Search Results

Search found 15833 results on 634 pages for 'member objects'.

Page 10/634 | < Previous Page | 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17  | Next Page >

  • Is there a practical benefit to casting a NULL pointer to an object and calling one of its member fu

    - by zdawg
    Ok, so I know that technically this is undefined behavior, but nonetheless, I've seen this more than once in production code. And please correct me if I'm wrong, but I've also heard that some people use this "feature" as a somewhat legitimate substitute of a lacking aspect of the current C++ standard, namely, the inability to obtain the address (well, offset really) of a member function. For example, this is out of a popular implementation of a PCRE (Perl-compatible Regular Expression) library: #ifndef offsetof #define offsetof(p_type,field) ((size_t)&(((p_type *)0)->field)) #endif One can debate whether the exploitation of such a language subtlety in a case like this is valid or not, or even necessary, but I've also seen it used like this: struct Result { void stat() { if(this) // do something... else // do something else... } }; // ...somewhere else in the code... ((Result*)0)->stat(); This works just fine! It avoids a null pointer dereference by testing for the existence of this, and it does not try to access class members in the else block. So long as these guards are in place, it's legitimate code, right? So the question remains: Is there a practical use case, where one would benefit from using such a construct? I'm especially concerned about the second case, since the first case is more of a workaround for a language limitation. Or is it? PS. Sorry about the C-style casts, unfortunately people still prefer to type less if they can.

    Read the article

  • C++: Copy contructor: Use Getters or access member vars directly?

    - by cbrulak
    Have a simple container class: public Container { public: Container() {} Container(const Container& cont) //option 1 { SetMyString(cont.GetMyString()); } //OR Container(const Container& cont) //option 2 { m_str1 = cont.m_str1; } public string GetMyString() { return m_str1;} public void SetMyString(string str) { m_str1 = str;} private: string m_str1; } So, would you recommend this method or accessing the member variables directly? In the example, all code is inline, but in our real code there is no inline code. Update (29 Sept 09): Some of these answers are well written however they seem to get missing the point of this question: this is simple contrived example to discuss using getters/setters vs variables initializer lists or private validator functions are not really part of this question. I'm wondering if either design will make the code easier to maintain and expand. Some ppl are focusing on the string in this example however it is just an example, imagine it is a different object instead. I'm not concerned about performance. we're not programming on the PDP-11

    Read the article

  • What is the function definition for member?

    - by NHans
    (define (member atom list) (cond ((null? list) '()) (= atom (car list) "True") (else (member atom(cdr list))) ) ) (member '5 '(1 2 3 4 5)) Always it gives true even though that atom isn't a member in the list. Could you plz help me to clarify this question as soon as possible.

    Read the article

  • Do immutable objects and DDD go together?

    - by SnOrfus
    Consider a system that uses DDD (as well: any system that uses an ORM). The point of any system realistically, in nearly every use case, will be to manipulate those domain objects. Otherwise there's no real effect or purpose. Modifying an immutable object will cause it to generate a new record after the object is persisted which creates massive bloat in the datasource (unless you delete previous records after modifications). I can see the benefit of using immutable objects, but in this sense, I can't ever see a useful case for using immutable objects. Is this wrong?

    Read the article

  • How does TDD address interaction between objects?

    - by Gigi
    TDD proponents claim that it results in better design and decoupled objects. I can understand that writing tests first enforces the use of things like dependency injection, resulting in loosely coupled objects. However, TDD is based on unit tests - which test individual methods and not the integration between objects. And yet, TDD expects design to evolve from the tests themselves. So how can TDD possibly result in a better design at the integration (i.e. inter-object) level when the granularity it addresses is finer than that (individual methods)?

    Read the article

  • Do immutable objects and DDD go together?

    - by SnOrfus
    Consider a system that uses DDD (as well: any system that uses an ORM). The point of any system realistically, in nearly every use case, will be to manipulate those domain objects. Otherwise there's no real effect or purpose. Modifying an immutable object will cause it to generate a new record after the object is persisted which creates massive bloat in the datasource (unless you delete previous records after modifications). I can see the benefit of using immutable objects, but in this sense, I can't ever see a useful case for using immutable objects. Is this wrong?

    Read the article

  • Component-based design: handling objects interaction

    - by Milo
    I'm not sure how exactly objects do things to other objects in a component based design. Say I have an Obj class. I do: Obj obj; obj.add(new Position()); obj.add(new Physics()); How could I then have another object not only move the ball but have those physics applied. I'm not looking for implementation details but rather abstractly how objects communicate. In an entity based design, you might just have: obj1.emitForceOn(obj2,5.0,0.0,0.0); Any article or explanation to get a better grasp on a component driven design and how to do basic things would be really helpful.

    Read the article

  • Question about component based design: handling objects interaction

    - by Milo
    I'm not sure how exactly objects do things to other objects in a component based design. Say I have an Obj class. I do: Obj obj; obj.add(new Position()); obj.add(new Physics()); How could I then have another object not only move the ball but have those physics applied. I'm not looking for implementation details but rather abstractly how objects communicate. In an entity based design, you might just have: obj1.emitForceOn(obj2,5.0,0.0,0.0); Any article or explanation to get a better grasp on a component driven design and how to do basic things would be really helpful.

    Read the article

  • Mock Objects for Testing - Test Automation Engineer Perspective

    - by user9009
    Hello How often QA engineers are responsible for developing Mock Objects for Unit Testing. So dealing with Mock Objects is just developer job ?. The reason i ask is i'm interested in QA as my career and am learning tools like JUnit , TestNG and couple of frameworks. I just want to know until what level of unit testing is done by developer and from what point QA engineer takes over testing for better test coverage ? Thanks Edit : Based on the answers below am providing more details about what QA i was referring to . I'm interested in more of Test Automation rather than simple QA involved in record and play of script. So Test Automation engineers are responsible for developing frameworks ? or do they have a team of developers dedicated in Framework development ? Yes i was asking about usage of Mock Objects for testing from Test Automation engineer perspective.

    Read the article

  • Best approach to get clicked objects from a display list (2D)

    - by Ixx
    I'm implementing a display list to manage my visuals on screen. I want to know which object is clicked. My objects already have z-order variable. With my current knowledge (almost nothing) the only thing which comes to my mind is make a linear search and get all the objects which contains the clicked point. And then select the object with the highest z-order. But I know there are far better approaches. I think it's something with trees (binary search?). - container display objects and search recursively? just don't know where to start looking, for this concrete case. Any hint link or concrete solution is welcome.

    Read the article

  • Syncing objects to a remote server, and caching on local storage

    - by Harry
    What's the best method of sycing objects (as JSON) to a remote server, with local caching? I have some objects that will pretty much just be plain-text with some extra meta-data. I was thinking of perhaps including a "last modified date" for both Local storage and Remote storage. This could then be used to determine which object is the most recent. For example, even though objects will be saved to both local and remote when they are saved, sometimes the user may not have internet access, or the server may be down, or any other number of things. In this case, the last modified date for remote storage would be reverted to its previous date. Local storage would remain as it is. At this point, the user could exit the application, and when they reload the application would then look at the last modified dates of the local and remote storages, and decide. Is there anything I'm missing with this? Is there a better method that I could use?

    Read the article

  • Moving from mock to real objects?

    - by jjchiw
    I'm like doing TDD so I started everything mocking objects, creating interface, stubbing, great. The design seems to work, now I'll implement the stuff, a lot of the code used in the stubs are going to be reused in my real implementation yay! Now should I duplicate the tests to use the real object implementation (but keeping the mocks object of the sensitive stuff like Database and "services" that are out of my context (http calls, etc...)) Or just change the mocks and stubs of the actual tests to use the real objects....... So the question is that, keep two tests or replace the stubs, mocks? And after that, I should keep designing with the mocks, stubs or just go with real objects? (Just making myself clear I'll keep the mock object of the sensitive stuff like database and services that are out of my context, in both situations.)

    Read the article

  • Recommendation for tool/framework that follows the naked objects pattern?

    - by Marcus Munzert
    I am searching for a tool/framework that follows the naked objects pattern and is written in Java. I know about tools like for instance JMatter, Naked Objects and Domain Object Explorer. That's not exactly what I am searching for, though. Open source would be great, but doesn't need to be. My intention is to use that tool/framework for the purpose of model-driven software development to do the modeling part. Ideally, such a tool/framework would provide the option to use JPA to store/load objects.

    Read the article

  • Rails validation count limit on has_many :through

    - by Jeremy
    I've got the following models: Team, Member, Assignment, Role The Team model has_many Members. Each Member has_many roles through assignments. Role assignments are Captain and Runner. I have also installed devise and CanCan using the Member model. What I need to do is limit each Team to have a max of 1 captain and 5 runners. I found this example, and it seemed to work after some customization, but on update ('teams/1/members/4/edit'). It doesn't work on create ('teams/1/members/new'). But my other validation (validates :role_ids, :presence = true ) does work on both update and create. Any help would be appreciated. Update: I've found this example that would seem to be similar to my problem but I can't seem to make it work for my app. It seems that the root of the problem lies with how the count (or size) is performed before and during validation. For Example: When updating a record... It checks to see how many runners there are on a team and returns a count. (i.e. 5) Then when I select a role(s) to add to the member it takes the known count from the database (i.e. 5) and adds the proposed changes (i.e. 1), and then runs the validation check. (Team.find(self.team_id).members.runner.count 5) This works fine because it returns a value of 6 and 6 5 so the proposed update fails without saving and an error is given. But when I try to create a new member on the team... It checks to see how many runners there are on a team and returns a count. (i.e. 5) Then when I select a role(s) to add to the member it takes the known count from the database (i.e. 5) and then runs the validation check WITHOUT factoring in the proposed changes. This doesn't work because it returns a value of 5 known runner and 5 = 5 so the proposed update passes and the new member and role is saved to the database with no error. Member Model: class Member < ActiveRecord::Base devise :database_authenticatable, :registerable, :recoverable, :rememberable, :trackable, :validatable attr_accessible :password, :password_confirmation, :remember_me attr_accessible :age, :email, :first_name, :last_name, :sex, :shirt_size, :team_id, :assignments_attributes, :role_ids belongs_to :team has_many :assignments, :dependent => :destroy has_many :roles, through: :assignments accepts_nested_attributes_for :assignments scope :runner, joins(:roles).where('roles.title = ?', "Runner") scope :captain, joins(:roles).where('roles.title = ?', "Captain") validate :validate_runner_count validate :validate_captain_count validates :role_ids, :presence => true def validate_runner_count if Team.find(self.team_id).members.runner.count > 5 errors.add(:role_id, 'Error - Max runner limit reached') end end def validate_captain_count if Team.find(self.team_id).members.captain.count > 1 errors.add(:role_id, 'Error - Max captain limit reached') end end def has_role?(role_sym) roles.any? { |r| r.title.underscore.to_sym == role_sym } end end Member Controller: class MembersController < ApplicationController load_and_authorize_resource :team load_and_authorize_resource :member, :through => :team before_filter :get_team before_filter :initialize_check_boxes, :only => [:create, :update] def get_team @team = Team.find(params[:team_id]) end def index respond_to do |format| format.html # index.html.erb format.json { render json: @members } end end def show respond_to do |format| format.html # show.html.erb format.json { render json: @member } end end def new respond_to do |format| format.html # new.html.erb format.json { render json: @member } end end def edit end def create respond_to do |format| if @member.save format.html { redirect_to [@team, @member], notice: 'Member was successfully created.' } format.json { render json: [@team, @member], status: :created, location: [@team, @member] } else format.html { render action: "new" } format.json { render json: @member.errors, status: :unprocessable_entity } end end end def update respond_to do |format| if @member.update_attributes(params[:member]) format.html { redirect_to [@team, @member], notice: 'Member was successfully updated.' } format.json { head :no_content } else format.html { render action: "edit" } format.json { render json: @member.errors, status: :unprocessable_entity } end end end def destroy @member.destroy respond_to do |format| format.html { redirect_to team_members_url } format.json { head :no_content } end end # Allow empty checkboxes # http://railscasts.com/episodes/17-habtm-checkboxes def initialize_check_boxes params[:member][:role_ids] ||= [] end end _Form Partial <%= form_for [@team, @member], :html => { :class => 'form-horizontal' } do |f| %> #... # testing the count... <ul> <li>Captain - <%= Team.find(@member.team_id).members.captain.size %></li> <li>Runner - <%= Team.find(@member.team_id).members.runner.size %></li> <li>Driver - <%= Team.find(@member.team_id).members.driver.size %></li> </ul> <div class="control-group"> <div class="controls"> <%= f.fields_for :roles do %> <%= hidden_field_tag "member[role_ids][]", nil %> <% Role.all.each do |role| %> <%= check_box_tag "member[role_ids][]", role.id, @member.role_ids.include?(role.id), id: dom_id(role) %> <%= label_tag dom_id(role), role.title %> <% end %> <% end %> </div> </div> #... <% end %>

    Read the article

  • I can't write to a folder which I'm a member of

    - by user3265472
    I'm trying to setup folder access to a group so that all members of that group can create/edit/delete files within the folder. # create my group and add a member sudo addgroup dev sudo adduser martyn dev Now, logged in as "martyn", check my user has been added to "dev" group groups martyn martyn : martyn dev Now I want to change the group ownership of my project folder so all members of that group can edit it and files/folders within it. sudo chgrp -R dev myproject Just to check: martyn@localhost:/var/www$ ls -l total 4 drwxrwxr-x 3 dev dev 4096 May 31 15:53 myproject Now here's where it fails. I want to create a file within myproject (logged in as "martyn", a member of "dev"): vi myproject/test ..but when I try to save the file I get the following error: "myproject/test" E212: Can't open file for writing Why, as user "martyn" which is a member of "dev", can I not write this file? Even if I create the file so it exists, change the ownership to "dev" then try to edit and save - I get the same error.

    Read the article

  • Mutable objects and hashCode

    - by robert
    Have the following class: public class Member { private int x; private long y; private double d; public Member(int x, long y, double d) { this.x = x; this.y = y; this.d = d; } @Override public int hashCode() { final int prime = 31; int result = 1; result = prime * result + x; result = (int) (prime * result + y); result = (int) (prime * result + Double.doubleToLongBits(d)); return result; } @Override public boolean equals(Object obj) { if (this == obj) { return true; } if (obj instanceof Member) { Member other = (Member) obj; return other.x == x && other.y == y && Double.compare(d, other.d) == 0; } return false; } public static void main(String[] args) { Set<Member> test = new HashSet<Member>(); Member b = new Member(1, 2, 3); test.add(b); System.out.println(b.hashCode()); b.x = 0; System.out.println(b.hashCode()); Member first = test.iterator().next(); System.out.println(test.contains(first)); System.out.println(b.equals(first)); System.out.println(test.add(first)); } } It produces the following results: 30814 29853 false true true Because the hashCode depends of the state of the object it can no longer by retrieved properly, so the check for containment fails. The HashSet in no longer working properly. A solution would be to make Member immutable, but is that the only solution? Should all classes added to HashSets be immutable? Is there any other way to handle the situation? Regards.

    Read the article

  • Advantage of using a static member function instead of an equivalent non-static member function?

    - by jonathanasdf
    I was wondering whether there's any advantages to using a static member function when there is a non-static equivalent. Will it result in faster execution (because of not having to care about all of the member variables), or maybe less use of memory (because of not being included in all instances)? Basically, the function I'm looking at is an utility function to rotate an integer array representing pixel colours an arbitrary number of degrees around an arbitrary centre point. It is placed in my abstract Bullet base class, since only the bullets will be using it and I didn't want the overhead of calling it in some utility class. It's a bit too long and used in every single derived bullet class, making it probably not a good idea to inline. How would you suggest I define this function? As a static member function of Bullet, of a non-static member function of Bullet, or maybe not as a member of Bullet but defined outside of the class in Bullet.h? What are the advantages and disadvantages of each?

    Read the article

  • Adding a website link to the Member Directory in DotNetNuke 6.2

    - by Chris Hammond
    In case you missed it, DotNetNuke 6.2 was released today, check out Will Morgenweck’s blog post for more details on the release . With some of the new features DotNetNuke 6.2 makes it easier to start to customize the listing of members on your site, and also the Profile display for users on the website. I started implementing DotNetNuke 6.2 on one of my racing websites last night (yeah, so I upgraded before the release happened, a benefit of working for the corp ). In doing so I configured the profile...(read more)

    Read the article

  • Mock Objects for Unit Testing

    - by user9009
    Hello How often QA engineers are responsible for developing Mock Objects for Unit Testing. So dealing with Mock Objects is just developer job ?. The reason i ask is i'm interested in QA as my career and am learning tools like JUnit , TestNG and couple of frameworks. I just want to know until what level of unit testing is done by developer and from what point QA engineer takes over testing for better test coverage ? Thanks

    Read the article

  • Dealing with selfish team member(s)

    - by thegreendroid
    My team is facing a difficult quandary, a couple of team members are essentially selfish (not to be confused with dominant!) and are cherry-picking stories/tasks that will give them the most recognition within the company (at sprint reviews etc. when all the stakeholders are present). These team members are very good at what they do and are fully aware of what they are doing. When we first started using agile about a year ago, I can say I was quite selfish too (coming from a very individual-focused past). I took ownership of certain stories and didn't involve anyone else in it, which in hindsight wasn't the right thing to do and I learnt from that experience almost immediately. We are a young team of very ambitious twenty somethings so I can understand the selfishness to some extent (after all everyone should be ambitious!). But the level to which this selfishness has reached of late has started to bother me and a few others within my team. The way I see it, agile/scrum is all about the team and not individuals. We should be looking out for each other and helping each other improve. I made this quite clear during our last retrospective, that we should be fair and give everyone a chance. I'll wait and see what comes out of it in the next few sprints. In the meantime, what are some of the troubles that you have faced with selfish members and how did you overcome them?

    Read the article

  • SQL Developer Data Modeler v3.3 Early Adopter: Link Model Objects Across Designs

    - by thatjeffsmith
    The third post in our “What’s New in SQL Developer Data Modeler v3.3” series, SQL Developer Data Modeler now allows you to link objects across models. If you need to catch up on the earlier posts, here are the first two: New and Improved Search Collaborative Design via Excel Today’s post is a very simple and straightforward discussion on how to share objects across models and designs. In previous releases you could easily copy and paste objects between models and designs. Simply select your object, right-click and select ‘Copy’ Once copied, paste it into your other designs and then make changes as required. Once you paste the object, it is no longer associated with the source it was copied from. You are free to make any changes you want in the new location without affecting the source material. And it works the other way as well – make any changes to the source material and the new object is also unaffected. However. What if you want to LINK a model object instead of COPYING it? In version 3.3, you can now do this. Simply drag and drop the object instead of copy and pasting it. Select the object, in this case a relational model table, and drag it to your other model. It’s as simple as it sounds, here’s a little animated GIF to show you what I’m talking about. Drag and drop between models/designs to LINK an object Notes The ‘linked’ object cannot be modified from the destination space Updating the source object will propagate the changes forward to wherever it’s been linked You can drag a linked object to another design, so dragging from A - B and then from B - C will work Linked objects are annotated in the model with a ‘Chain’ bitmap, see below This object has been linked from another design/model and cannot be modified. A very simple feature, but I like the flexibility here. Copy and paste = new independent object. Drag and drop = linked object.

    Read the article

  • June 2012 Oracle Technology Network Member Offers

    - by programmarketingOTN
    Happy Friday!  Here are some NEW offers just for Oracle Technology Network (OTN) Members! Oracle Store - Save 10% on Your Next Purchase from the Oracle Store. Oracle Press - Now get 40% off select Ebook titles as well! Packt Publishing Offers - Get 25% off the print books and 35% off the eBooks listed below. Oracle SOA Infrastructure Implementation Certification Handbook (1Z0-451) Oracle BPM Suite 11g Developer's cookbook Apress Offers - Get 40% off Ebook of Beginning Database Design.Murach Offers -  Get 30% off Murach’s Oracle SQL and PL/SQL Get discount codes and links to buy for these offers at the OTN Members Discount page.

    Read the article

  • Should I return iterators or more sophisticated objects?

    - by Erik
    Say I have a function that creates a list of objects. If I want to return an iterator, I'll have to return iter(a_list). Should I do this, or just return the list as it is? My motivation for returning an iterator is that this would keep the interface smaller -- what kind of container I create to collect the objects is essentially an implementation detail On the other hand, it would be wasteful if the user of my function may have to recreate the same container from the iterator which would be bad for performance.

    Read the article

  • which style of member-access is preferable

    - by itwasntpete
    the purpose of oop using classes is to encapsulate members from the outer space. i always read that accessing members should be done by methods. for example: template<typename T> class foo_1 { T state_; public: // following below }; the most common doing that by my professor was to have a get and set method. // variant 1 T const& getState() { return state_; } void setState(T const& v) { state_ = v; } or like this: // variant 2 // in my opinion it is easier to read T const& state() { return state_; } void state(T const& v) { state_ = v; } assume the state_ is a variable, which is checked periodically and there is no need to ensure the value (state) is consistent. Is there any disadvantage of accessing the state by reference? for example: // variant 3 // do it by reference T& state() { return state_; } or even directly, if I declare the variable as public. template<typename T> class foo { public: // variant 4 T state; }; In variant 4 I could even ensure consistence by using c++11 atomic. So my question is, which one should I prefer?, Is there any coding standard which would decline one of these pattern? for some code see here

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17  | Next Page >