Search Results

Search found 22098 results on 884 pages for 'service oriented architec'.

Page 110/884 | < Previous Page | 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117  | Next Page >

  • How to have a policy class implement a virtual function?

    - by dehmann
    I'm trying to design a policy-based class, where a certain interface is implemented by the policy itself, so the class derives from the policy, which itself is a template (I got this kind of thinking from Alexandrescu's book): #include <iostream> #include <vector> class TestInterface { public: virtual void test() = 0; }; class TestImpl1 { public: void test() {std::cerr << "Impl1" << std::endl;} }; template<class TestPolicy> class Foo : public TestInterface, TestPolicy { }; Then, in the main() function, I call test() on (potentially) various different objects that all implement the same interface: int main() { std::vector<TestInterface*> foos; foos.push_back(new Foo<TestImpl1>()); foos[0]->test(); delete foos[0]; return 0; } It doesn't compile, though, because the following virtual functions are pure within ‘Foo<TestImpl1>’: virtual void TestInterface::test() I thought TestInterface::test() is implemented because we derive from TestImpl1?

    Read the article

  • Observer pattern and violation of Single Principality Rule

    - by Devil Jin
    I have an applet which repaints itself once the text has changed Design 1: //MyApplet.java public class MyApplet extends Applet implements Listener{ private DynamicText text = null; public void init(){ text = new DynamicText("Welcome"); } public void paint(Graphics g){ g.drawString(text.getText(), 50, 30); } //implement Listener update() method public void update(){ repaint(); } } //DynamicText.java public class DynamicText implements Publisher{ // implements Publisher interface methods //notify listeners whenever text changes } Isn't this a violation of Single Responsibility Principle where my Applet not only acts as Applet but also has to do Listener job. Same way DynamicText class not only generates the dynamic text but updates the registered listeners. Design 2: //MyApplet.java public class MyApplet extends Applet{ private AppletListener appLstnr = null; public void init(){ appLstnr = new AppletListener(this); // applet stuff } } // AppletListener.java public class AppletListener implements Listener{ private Applet applet = null; public AppletListener(Applet applet){ this.applet = applet; } public void update(){ this.applet.repaint(); } } // DynamicText public class DynamicText{ private TextPublisher textPblshr = null; public DynamicText(TextPublisher txtPblshr){ this.textPblshr = txtPblshr; } // call textPblshr.notifyListeners whenever text changes } public class TextPublisher implments Publisher{ // implements publisher interface methods } Q1. Is design 1 a SPR violation? Q2. Is composition a better choice here to remove SPR violation as in design 2.

    Read the article

  • Best practices for handling math calculations in a flash project?

    - by VideoDnd
    I'm building a Flash project where it needs to handle some math, like an acceleration formula. My director has recommended a design pattern where I include the calculations directly in the flash object, but that doesn't seem like it's very good OOP. What's the best practice for calculations in Flash? Should it be a separate object, so I can keep the "non-Flash" parts together and out of the way? What are people's experiences with including it inline vs. keeping it separate?

    Read the article

  • MVC design question for forms

    - by kenny99
    Hi, I'm developing an app which has a large amount of related form data to be handled. I'm using a MVC structure and all of the related data is represented in my models, along with the handling of data validation from form submissions. I'm looking for some advice on a good way to approach laying out my controllers - basically I will have a huge form which will be broken down into manageable categories (similar to a credit card app) where the user progresses through each stage/category filling out the answers. All of these form categories are related to the main relation/object, but not to each other. Does it make more sense to have each subform/category as a method in the main controller class (which will make that one controller fairly massive), or would it be better to break each category into a subclass of the main controller? It may be just for neatness that the second approach is better, but I'm struggling to see much of a difference between either creating a new method for each category (which communicates with the model and outputs errors/success) or creating a new controller to handle the same functionality. Thanks in advance for any guidance!

    Read the article

  • Proper way to set object instance variables

    - by ensnare
    I'm writing a class to insert users into a database, and before I get too far in, I just want to make sure that my OO approach is clean: class User(object): def setName(self,name): #Do sanity checks on name self._name = name def setPassword(self,password): #Check password length > 6 characters #Encrypt to md5 self._password = password def commit(self): #Commit to database >>u = User() >>u.setName('Jason Martinez') >>u.setPassword('linebreak') >>u.commit() Is this the right approach? Should I declare class variables up top? Should I use a _ in front of all the class variables to make them private? Thanks for helping out.

    Read the article

  • Can simple javascript inheritance be simplified even further?

    - by Will
    John Resig (of jQuery fame) provides a concise and elegant way to allow simple JavaScript inheritance. It was so short and sweet, in fact, that it inspired me to try and simplify it even further (see code below). I've modified his original function such that it still passes all his tests and has the potential advantage of: readability (50% less code) simplicity (you don't have to be a ninja to understand it) performance (no extra wrappers around super/base method calls) consistency with C#'s base keyword Because this seems almost too good to be true, I want to make sure my logic doesn't have any fundamental flaws/holes/bugs, or if anyone has additional suggestions to improve or refute the code (perhaps even John Resig could chime in here!). Does anyone see anything wrong with my approach (below) vs. John Resig's original approach? if (!window.Class) { window.Class = function() {}; window.Class.extend = function(members) { var prototype = new this(); for (var i in members) prototype[i] = members[i]; prototype.base = this.prototype; function object() { if (object.caller == null && this.initialize) this.initialize.apply(this, arguments); } object.constructor = object; object.prototype = prototype; object.extend = arguments.callee; return object; }; } And the tests (below) are nearly identical to the original ones except for the syntax around base/super method calls (for the reason enumerated above): var Person = Class.extend( { initialize: function(isDancing) { this.dancing = isDancing; }, dance: function() { return this.dancing; } }); var Ninja = Person.extend( { initialize: function() { this.base.initialize(false); }, dance: function() { return this.base.dance(); }, swingSword: function() { return true; } }); var p = new Person(true); alert("true? " + p.dance()); // => true var n = new Ninja(); alert("false? " + n.dance()); // => false alert("true? " + n.swingSword()); // => true alert("true? " + (p instanceof Person && p instanceof Class && n instanceof Ninja && n instanceof Person && n instanceof Class));

    Read the article

  • How does this code break the Law of Demeter?

    - by Dave Jarvis
    The following code breaks the Law of Demeter: public class Student extends Person { private Grades grades; public Student() { } /** Must never return null; throw an appropriately named exception, instead. */ private synchronized Grades getGrades() throws GradesException { if( this.grades == null ) { this.grades = createGrades(); } return this.grades; } /** Create a new instance of grades for this student. */ protected Grades createGrades() throws GradesException { // Reads the grades from the database, if needed. // return new Grades(); } /** Answers if this student was graded by a teacher with the given name. */ public boolean isTeacher( int year, String name ) throws GradesException, TeacherException { // The method only knows about Teacher instances. // return getTeacher( year ).nameEquals( name ); } private Grades getGradesForYear( int year ) throws GradesException { // The method only knows about Grades instances. // return getGrades().getForYear( year ); } private Teacher getTeacher( int year ) throws GradesException, TeacherException { // This method knows about Grades and Teacher instances. A mistake? // return getGradesForYear( year ).getTeacher(); } } public class Teacher extends Person { public Teacher() { } /** * This method will take into consideration first name, * last name, middle initial, case sensitivity, and * eventually it could answer true to wild cards and * regular expressions. */ public boolean nameEquals( String name ) { return getName().equalsIgnoreCase( name ); } /** Never returns null. */ private synchronized String getName() { if( this.name == null ) { this.name == ""; } return this.name; } } Questions How is the LoD broken? Where is the code breaking the LoD? How should the code be written to uphold the LoD?

    Read the article

  • How can I improve this design?

    - by klausbyskov
    Let's assume that our system can perform actions, and that an action requires some parameters to do its work. I have defined the following base class for all actions (simplified for your reading pleasure): public abstract class BaseBusinessAction<TActionParameters> : where TActionParameters : IActionParameters { protected BaseBusinessAction(TActionParameters actionParameters) { if (actionParameters == null) throw new ArgumentNullException("actionParameters"); this.Parameters = actionParameters; if (!ParametersAreValid()) throw new ArgumentException("Valid parameters must be supplied", "actionParameters"); } protected TActionParameters Parameters { get; private set; } protected abstract bool ParametersAreValid(); public void CommonMethod() { ... } } Only a concrete implementation of BaseBusinessAction knows how to validate that the parameters passed to it are valid, and therefore the ParametersAreValid is an abstract function. However, I want the base class constructor to enforce that the parameters passed are always valid, so I've added a call to ParametersAreValid to the constructor and I throw an exception when the function returns false. So far so good, right? Well, no. Code analysis is telling me to "not call overridable methods in constructors" which actually makes a lot of sense because when the base class's constructor is called the child class's constructor has not yet been called, and therefore the ParametersAreValid method may not have access to some critical member variable that the child class's constructor would set. So the question is this: How do I improve this design? Do I add a Func<bool, TActionParameters> parameter to the base class constructor? If I did: public class MyAction<MyParameters> { public MyAction(MyParameters actionParameters, bool something) : base(actionParameters, ValidateIt) { this.something = something; } private bool something; public static bool ValidateIt() { return something; } } This would work because ValidateIt is static, but I don't know... Is there a better way? Comments are very welcome.

    Read the article

  • Choosing the right web service

    - by Ratan Sharma
    My website currently working in ASP.NET 1.1 Old Process In our database we have huge amount of data stored for a decoding purpose. We have to update this huge set of data table each week(Data is supplied from a vendor). In our website (in asp.net 1.1) we query our database to decode information. New process Now instead of storing data in our database and query them, we want to replace this through the web service, AS now the vendor is supplying us a DLL, which will give us the decoded information. Information on the DLL provided by the vendor The DLL provided, can only be added in 4.0 sites. SO that also impleies that i can not directly add the dll to my 1.1 site. This DLL is exposing certain methods, we simply have to add the DLL refernce in our web service and call the method and fetch the needed information. Thus we will not have to store those information in our database. So which type of web service I should go for (asmx OR WCF) that will use the DLLs provided by vendor to fetch the decoded information ?? Flexibility i am looking for in the web service are: It can be consumed from asp.net 1.1 site directly and also using jQuery ajax. It can be consumed from other web services running on the server. It can be consumed from some windows services running from the server. NOTE : Moreover we have a plan to migrate our website from asp.net 1.1 to 4.0 version in future.So it should be that much supportive for future upgrade.

    Read the article

  • Validating class and superclass on RoR

    - by Luís Guilherme
    In ruby, you have an attribute called "type" which is the class of the object. Rails stores this at the database in a column called type. So, if I have several blog "types", I can do something like this def create @blog = Blog.new(params[:blog]) @blog[:type] = params[:blog][:type] # ... end If I add someone like this, and then load it, and ask its class (for instance, at the console), I have the right class name answered back. However, when I save it afterwards, rails will run only the superclass validators, not the ones I defined in the subclass. How should I make rails run the subclass validators?

    Read the article

  • Branchless memory manager?

    - by Richard Fabian
    Anyone thought about how to write a memory manager (in C++) that is completely branch free? I've written a pool, a stack, a queue, and a linked list (allocating from the pool), but I am wondering how plausible it is to write a branch free general memory manager. This is all to help make a really reusable framework for doing solid concurrent, in-order CPU, and cache friendly development. Edit: by branchless I mean without doing direct or indirect function calls, and without using ifs. I've been thinking that I can probably implement something that first changes the requested size to zero for false calls, but haven't really got much more than that. I feel that it's not impossible, but the other aspect of this exercise is then profiling it on said "unfriendly" processors to see if it's worth trying as hard as this to avoid branching.

    Read the article

  • When should I use Dependency Injection and when utility methods?

    - by Roman
    I have a Java EE project with Spring IoC container. I've just found in Utils class static method sendMail(long list of params). I don't know why but I feel that it would look better if we had separate class (Spring bean with singleton scope) which will be responsible for sending email. But I can't find any arguments which can prove my position. So, are there any pros (or cons) in using DI in this (rather general) situation?

    Read the article

  • Easiest (simple) explanation of "prototype" in JavaScript?

    - by alexeypro
    Hello, Can somebody give me a resource (or just explanation? :-) of what "prototype" is and how it works in Javascript. May be comparison with something in Java? (not really necessary). But it should be as simple/easy as possible so inexperienced person just learning Javascript would understand (need to explain this to jr designer who is proficient with CSS/HTML, but not with Javascript). Thank you!

    Read the article

  • Testing chess game

    - by mousey
    There is a software for chess game and we need to test the following method: boolean canMoveTo(int x, int y) x and y are the coordinates of the chess board and it returns true/false whether the piece can move to that position or not. We need to test this method for a pawn piece and you can set up the board any way you like prior to running a test case. Source code is not provided

    Read the article

  • Converting a pointer for a base class into an inherited class

    - by Shawn B
    Hey, I'm working on a small roguelike game, and for any object/"thing" that is not a part of the map is based off an XEntity class. There are several classes that depend on it, such as XPlayer, XItem, and XMonster. My problem is, that I want to convert a pointer from XEntity to XItem when I know that an object is in item. The sample code I am using to pick up an item is this, it is when a different entity picks up an item it is standing over. void XEntity::PickupItem() { XEntity *Ent = MapList; // Start of a linked list while(true) { if(Ent == NULL) { break; } if(Ent->Flags & ENT_ITEM) { Ent->RemoveEntity(); // Unlink from the map's linked list XItem *Item = Ent // Problem is here, type-safety // Code to link into inventory is here break; } Ent = Ent->MapList; } } My first thought was to create a method in XEntity that returns itself as an XItem pointer, but it creates circular dependencies that are unresolvable. I'm pretty stumped about this one. Any help is greatly appreciated.

    Read the article

  • Dynamically add a field to an object in matlab

    - by Marc
    Say I have a MATLAB object defined in a class file classdef foo properties bar end end And I create a foo object myfoo = foo(); Now I want to add another field to foo dynamically. What I want is foo.newfield = 42; but this will throw an error. I know there is a way to dynamically add a field/property to a MATLAB object but I can't remember it or find it easily in the help. Anyone know the syntax?

    Read the article

  • c# Attribute Question

    - by Petoj
    Well i need some help here i don't know how to solve this problem. the function of the attribute is to determine if the function can be run... So what i need is the following: The consumer of the attribute should be able to determine if it can be executed. The owner of the attribute should be able to tell the consumer that now it can/can't be executed (like a event). It must have a simple syntax. This is what i have so far but it only implements point 1, 3. [AttributeUsage(AttributeTargets.Method, AllowMultiple = false)] public class ExecuteMethodAttribute : Attribute { private Func<object, bool> canExecute; public Func<object, bool> CanExecute { get { return canExecute; } } public ExecuteMethodAttribute() { } public ExecuteMethodAttribute(Func<object, bool> canExecute) { this.canExecute = canExecute; } }

    Read the article

  • What is a Windows scripting language that: does not rely on .NET and offers the most OOP support and

    - by jJack
    What is a Windows scripting language that: does not rely on .NET and offers the most OOP support and has simplest deployment? It doesn't necessarily need to be a scripting language; It can be in the form of a compiled executable, however it needs to be self contained--only ONE file, no DLL's and it cannot be declared to "include" other files. I cannot rely on the user having any .NET installed and it needs to be able to run on Windows 7 64 bit. By "most OOP support", I basically mean anything that has better OOP support than VBScript. A little context: Everything I have done thus far is in VBScript and writes a bunch of data into an .html file, which in the end is to be viewed by Internet Explorer. It also zips up a bunch of directories and files. It heavily relies on accessing the registry, file-system, and WMI (I can probably do without accessing WMI though, as long as I have good registry access). I can bring myself to code in any language so long as it meets me ridonkulous requirements stated above. I look forward to some good answers from those more experienced than I.

    Read the article

  • Why are alloc and init called separately in Objective-C?

    - by André Hoffmann
    Note: I'm relatively new to Objective-C and am coming from Java and PHP. Could someone explain to me why I always have to first allocate and then initialize an instance? Couldn't this be done in the init methods like this: + (MyClass*)init { MyClass *instance = [MyClass alloc]; [instance setFoo:@"bla"]; return instance; } + (MyClass*)initWithString:(NSString*)text { MyClass *instance = [MyClass init]; [instance setFoo:text]; return instance; } ... Is this just a relict from the old C days or is there something that I'm not seeing? I know this isn't a problem as I could as well always call alloc and init, but since it's a bit tedious I'd like to at least know why I'm doing it. I'm liking the expressiveness of the language so far, but this is something that I want to fully understand in order to think the Objective-C way. Thank you!

    Read the article

  • how does object programming work?

    - by venom
    Hello, I am not sure about some things in oop. If I have Class1, which has some private field, for example private Field field1, and make getField1(){return field1;} then I have some class with constructor public Class2(Field field){someMethod(field);} And then I call constructor of Class2 in Class3 like: Class2 cl = new Class2(instanceOfClass1.getField1()); And now the question: Am I working with field1 of instanceOfClass1 in "someMethod(field)"?

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117  | Next Page >