Search Results

Search found 39 results on 2 pages for 'ood'.

Page 1/2 | 1 2  | Next Page >

• First step in OOD?

  - by Hesam Qodsi

  What is the frst step in OOD?

  Read the article

• Which OOD approach should I take?

  - by Sorush Rabiee

  According to Niklaus Wirth, Algorithms + Data Structures = Programs. So I use this as a start point to object-oriented modeling and inheritance design: in a way that I separate the 'Objects' from 'Operations'. then look for patterns and inheritance hierarchy. But now after practice I guess it's not a good idea for every modeling problem, because sometimes it's not effective. (I mean there is no possibility of developing (or is very hard to develop) codes of Turing-Completed languages based on this paradigm.) What is your viewpoint for designing an OOD structure as an experienced programmer?

  Read the article

• Database Replication OOD Pattern

  - by MrOnigiri

  Greetings fellow overflowers, After reading on MSDN about correct strategies on how to perform database replication, and understanding their suggestion on Master-Subordinate Incremental Replication. It left me wondering, what OOD design pattern should I use on this... The main elements of this strategy are the Acquirer, the Manipulator and the Writer. The first fetches data from the database and passes on to the second which might perform simple transformations to the data, before handling it to the final element, the writer, that writes the desired data on the destination Database. I thought about using the Chain of Responsibility pattern, but the Acquirer, Manipulator and Writer don't share a common role among theme, so It makes no sense. Should these elements be written as separate classes, or methods inside my service? Of course I'll be creating a DB Helper class as well, but that doesn't constitutes a problem. Wondering what your opinions on this are! Thanks for your replies

  Read the article

• OOD: All classes at bottom of hierarchy contain the same field

  - by My Head Hurts

  I am creating a class diagram for what I thought was a fairly simple problem. However, when I get to the bottom of the hierarchy, all of the classes only contain one field and it is the same one. This to me looks very wrong, but this field does not belong in any of the parent classes. I was wondering if there are any suggested design patterns in a situation like this? A simplified version of the class diagram can be found below. Note, fields named differently cannot belong to any other class +------------------+ | ObjectA | |------------------| | String one | | String two | | | +---------+--------+ | +---------------+----------------+ | | +--------|--------+ +--------|--------+ | ObjectAA | | ObjectAB | |-----------------| |-----------------| | String three | | String four | | | | | +--------+--------+ +--------+--------+ | | | | +--------|--------+ +--------|--------+ | ObjectAAA | | ObjectABA | |-----------------| |-----------------| | String five | | String five | | | | | +-----------------+ +-----------------+ ASCII tables drawn using http://www.asciiflow.com/

  Read the article

• best way to "introduce" OOP/OOD to team of experienced C++ engineers

  - by DXM

  I am looking for an efficient way, that also doesn't come off as an insult, to introduce OOP concepts to existing team members? My teammates are not new to OO languages. We've been doing C++/C# for a long time so technology itself is familiar. However, I look around and without major infusion of effort (mostly in the form of code reviews), it seems what we are producing is C code that happens to be inside classes. There's almost no use of single responsibility principle, abstractions or attempts to minimize coupling, just to name a few. I've seen classes that don't have a constructor but get memset to 0 every time they are instantiated. But every time I bring up OOP, everyone always nods and makes it seem like they know exactly what I'm talking about. Knowing the concepts is good, but we (some more than others) seem to have very hard time applying them when it comes to delivering actual work. Code reviews have been very helpful but the problem with code reviews is that they only occur after the fact so to some it seems we end up rewriting (it's mostly refactoring, but still takes lots of time) code that was just written. Also code reviews only give feedback to an individual engineer, not the entire team. I am toying with the idea of doing a presentation (or a series) and try to bring up OOP again along with some examples of existing code that could've been written better and could be refactored. I could use some really old projects that no one owns anymore so at least that part shouldn't be a sensitive issue. However, will this work? As I said most people have done C++ for a long time so my guess is that a) they'll sit there thinking why I'm telling them stuff they already know or b) they might actually take it as an insult because I'm telling them they don't know how to do the job they've been doing for years if not decades. Is there another approach which would reach broader audience than a code review would, but at the same time wouldn't feel like a punishment lecture? I'm not a fresh kid out of college who has utopian ideals of perfectly designed code and I don't expect that from anyone. The reason I'm writing this is because I just did a review of a person who actually had decent high-level design on paper. However if you picture classes: A - B - C - D, in the code B, C and D all implement almost the same public interface and B/C have one liner functions so that top-most class A is doing absolutely all the work (down to memory management, string parsing, setup negotiations...) primarily in 4 mongo methods and, for all intents and purposes, calls almost directly into D. Update: I'm a tech lead(6 months in this role) and do have full support of the group manager. We are working on a very mature product and maintenance costs are definitely letting themselves be known.

  Read the article

• Book Recommendation for OO design and TDD

  - by whatispunk

  I know there are a ton of books available on the subject but I want one that is recent and describes OOD in terms of TDD, dependency injection, IoC containers, and mocking frameworks. I realize this question is subjective, but I trust in the opinions of SO-ers and am having difficult using Google to provide any real results. Thanks.

  Read the article

• Are ORM's counterproductive to OO design?

  - by Jeremiah

  In OOD, design of an object is said to be characterized by its identity and behavior. Having used OR/M's in the past, the primary purpose, in my opinion, revolves around the ability to store/retrieve data. That is to say, OR/M objects are not design by behavior, but rather data (i.e. database tables). Case and point: Many OR/M tools come with a point-to-a-database-table-and-click-object-generator. If objects are no longer characterized by behavior this will, in my opinion, muddy the identity and responsibility of the objects. Subsequently, if objects are not defined by a responsibility this could lend a hand to having tightly coupled classes and overall poor design. Furthermore, I would think that in an application setting, you would be heading towards scalability issues. So, my question is, do you think that ORM's are counterproductive to OO design? Perhaps the underlying question would be whether or not they are counterproductive to application development.

  Read the article

• PHP OOP Concepts (Value Objects / Data Access Objects)

  - by Iuhiz

  Hi, I've just started to learn PHP OOP, previously I have been doing PHP in a procedural manner. I was reading this article and I've got a couple of quick questions, How is the constructor for value objects commonly defined? As one that takes in all "data members" as parameters or stick to the default constructor and use mutator / accessor methods to set / get data members? Is this actually the recommended way to start doing PHP OOP? Cos honestly, the concepts explained in the article was a tad confusing for me. Cheers

  Read the article

• How can i call method from class but this method implemented from any interface?

  - by Phsika

  i try to call base.Alan(); in HacimBul. But base. dont give intellisense alan method public double HacimBul() { throw new Exception(); //return base..... -- how can i see base.Alan(); } namespace interfaceClass { class Program { static void Main(string[] args) { } } interface Ikenar { double kenar { get; set; } } interface Iyukseklik { double yuksekli {get; set;} } interface IAlan { double Alan(); } interface IHacim { double Hacim(); } class Alan : Ikenar, IAlan { public double kenar { get; set; } double IAlan.Alan() { return kenar * kenar; } } class Hacim : Alan, Iyukseklik { public double kenar { get; set; } public double yuksekli { get; set; } public double HacimBul() { throw new Exception(); //return base..... -- how can i see base.Alan(); } } }

  Read the article

• How can i call method from class but this method implamented from any interface?

  - by Phsika

  i try to call base.Alan(); in HacimBul. But base. dont give intellisense alan method public double HacimBul() { throw new Exception(); //return base..... -- how can i see base.Alan(); } namespace interfaceClass { class Program { static void Main(string[] args) { } } interface Ikenar { double kenar { get; set; } } interface Iyukseklik { double yuksekli {get; set;} } interface IAlan { double Alan(); } interface IHacim { double Hacim(); } class Alan : Ikenar, IAlan { public double kenar { get; set; } double IAlan.Alan() { return kenar * kenar; } } class Hacim : Alan, Iyukseklik { public double kenar { get; set; } public double yuksekli { get; set; } public double HacimBul() { throw new Exception(); //return base..... -- how can i see base.Alan(); } } }

  Read the article

• Best Practice for Utilities Class?

  - by Sonny Boy

  Hey all, We currently have a utilities class that handles a lot of string formatting, date displays, and similar functionality and it's a shared/static class. Is this the "correct" way of doing things or should we be instanciating the utility class as and when we need it? Our main goal here is to reduce memory footprint but performance of the application is also a consideration. Thanks, Matt PS. We're using .NET 2.0

  Read the article

• Java method overloading + double dispatch

  - by Max

  Can anybody explain in detail the reason the overloaded method print(Parent parent) is invoked when working with Child instance in my test piece of code? Any pecularities of virtual methods or methods overloading/resolution in Java involved here? Any direct reference to Java Lang Spec? Which term describes this behaviour? Thanks a lot. public class InheritancePlay { public static class Parent { public void doJob(Worker worker) { System.out.println("this is " + this.getClass().getName()); worker.print(this); } } public static class Child extends Parent { } public static class Worker { public void print(Parent parent) { System.out.println("Why this method resolution happens?"); } public void print(Child child) { System.out.println("This is not called"); } } public static void main(String[] args) { Child child = new Child(); Worker worker = new Worker(); child.doJob(worker); } }

  Read the article

• Is it bad practice to make a setter return "this"?

  - by Ken Liu

  Is it a good or bad idea to make setters in java return "this"? public Employee setName(String name){ this.name = name; return this; } This pattern can be useful because then you can chain setters like this: list.add(new Employee().setName("Jack Sparrow").setId(1).setFoo("bacon!")); instead of this: Employee e = new Employee(); e.setName("Jack Sparrow"); ...and so on... list.add(e); ...but it sort of goes against standard convention. I suppose it might be worthwhile just because it can make that setter do something else useful. I've seen this pattern used some places (e.g. JMock, JPA), but it seems uncommon, and only generally used for very well defined APIs where this pattern is used everywhere. Update: What I've described is obviously valid, but what I am really looking for is some thoughts on whether this is generally acceptable, and if there are any pitfalls or related best practices. I know about the Builder pattern but it is a little more involved then what I am describing - as Josh Bloch describes it there is an associated static Builder class for object creation.

  Read the article

• Which version of Grady Booch's OOA/D book should I buy?

  - by jackj

  Grady Booch's "Object-Oriented Analysis and Design with Applications" is available brand new in both the 2nd edition (1993) and the 3rd edition (2007), while many used copies of both editions are available. Here are my concerns: 1) The 2nd edition uses C++: given that I just finished reading my first two C++ books (Accelerated C++ and C++ Primer) I guess practical tips can only help, so the 2nd edition is probably best (I think the 3rd edition has absolutely no code). On the other hand, the C++ books I read insist on the importance of using standard C++, whereas Booch's 2nd edition was published before the 1998 standard. 2) The 2nd edition is shorter (608 pages vs. 720) so, I guess, it will be slightly easier to get through. 3) The 3rd edition uses UML 2.0, whereas the 2nd edition is pre-UML. Some reviews say that the notation in the 2nd edition is close enough to UML, so it doesn't matter, but I don't know if I should be worrying about this or not. 4) The 2nd edition is available in good-shape used copies for considerably less than what the 3rd one goes for. Given all the above factors, do you think I should buy the 2nd or the 3rd edition? Recommendations on other books are also welcome but I would prefer it if whoever answers has read at least one of the versions of Booch's book (preferably both!). I have already bought but not read GoF and Riel's books. I also know that I should practice a lot with real-life code. Thanks.

  Read the article

• What are the benefits of prototypal inheritance over classical?

  - by Pierreten

  So I finally stopped dragging my feet all these years and decided to learn JavaScript "properly". One of the most head-scratching elements of the languages design is it's implementation of inheritance. Having experience in Ruby, I was really happy to see closures and dynamic typing; but for the life of me can't figure out what benefits are to be had from object instances using other instances for inheritance.

  Read the article

• How to set default values to all wrong or null parameters of method?

  - by Roman

  At the moment I have this code (and I don't like it): private RenderedImage private RenderedImage getChartImage (GanttChartModel model, String title, Integer width, Integer height, String xAxisLabel, String yAxisLabel, Boolean showLegend) { if (title == null) { title = ""; } if (xAxisLabel == null) { xAxisLabel = ""; } if (yAxisLabel == null) { yAxisLabel = ""; } if (showLegend == null) { showLegend = true; } if (width == null) { width = DEFAULT_WIDTH; } if (height == null) { height = DEFAULT_HEIGHT; } ... } How can I improve it? I have some thoughts about introducing an object which will contain all these parameters as fields and then, maybe, it'll be possible to apply builder pattern. But still don't have clear vision how to implement that and I'm not sure that it's worth to be done. Any other ideas?

  Read the article

• What question(s) does an object's behavior answer?

  - by Corwin

  Reading a book I have found the following statement: (Object) Behaviors answer either of two questions: What does this object do (for me)? or What can I do to this object? In the case of an orange, it doesn’t do a whole lot, but we can do things to it. One behavior is that it can be eaten. In my understanding of object behaviour the statement above is correct regarding the first question and is incorrect in case of the second. However, I often see classes with methods like Orange::eat(), and this makes me uncertain about my design skills. So I would like to ask is it a design mistake to give oranges a behaviour eat? (oranges and eat are used just for example)

  Read the article

• package private static member class vs. package private class

  - by Helper Method

  I was writing two implementations of a linked list for an assignment, a doubly linked list and a circular doubly linked list. Now as the class representing a Link within the linked list is the same in both implementations, I want to use it in both. Now I wonder which approach would be better: Implement the Link class as a package private static member class in the first implementation and then use this class in the second implementation or make the Link class a package private class.

  Read the article

• Class views in Django

  - by Sebastjan Trepca

  Django view points to a function, which can be a problem if you want to change only a bit of functionality. Yes, I could have million keyword arguments and even more if statements in the function, but I was thinking more of an object oriented approach. For example, I have a page that displays a user. This page is very similar to page that displays a group, but it's still not so similar to just use another data model. Group also has members etc... One way would be to point views to class methods and then extend that class. Has anyone tried this approach or has any other idea?

  Read the article

• Is OO design's strength in semantics or encapsulation?

  - by Phil H

  Object-oriented design (OOD) combines data and its methods. This, as far as I can see, achieves two great things: it provides encapsulation (so I don't care what data there is, only how I get values I want) and semantics (it relates the data together with names, and its methods consistently use the data as originally intended). So where does OOD's strength lie? In constrast, functional programming attributes the richness to the verbs rather than the nouns, and so both encapsulation and semantics are provided by the methods rather than the data structures. I work with a system that is on the functional end of the spectrum, and continually long for the semantics and encapsulation of OO. But I can see that OO's encapsulation can be a barrier to flexible extension of an object. So at the moment, I can see the semantics as a greater strength. Or is encapsulation the key to all worthwhile code?

  Read the article

• What are startups expecting when they ask you to solve a programming challenge before interviewing? [closed]

  - by Swapnil Tailor

  I have applied to couple of startups and most of them are asking to solve programming challenge before they start on the interviewing candidate. I have submitted couple of the solutions and all the time getting rejected in the initial screening. Now what I think is, they will see my coding style, algorithm and OOD concepts that I have used to solve the problem. Can you guys input more on it as what other details are taken into consideration and how can I improve my coding for getting selected. By the way, I did all my coding in either Java/Perl. EDIT I feel the biggest reason for rejection is code didn't work for couple of use cases.

  Read the article

• Ruby tutorial for experienced programmers

  - by Skillwired

  I'm looking for a Ruby tutorial which would be usable for Java programmers with 8+ years of experience. I don't need another tutorial which explains basic programing/OOP/OOD concepts (inheritance, polymorphism, encapsulation, classes, constructors, hashes, etc.), just a fast-track tutorial (or even a reference?) which could tell us how to do specific things in Ruby.

  Read the article

• SRP & "axis of change"?

  - by lance

  I'm reading Bob Martin's principles of OOD, specifically the SRP text, and I understand the spirit of what it's saying pretty well, but I don't quite understand a particular phrasing, from page 2 of the link (page 150 of the book): I paraphrase: It is important to separate these two responsibilities into separate classes because each responsibility is an axis of change. What exactly is meant here by "axis of change"?

  Read the article

• best way to create tables with Doctrine?

  - by ajsie

  assume that i start coding an application from scratch, is the best way to create tables when using Doctrine, to manually create tables in mysql and then generate models from the tables, or is it the other way around, that is to create the models in php and then generate tables from models? and if i already have a database, will the models created be optimal? cause i have heard some say that its best to create the database from scratch when using ORM, so that the relations are optimized for OOD. share your thoughts!

  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

1 2  | Next Page >