt using static methods is better if you just want to operate on the entities. In which situations should I go with non-static methods? public class Subject { public int Id {get; set;} public string Name { get; set; } public static bool UpdateSubject(Subject subject) { //Do something and return result return true; } public bool UpdateSubject() { //Do something on 'this' and return result return true; } } I know I will be getting many kicks from the community for this really annoying question but I could not stop myself asking it. Does this become impractical when dealing with inheritance?

    Read the article

  • When would you want two references to the same object?

    - by HCBPshenanigans
    In Java specifically, but likely in other languages as well; When would it be useful to have two references to the same object? Example: Dog a = new Dog(); Dob b = a; Is there a situation where this would be useful? Why would this be a preferred solution to using a whenever you want to interact with the object represented by a? Edit: Can I just say that all of your dog related examples are Delightful!

    Read the article

  • How to safely copy an object?

    - by Prog
    This question is going to be a little long. Please bear with me. Something that happened in a project of mine made me think about how to safely copy objects. I'll present the situation I had and then ask a question. There was a class SomeClass: class SomeClass{ Thing[] things; public SomeClass(Thing[] things){ this.things = things; } // irrelevant stuff omitted public SomeClass copy(){ return new SomeClass(things); } } There was another class Processor that takes SomeClass objects, copies them (via someClassInstance.copy()), manipulates the copy's state, and returns the copy. Here it is: class Processor{ public SomeClass processObject(SomeClass object){ SomeClass copy = object.copy(); manipulateTheCopy(copy); return copy; } // irrelevant stuff omitted } I ran this, and it had bugs. I looked into these bugs, and it turned out that the manipulations Processor does on copy actually affect not only the copy, but also the original SomeClass object that was passed into processObject. I found out that it was because the original and the copy shared state - because the original passed it's field things into the copy when creating it. This made me realize that copying objects is harder than simply instantiating them with the same fields as the original. For the two objects to be completely disconnected, without any shared state, each of the fields passed to the copy also has to be copied. And if that object contains other objects - they have to be copied too. And so on. So basically, in order to be able to actually copy an object, each class in the system must have a copy() method, that also invokes copy() on all of it's fields, and so on. So for example, for copy() in SomeClass to work, it needs to look like this: public SomeClass copy(){ Thing[] copyThings = new Thing[things.length]; for(int i=0; i<things.length; i++) copyThings[i] = things[i].copy(); return new SomeClass(copyThings); } And if Thing has object fields of it's own, than it's own copy() method must be appropriate: class Thing{ Apple apple; Pencil pencil; int number; public Thing(Apple apple, Pencil pencil, int number){ this.apple = apple; this.pencil = pencil; this.number = number; } public Thing copy(){ // 'number' is a primitve. return new Thing(apple.getCopy(), pencil.getCopy(), number); } } And so on. Of course, instead of all classes having a copy() method, the copying mechanism can happen in all of the getters and the constructors of classes (unless places where it isn't suitable, for example when the field points to an external object, not to an object that 'is part' of this object). Still, that means that in order to be able to safely copy an object - most classes would have to have copying mechanisms in their getters. My question is divided into two parts: How frequently do you need to get a copy of an object? Is this a regular issue? Is the technique described common and/or reasonable? Or is there a better way to make safe copies of objects? Or is there an easier way to safely copy objects, without them sharing any state?

    Read the article

  • Should an object know its own ID?

    - by xenoterracide
    obj.id seems fairly common and also seems to fall within the range of something an object could know about itself. I find myself asking why should my object know its own id? It doesn't seem to have a reason to have it? One of the main reason for it existing is retrieve it, and so my repositories need to know it, and thus use it for database interaction. I also once encountered a problem where I wanted to serialize an object to JSON for a RESTful API where the id did not seem to fit in the payload, but only the URI and including it in the object made that more difficult. Should an object know it's own id? why or why not?

    Read the article

  • Object oriented design importance

    - by user5507
    I started studying Object Oriented Design and Modelling using the this book by James Rumbaugh. It uses a tool called Object Modeling Technique (OMT). I have certain newbie questions. I searched the net, but couldn't get answers The book is pretty old. Don't know why the school told me to learn this. I know OMT is a predecessor of the Unified Modeling Language (UML). So its a waste? Whether the concepts change very much when we move from OMT to UML? I know OMT has Object, Dynamic and Functional Model. Wikipedia says UML is compatible with OMT and UML is a model too. As per wikipedia the UML models are Static and Dynamic and they are represented by different diagrams like class, object, activity, sequence..... I couldn't find the equivalence of this in OMT. I read that there are many object oriented development methods like OMT, Booch,.... Which one is used by Industry ? Where could I get a comparison of different Object oriented development methods?

    Read the article

  • Object behaviour or separate class?

    - by Andrew Stephens
    When it comes to OO database access you see two common approaches - the first is to provide a class (say "Customer") with methods such as Retrieve(), Update(), Delete(), etc. The other is to keep the Customer class fairly lightweight (essentially just properties) and perform the database access elsewhere, e.g. using a repository. This choice of approaches doesn't just apply to database access, it can crop up in many different OOD scenarios. So I was wondering if one way is preferable over the other (although I suspect the answer will be "it depends")! Another dev on our team argues that to be truly OO the class should be "self-contained", i.e. providing all the methods necessary to manipulate and interact with that object. I personally prefer the repository approach - I don't like bloating the Customer class with all that functionality, and I feel it results in cleaner code having it elsewhere, but I can't help thinking I'm seriously violating core OO concepts! And what about memory implications? If I retrieve thousands of Customer objects I'm assuming those with the data access methods will take up a lot more memory than the property-only objects?

    Read the article

  • F# Extention Methods on Lists, IEnumberable, etc

    - by flevine100
    I have searched StackOverflow (and other sources) for this answer, but can't seem to find anything. In C#, if I had a widget definition, say: class widget { public string PrettyName() { ... do stuff here } } and I wanted to allow for easy printing of a list of Widgets, I might do this: namespace ExtensionMethods { public static PrintAll( this IEnumerable<Widget> widgets, TextWriter writer ) { foreach(var w in widgets) { writer.WriteLine( w.PrettyName() ) } } } How would I accomplish something similar with a record type and a collection (List or Seq preferrably in F#). I'd love to have a list of Widgest and be able to call a function right on the collection that did something like this. Assume (since it's F#) that the function would not be changing the state of the collection that it's attached to, but returning some new value.

    Read the article

  • Taking Object Oriented development to the next level

    - by Songo
    Can you mention some advanced OO topics or concepts that one should be aware of? I have been a developer for 2 years now and currently aiming for a certain company that requires a web developer with a minimum experience of 3 years. I imagine the interview will have the basic object oriented topics like (Abstraction, Polymorphism, Inheritance, Design patterns, UML, Databases and ORMs, SOLID principles, DRY principle, ...etc) I have these topics covered, but what I'm looking forward to is bringing up topics such as Efferent Coupling, Afferent Coupling, Instability, The law of Demeter, ...etc. Till few days ago I never knew such concepts existed (maybe because I'm a communication engineer basically not a CS graduate.) Can you please recommend some more advanced topics concerning object oriented programming?

    Read the article

  • How to use the client object model with SharePoint2010

    - by ybbest
    In SharePoint2010, you can use client object model to communicate with SharePoint server. Today, I’d like to show you how to achieve this by using the c# console application. You can download the solution here. 1. Create a Console application in visual studio and add the following references to the project. 2. Insert your code as below ClientContext context = new ClientContext("http://demo2010a"); Web currentWeb = context.Web; context.Load(currentWeb, web =&gt; web.Title); context.ExecuteQuery(); Console.WriteLine(currentWeb.Title); Console.ReadLine(); 3. Run your code then you will get the web title displayed as shown below Note: If you got the following errors, you need to change your target framework from .Net Framework 4 client profile to .Net Framework 4 as shown below: Change from TO

    Read the article

  • Are long methods always bad?

    - by wobbily_col
    So looking around earlier I noticed some comments about long methods being bad practice. I am not sure I always agree that long methods are bad (and would like opinions from others). For example I have some Django views that do a bit of processing of the objects before sending them to the view, a long method being 350 lines of code. I have my code written so that it deals with the paramaters - sorting / filtering the queryset, then bit by bit does some processing on the objects my query has returned. So the processing is mainly conditional aggregation, that has complex enough rules it can't easily be done in the database, so I have some variables declared outside the main loop then get altered during the loop. varaible_1 = 0 variable_2 = 0 for object in queryset : if object.condition_condition_a and variable_2 > 0 : variable 1+= 1 ..... ... . more conditions to alter the variables return queryset, and context So according to the theory I should factor out all the code into smaller methods, so That I have the view method as being maximum one page long. However having worked on various code bases in the past, I sometimes find it makes the code less readable, when you need to constantly jump from one method to the next figuring out all the parts of it, while keeping the outermost method in your head. I find that having a long method that is well formatted, you can see the logic more easily, as it isn't getting hidden away in inner methods. I could factor out the code into smaller methods, but often there is is an inner loop being used for two or three things, so it would result in more complex code, or methods that don't do one thing but two or three (alternatively I could repeat inner loops for each task, but then there will be a performance hit). So is there a case that long methods are not always bad? Is there always a case for writing methods, when they will only be used in one place?

    Read the article

  • Any enlightenment for understanding Object Oriented Programming? [closed]

    - by ????
    I studied computer science near the end of 1980s, and wasn't taught OOP that formally. With Pascal or C, when I understand the top-down design of functions, and the idea of black box, then everything just seem to make sense, as if there is a "oh I get it!" -- some kind of totally getting it and enlightenment feeling. But with OOP, all I know was the mechanics: the class, instance, method, inheritance, polymorphism, encapsulation. It was like, I knew all the "this is how it is", but never had the feeling of "I totally get it", the enlightened feeling. Would somebody be able to describe it, or point to a chapter in some book or paper which talks about OOP so that the reader can feel: "I totally get it!" on OOP?

    Read the article

  • Can a loosely typed language be considered true object oriented?

    - by user61852
    Can a loosely typed programming language like PHP be really considered object oriented? I mean, the methods don't have returning types and method parameters has no declared type either. Doesn't class design require methods to have a return type? Don't methods signatures have specifically-typed parameters? How can OOP techniques help you code in PHP if you always have to check the types of parameters received because the language doesn't enforce types? Please, if I'm wrong, explain it to me. When you design things using UML, then code classes in PHP with no return-typed methods and no-type parameters... Is the code really compliant with the UML design? You spend time designing the architecture of your software, then the compiler doesn't force the programmer to follow your design while coding, letting he/she assign any object variable to any other variable with no "type-mismatch" warning.

    Read the article

  • Read XML Files using LINQ to XML and Extension Methods

    - by psheriff
    In previous blog posts I have discussed how to use XML files to store data in your applications. I showed you how to read those XML files from your project and get XML from a WCF service. One of the problems with reading XML files is when elements or attributes are missing. If you try to read that missing data, then a null value is returned. This can cause a problem if you are trying to load that data into an object and a null is read. This blog post will show you how to create extension methods to detect null values and return valid values to load into your object. The XML Data An XML data file called Product.xml is located in the \Xml folder of the Silverlight sample project for this blog post. This XML file contains several rows of product data that will be used in each of the samples for this post. Each row has 4 attributes; namely ProductId, ProductName, IntroductionDate and Price. <Products>  <Product ProductId="1"           ProductName="Haystack Code Generator for .NET"           IntroductionDate="07/01/2010"  Price="799" />  <Product ProductId="2"           ProductName="ASP.Net Jumpstart Samples"           IntroductionDate="05/24/2005"  Price="0" />  ...  ...</Products> The Product Class Just as you create an Entity class to map each column in a table to a property in a class, you should do the same for an XML file too. In this case you will create a Product class with properties for each of the attributes in each element of product data. The following code listing shows the Product class. public class Product : CommonBase{  public const string XmlFile = @"Xml/Product.xml";   private string _ProductName;  private int _ProductId;  private DateTime _IntroductionDate;  private decimal _Price;   public string ProductName  {    get { return _ProductName; }    set {      if (_ProductName != value) {        _ProductName = value;        RaisePropertyChanged("ProductName");      }    }  }   public int ProductId  {    get { return _ProductId; }    set {      if (_ProductId != value) {        _ProductId = value;        RaisePropertyChanged("ProductId");      }    }  }   public DateTime IntroductionDate  {    get { return _IntroductionDate; }    set {      if (_IntroductionDate != value) {        _IntroductionDate = value;        RaisePropertyChanged("IntroductionDate");      }    }  }   public decimal Price  {    get { return _Price; }    set {      if (_Price != value) {        _Price = value;        RaisePropertyChanged("Price");      }    }  }} NOTE: The CommonBase class that the Product class inherits from simply implements the INotifyPropertyChanged event in order to inform your XAML UI of any property changes. You can see this class in the sample you download for this blog post. Reading Data When using LINQ to XML you call the Load method of the XElement class to load the XML file. Once the XML file has been loaded, you write a LINQ query to iterate over the “Product” Descendants in the XML file. The “select” portion of the LINQ query creates a new Product object for each row in the XML file. You retrieve each attribute by passing each attribute name to the Attribute() method and retrieving the data from the “Value” property. The Value property will return a null if there is no data, or will return the string value of the attribute. The Convert class is used to convert the value retrieved into the appropriate data type required by the Product class. private void LoadProducts(){  XElement xElem = null;   try  {    xElem = XElement.Load(Product.XmlFile);     // The following will NOT work if you have missing attributes    var products =         from elem in xElem.Descendants("Product")        orderby elem.Attribute("ProductName").Value        select new Product        {          ProductId = Convert.ToInt32(            elem.Attribute("ProductId").Value),          ProductName = Convert.ToString(            elem.Attribute("ProductName").Value),          IntroductionDate = Convert.ToDateTime(            elem.Attribute("IntroductionDate").Value),          Price = Convert.ToDecimal(elem.Attribute("Price").Value)        };     lstData.DataContext = products;  }  catch (Exception ex)  {    MessageBox.Show(ex.Message);  }} This is where the problem comes in. If you have any missing attributes in any of the rows in the XML file, or if the data in the ProductId or IntroductionDate is not of the appropriate type, then this code will fail! The reason? There is no built-in check to ensure that the correct type of data is contained in the XML file. This is where extension methods can come in real handy. Using Extension Methods Instead of using the Convert class to perform type conversions as you just saw, create a set of extension methods attached to the XAttribute class. These extension methods will perform null-checking and ensure that a valid value is passed back instead of an exception being thrown if there is invalid data in your XML file. private void LoadProducts(){  var xElem = XElement.Load(Product.XmlFile);   var products =       from elem in xElem.Descendants("Product")      orderby elem.Attribute("ProductName").Value      select new Product      {        ProductId = elem.Attribute("ProductId").GetAsInteger(),        ProductName = elem.Attribute("ProductName").GetAsString(),        IntroductionDate =            elem.Attribute("IntroductionDate").GetAsDateTime(),        Price = elem.Attribute("Price").GetAsDecimal()      };   lstData.DataContext = products;} Writing Extension Methods To create an extension method you will create a class with any name you like. In the code listing below is a class named XmlExtensionMethods. This listing just shows a couple of the available methods such as GetAsString and GetAsInteger. These methods are just like any other method you would write except when you pass in the parameter you prefix the type with the keyword “this”. This lets the compiler know that it should add this method to the class specified in the parameter. public static class XmlExtensionMethods{  public static string GetAsString(this XAttribute attr)  {    string ret = string.Empty;     if (attr != null && !string.IsNullOrEmpty(attr.Value))    {      ret = attr.Value;    }     return ret;  }   public static int GetAsInteger(this XAttribute attr)  {    int ret = 0;    int value = 0;     if (attr != null && !string.IsNullOrEmpty(attr.Value))    {      if(int.TryParse(attr.Value, out value))        ret = value;    }     return ret;  }   ...  ...} Each of the methods in the XmlExtensionMethods class should inspect the XAttribute to ensure it is not null and that the value in the attribute is not null. If the value is null, then a default value will be returned such as an empty string or a 0 for a numeric value. Summary Extension methods are a great way to simplify your code and provide protection to ensure problems do not occur when reading data. You will probably want to create more extension methods to handle XElement objects as well for when you use element-based XML. Feel free to extend these extension methods to accept a parameter which would be the default value if a null value is detected, or any other parameters you wish. NOTE: You can download the complete sample code at my website. http://www.pdsa.com/downloads. Choose “Tips & Tricks”, then "Read XML Files using LINQ to XML and Extension Methods" from the drop-down. Good Luck with your Coding,Paul D. Sheriff  

    Read the article

  • Generic object to object mapping with parametrized constructor

    - by Rody van Sambeek
    I have a data access layer which returns an IDataRecord. I have a WCF service that serves DataContracts (dto's). These DataContracts are initiated by a parametrized constructor containing the IDataRecord as follows: [DataContract] public class DataContractItem { [DataMember] public int ID; [DataMember] public string Title; public DataContractItem(IDataRecord record) { this.ID = Convert.ToInt32(record["ID"]); this.Title = record["title"].ToString(); } } Unfortanately I can't change the DAL, so I'm obliged to work with the IDataRecord as input. But in generat this works very well. The mappings are pretty simple most of the time, sometimes they are a bit more complex, but no rocket science. However, now I'd like to be able to use generics to instantiate the different DataContracts to simplify the WCF service methods. I want to be able to do something like: public T DoSomething<T>(IDataRecord record) { ... return new T(record); } So I'd tried to following solutions: Use a generic typed interface with a constructor. doesn't work: ofcourse we can't define a constructor in an interface Use a static method to instantiate the DataContract and create a typed interface containing this static method. doesn't work: ofcourse we can't define a static method in an interface Use a generic typed interface containing the new() constraint doesn't work: new() constraint cannot contain a parameter (the IDataRecord) Using a factory object to perform the mapping based on the DataContract Type. does work, but: not very clean, because I now have a switch statement with all mappings in one file. I can't find a real clean solution for this. Can somebody shed a light on this for me? The project is too small for any complex mapping techniques and too large for a "switch-based" factory implementation.

    Read the article

  • Is it better to return NULL or empty values from functions/methods where the return value is not present?

    - by P B
    I am looking for a recommendation here. I am struggling with whether it is better to return NULL or an empty value from a method when the return value is not present or cannot be determined. Take the following two methods as an examples: string ReverseString(string stringToReverse) // takes a string and reverses it. Person FindPerson(int personID) // finds a Person with a matching personID. In ReverseString(), I would say return an empty string because the return type is string, so the caller is expecting that. Also, this way, the caller would not have to check to see if a NULL was returned. In FindPerson(), returning NULL seems like a better fit. Regardless of whether or not NULL or an empty Person Object (new Person()) is returned the caller is going to have to check to see if the Person Object is NULL or empty before doing anything to it (like calling UpdateName()). So why not just return NULL here and then the caller only has to check for NULL. Does anyone else struggle with this? Any help or insight is appreciated.

    Read the article

  • Naming methods that do the same thing but return different types

    - by Konstantin Ð.
    Let's assume that I'm extending a graphical file chooser class (JFileChooser). This class has methods which display the file chooser dialog and return a status signature in the form of an int: APPROVE_OPTION if the user selects a file and hits Open /Save, CANCEL_OPTION if the user hits Cancel, and ERROR_OPTION if something goes wrong. These methods are called showDialog(). I find this cumbersome, so I decide to make another method that returns a File object: in the case of APPROVE_OPTION, it returns the file selected by the user; otherwise, it returns null. This is where I run into a problem: would it be okay for me to keep the showDialog() name, even though methods with that name — and a different return type — already exist? To top it off, my method takes an additional parameter: a File which denotes in which directory the file chooser should start. My question to you: Is it okay to call a method the same name as a superclass method if they return different types? Or would that be confusing to API users? (If so, what other name could I use?) Alternatively, should I keep the name and change the return type so it matches that of the other methods? public int showDialog(Component parent, String approveButtonText) // Superclass method public File showDialog(Component parent, File location) // My method

    Read the article

  • Extension methods conflict

    - by Yochai Timmer
    Lets say I have 2 extension methods to string, in 2 different namespaces: namespace test1 { public static class MyExtensions { public static int TestMethod(this String str) { return 1; } } } namespace test2 { public static class MyExtensions2 { public static int TestMethod(this String str) { return 2; } } } These methods are just for example, they don't really do anything. Now lets consider this piece of code: using System; using test1; using test2; namespace blah { public static class Blah { public Blah() { string a = "test"; int i = a.TestMethod(); //Which one is chosen ? } } } I know that only one of the extension methods will be chosen. Which one will it be ? and why ? How can I choose a certain method from a certain namespace ? Edit: Usually I'd use Namespace.ClassNAME.Method() ... But that just beats the whole idea of extension methods. And I don't think you can use Variable.Namespace.Method()

    Read the article

  • Do private static methods in C# hurt anything?

    - by fish
    I created a private validation method for a certain validation that happens multiple times in my class (I can't store the validated data for various reasons). Now, ReSharper suggests that the function could be made static. I'm a little reluctant to do so due known problems with static methods. It would be a private static method. My question is, can private static methods cause similar coupling and testing problems like public static methods? Is it a bad practice? I would guess not, but I'm not sure if there is a pitfall here.

    Read the article

  • object / class methods serialized as well?

    - by Mat90
    I know that data members are saved to disk but I was wondering whether object's/class' methods are saved in binary format as well? Because I found some contradictionary info, for example: Ivor Horton: "Class objects contain function members as well as data members, and all the members, both data and functions, have access specifiers; therefore, to record objects in an external file, the information written to the file must contain complete specifications of all the class structures involved." and: Are methods also serialized along with the data members in .NET? Thus: are method's assembly instructions (opcodes and operands) stored to disk as well? Just like a precompiled LIB or DLL? During the DOS ages I used assembly so now and then. As far as I remember from Delphi and the following site (answer by dan04): Are methods also serialized along with the data members in .NET? sizeof(<OBJECT or CLASS>) will give the size of all data members together (no methods/procedures). Also a nice C example is given there with data and members declared in one class/struct but at runtime these methods are separate procedures acting on a struct of data. However, I think that later class/object implementations like Pascal's VMT may be different in memory.

    Read the article

  • Naming methods that perform HTTP GET/POST calls?

    - by antonpug
    In the application I am currently working on, there are generally 3 types of HTTP calls: pure GETs pure POSTs (updating the model with new data) "GET" POSTs (posting down an object to get some data back, no updates to the model) In the integration service, generally we name methods that post "postSomething()", and methods that get, "getSomething()". So my question is, if we have a "GET" POST, should the method be called: getSomething - seeing as the purpose is to obtain data postSomething - since we are technically using POST performSomeAction - arbitrary name that's more relevant to the action What are everyone's thoughts?

    Read the article

  • Manager/Container class vs static class methods

    - by Ben
    Suppose I a have a Widget class that is part of a framework used independently by many applications. I create Widget instances in many situations and their lifetimes vary. In addition to Widget's instance specified methods, I would like to be able to perform the follow class wide operations: Find a single Widget instance based on a unique id Iterate over the list of all Widgets Remove a widget from the set of all widgets In order support these operations, I have been considering two approaches: Container class - Create some container or manager class, WidgetContainer, which holds a list of all Widget instances, support iteration and provides methods for Widget addition, removal and lookup. For example in C#: public class WidgetContainer : IEnumerable<Widget { public void AddWidget(Widget); public Widget GetWidget(WidgetId id); public void RemoveWidget(WidgetId id); } Static class methods - Add static class methods to Widget. For example: public class Widget { public Widget(WidgetId id); public static Widget GetWidget(WidgetId id); public static void RemoveWidget(WidgetId id); public static IEnumerable<Widget AllWidgets(); } Using a container class has the added problem of how to access the container class. Make it a singleton?..yuck! Create some World object that provides access to all such container classes? I have seen many frameworks that use the container class approach, so what is the general consensus?

    Read the article

  • Breaking up classes and methods into smaller units

    - by micahhoover
    During code reviews a couple devs have recommended I break up my methods into smaller methods. Their justification was (1) increased readability and (2) the back trace that comes back from production showing the method name is more specific to the line of code that failed. There may have also been some colorful words about functional programming. Additionally I think I may have failed an interview a while back because I didn't give an acceptable answer about when to break things up. My inclination is that when I see a bunch of methods in a class or across a bunch of files, it isn't clear to me how they flow together, and how many times each one gets called. I don't really have a good feel for the linearity of it as quickly just by eye-balling it. The other thing is a lot of people seem to place a premium of organization over content (e.g. 'Look at how organized my sock drawer is!' Me: 'Overall, I think I can get to my socks faster if you count the time it took to organize them'). Our business requirements are not very stable. I'm afraid that if the classes/methods are very granular it will take longer to refactor to requirement changes. I'm not sure how much of a factor this should be. Anyway, computer science is part art / part science, but I'm not sure how much this applies to this issue.

    Read the article

  • Methods in Ruby: objects or not?

    - by Mladen Jablanovic
    Inspired by this discussion, after some googling I wasn't able to find an answer to a pretty simple question regarding methods in Ruby: are they objects or not? There are different opinions here and there, and I would really like to hear, let's say, an in-depth explanation. I'm aware of Object#method method, which takes a method name and returns a Method instance, but, on the other hand, there's a similar thing you can do with blocks to make them into Proc instances, and blocks aren't objects, so what makes methods any different?

    Read the article

  • Strategies for invoking subclass methods on generic objects

    - by Brad Patton
    I've run into this issue in a number of places and have solved it a bunch of different ways but looking for other solutions or opinions on how to address. The scenario is when you have a collection of objects all based off of the same superclass but you want to perform certain actions based only on instances of some of the subclasses. One contrived example of this might be an HTML document made up of elements. You could have a superclass named HTMLELement and subclasses of Headings, Paragraphs, Images, Comments, etc. To invoke a common action across all of the objects you declare a virtual method in the superclass and specific implementations in all of the subclasses. So to render the document you could loop all of the different objects in the document and call a common Render() method on each instance. It's the case where again using the same generic objects in the collection I want to perform different actions for instances of specific subclass (or set of subclasses). For example (an remember this is just an example) when iterating over the collection, elements with external links need to be downloaded (e.g. JS, CSS, images) and some might require additional parsing (JS, CSS). What's the best way to handle those special cases. Some of the strategies I've used or seen used include: Virtual methods in the base class. So in the base class you have a virtual LoadExternalContent() method that does nothing and then override it in the specific subclasses that need to implement it. The benefit being that in the calling code there is no object testing you send the same message to each object and let most of them ignore it. Two downsides that I can think of. First it can make the base class very cluttered with methods that have nothing to do with most of the hierarchy. Second it assumes all of the work can be done in the called method and doesn't handle the case where there might be additional context specific actions in the calling code (i.e. you want to do something in the UI and not the model). Have methods on the class to uniquely identify the objects. This could include methods like ClassName() which return a string with the class name or other return values like enums or booleans (IsImage()). The benefit is that the calling code can use if or switch statements to filter objects to perform class specific actions. The downside is that for every new class you need to implement these methods and can look cluttered. Also performance could be less than some of the other options. Use language features to identify objects. This includes reflection and language operators to identify the objects. For example in C# there is the is operator that returns true if the instance matches the specified class. The benefit is no additional code to implement in your object hierarchy. The only downside seems to be the lack of using something like a switch statement and the fact that your calling code is a little more cluttered. Are there other strategies I am missing? Thoughts on best approaches?

    Read the article

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >