Search Results

Search found 12934 results on 518 pages for 'magic methods'.

Page 116/518 | < Previous Page | 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123  | Next Page >

  • XNA - Obtaining depth from the scene's render target?

    - by user1423893
    I'm currently rendering my scene to a render target so it can be used for rendering methods such as post processing and order independent transparency. rtScene = new RenderTarget2D( GraphicsDevice, GraphicsDevice.PresentationParameters.BackBufferWidth, GraphicsDevice.PresentationParameters.BackBufferHeight, false, SurfaceFormat.Rgba64, DepthFormat.Depth24Stencil8, // Requires a depth format for objects to be drawn correctly (e.g. wireframe model surrounding model) 0, RenderTargetUsage.PreserveContents ); I am required to use RenderTargetUsage.PreserveContents so that the same render target can be rendered to multiple times, once for each of the draw methods below. DrawBackground DrawDeferred DrawForward DrawTransparent The problem is that DrawTransparent requires a copy of the scene's depth as a texture. Is there any way to obtain this from the scene render target above (rtScene)? I can't have more than one render target with RenderTargetUsage.PreserveContents as this causes problems on hardware such as the XBOX 360, so rendering the depth to a separate render target at the same time as I render the scene isn't possible as far as I can tell. Would I be able to get around this problem by "Ping-Ponging" two render targets (using the more compatible RenderTargetUsage.DiscardContents) and using the result for the depth texture?

    Read the article

  • Dependency Injection and method signatures

    - by sunwukung
    I've been using YADIF (yet another dependency injection framework) in a PHP/Zend app I'm working on to handle dependencies. This has achieved some notable benefits in terms of testing and decoupling classes. However,one thing that strikes me is that despite the sleight of hand performed when using this technique, the method names impart a degree of coupling. Probably not the best example -but these methods are distinct from ... say the PEAR Mailer. The method names themselves are a (subtle) form of coupling //example public function __construct($dic){ $this->dic = $dic; } public function example(){ //this line in itself indicates the YADIF origin of the DIC $Mail= $dic->getComponent('mail'); $Mail->setBodyText($body); $Mail->setFrom($from); $Mail->setSubject($subject); } I could write a series of proxies/wrappers to hide these methods and thus promote decoupling from , but this seems a bit excessive. You have to balance purity with pragmatism... How far would you go to hide the dependencies in your classes?

    Read the article

  • FP for simulation and modelling

    - by heaptobesquare
    I'm about to start a simulation/modelling project. I already know that OOP is used for this kind of projects. However, studying Haskell made me consider using the FP paradigm for modelling a system of components. Let me elaborate: Let's say I have a component of type A, characterised by a set of data (a parameter like temperature or pressure,a PDE and some boundary conditions,etc.) and a component of type B, characterised by a different set of data(different or same parameter, different PDE and boundary conditions). Let's also assume that the functions/methods that are going to be applied on each component are the same (a Galerkin method for example). If I were to use an OOP approach, I would create two objects that would encapsulate each type's data, the methods for solving the PDE(inheritance would be used here for code reuse) and the solution to the PDE. On the other hand, if I were to use an FP approach, each component would be broken down to data parts and the functions that would act upon the data in order to get the solution for the PDE. This approach seems simpler to me assuming that linear operations on data would be trivial and that the parameters are constant. What if the parameters are not constant(for example, temperature increases suddenly and therefore cannot be immutable)? In OOP, the object's (mutable) state can be used. I know that Haskell has Monads for that. To conclude, would implementing the FP approach be actually simpler,less time consuming and easier to manage (add a different type of component or new method to solve the pde) compared to the OOP one? I come from a C++/Fortran background, plus I'm not a professional programmer, so correct me on anything that I've got wrong.

    Read the article

  • Understanding interfaces [closed]

    - by user985482
    Possible Duplicate: When to use abstract classes instead of interfaces and extension methods in C#? Why are interfaces useful? What is the point of an interface? What other reasons are there to write interfaces rather than abstract classes? What is the point of having every service class have an interface? Is it bad habit not using interfaces? I am reading Microsoft Visual C# 2010 Step by Step which I feel it is a very good book on introducing you to the C# language. I have just finished reading a chapter on interfaces and although I understood the syntax of creating and using interfaces I have trouble of understanding the point on why should I use them? Correct me If I am wrong but in an interface you can only declare methods names and parameters.The body of the method should be declared in the class that inherits the interface. So in this case why should I declare an interface if I am going to declare the entire method in the class that inherits that interface? What is the point? Does this have something to do with the fact that a class can inherit multiple interfaces?

    Read the article

  • Command Query Separation

    - by Liam McLennan
    Command query separation is a strategy, proposed by Bertrand Meyer, that each of an object’s methods should be either a command or a query. A command is an operation that changes the state of a system, and a query is an operation that returns a value. This is not the same thing as CQRS, hence why I think that CQRS is poorly named. An Example of Command Query Separation Consider a system that models books and shelves. There is a rule that a shelf may not be removed if it holds any books. One way to implement the removal is to write a method Shelf.Remove() that internally checks to make sure that the shelf is empty before removing it. If the shelf is not empty then it is not removed and an error is returned. To implement this feature following the principle of command query separation would require two methods, one to query the shelf and determine if it is empty and a second method to remove the shelf. Separating the query from the command makes the shelf class simpler to use because the state change is clear and explicit.

    Read the article

  • Generating random tunnels

    - by IVlad
    What methods could we use to generate a random tunnel, similar to the one in this classic helicopter game? Other than that it should be smooth and allow you to navigate through it, while looking as natural as possible (not too symmetric but not overly distorted either), it should also: Most importantly - be infinite and allow me to control its thickness in time - make it narrower or wider as I see fit, when I see fit; Ideally, it should be possible to efficiently generate it with smooth curves, not rectangles as in the above game; I should be able to know in advance what its bounds are, so I can detect collisions and generate powerups inside the tunnel; Any other properties that let you have more control over it or offer optimization possibilities are welcome. Note: I'm not asking for which is best or what that game uses, which could spark extended discussion and would be subjective, I'm just asking for some methods that others know about or have used before or even think they might work. That is all, I can take it from there. Also asked on stackoverflow, where someone suggested I should ask here too. I think it fits in both places, since it's as much an algorithm question as it is a gamedev question, IMO.

    Read the article

  • Must all AI states be able to react to any event?

    - by Prog
    FSMs implemented with the State design pattern are a common way to design AI agents. I am familiar with the State design pattern and know how to implement it. How is this used in games to design AI agents? Consider a simplified class Monster, representing an AI agent: class Monster { State state; // other fields omitted public void update(){ // called every game-loop cycle state.execute(this); } public void setState(State state){ this.state = state; } // irrelevant stuff omitted } There are several State subclasses implementing execute() differently. So far, classic State pattern. AI agents are subject to environmental effects and other objects communicating with them. For example, an AI agent might tell another AI agent to attack (i.e. agent.attack()). Or a fireball might tell an AI agent to fall down. This means that the agent must have methods such as attack() and fallDown(), or commonly some message receiving mechanism to understand such messages. With an FSM, the current State of the agent should be the one taking care of such method calls - i.e. the agent delegates to the current state upon every event. Is this correct? If correct, how is this done? Are all states obligated by their superclass to implement methods such as attack(), fallDown() etc., so the agent can always delegate to them on almost every event? Or is it done in some other way?

    Read the article

  • Is the Entity Component System architecture object oriented by definition?

    - by tieTYT
    Is the Entity Component System architecture object oriented, by definition? It seems more procedural or functional to me. My opinion is that it doesn't prevent you from implementing it in an OO language, but it would not be idiomatic to do so in a staunchly OO way. It seems like ECS separates data (E & C) from behavior (S). As evidence: The idea is to have no game methods embedded in the entity. And: The component consists of a minimal set of data needed for a specific purpose Systems are single purpose functions that take a set of entities which have a specific component I think this is not object oriented because a big part of being object oriented is combining your data and behavior together. As evidence: In contrast, the object-oriented approach encourages the programmer to place data where it is not directly accessible by the rest of the program. Instead, the data is accessed by calling specially written functions, commonly called methods, which are bundled in with the data. ECS, on the other hand, seems to be all about separating your data from your behavior.

    Read the article

  • How to choose between using a Domain Event, or letting the application layer orchestrate everything

    - by Mr Happy
    I'm setting my first steps into domain driven design, bought the blue book and all, and I find myself seeing three ways to implement a certain solution. For the record: I'm not using CQRS or Event Sourcing. Let's say a user request comes into the application service layer. The business logic for that request is (for whatever reason) separated into a method on an entity, and a method on a domain service. How should I go about calling those methods? The options I have gathered so far are: Let the application service call both methods Use method injection/double dispatch to inject the domain service into the entity, letting the entity do it's thing and then let it call the method of the domain service (or the other way around, letting the domain service call the method on the entity) Raise a domain event in the entity method, a handler of which calls the domain service. (The kind of domain events I'm talking about are: http://www.udidahan.com/2009/06/14/domain-events-salvation/) I think these are all viable, but I'm unable to choose between them. I've been thinking about this a long time and I've come to a point where I no longer see the semantic differences between the three. Do you know of some guidelines when to use what?

    Read the article

  • How can I reduce the amount of time it takes to fully regression test an application ready for release?

    - by DrLazer
    An app I work on is being developed with a modified version of scrum. If you are not familiar with scrum, it's just an alternative approach to a more traditional watefall model, where a series of features are worked on for a set amount of time known as a sprint. The app is written in C# and makes use of WPF. We use Visual C# 2010 Express edition as an IDE. If we work on a sprint and add in a few new features, but do not plan to release until a further sprint is complete, then regression testing is not an issue as such. We just test the new features and give the app a good once over. However, if a release is planned that our customers can download - a full regression test is factored in. In the past this wasn't a big deal, it took 3 or 4 days and the devs simply fix up any bugs found in the regression phase, but now, as the app is getting larger and larger and incorporating more and more features, the regression is spanning out for weeks. I am interested in any methods that people know of or use that can decrease this time. At the moment the only ideas I have are to either start writing Unit Tests, which I have never fully tried out in a commercial environment, or to research the possibilty of any UI Automation API's or tools that would allow me to write a program to perform a series of batch tests. I know literally nothing about the possibilities of UI automation so any information would be valuable. I don't know that much about Unit testing either, how complicated can the tests be? Is it possible to get Unit tests to use the UI? Are there any other methods I should consider? Thanks for reading, and for any advice in advance.

    Read the article

  • Should this code/logic be included in Business Objects class or a separate class?

    - by aspdotnetuser
    I have created a small application which has a three tier architecture and I have business object classes to represent entities such as User, Orders, UserType etc. In these classes I have methods that are executed when the Constuctor method of, for example, User is called. These methods perform calculations and generate details that setup data for attributes that are part of each User object. Here is the structure for the project in Visual Studio: Here is some code from the business object class User.cs: Public Class User { public string Name { get; set; } public int RandomNumber { get; set; } etc public User { Name = GetName(); RandomNumber = GetRandomNumber(); } public string GetName() { .... return name; } public int GetRandomNumber() { ... return randomNumber; } } Should this logic be included in the Business Object classes or should it be included in a Utilities class of some kind? Or in the business rules?

    Read the article

  • How to pass an interface to Java from Unity code?

    - by nickbadal
    First, let me say that this is my first experience with Unity, so the answer may be right under my nose. I've also posted this question on Unity's answers site, but plugin questions don't seem to be as frequently answered there. I'm trying to create a plugin that allows me to access an SDK from my game. I can call SDK methods just fine using AndroidJavaObject and I can pass data to them with no issue. But there are some SDK methods that require an interface to be passed. For example, my Java function: public void attemptLogin(String username, String password, LoginListener listener); Where listener; is a callback interface. I would normally run this code from Java as such: attemptLogin("username", "password", new LoginListener() { @Override public void onSuccess() { //Yay! do some stuff in the game } @Override public void onFailure(int error) { //Uh oh, find out what happened based on error } }); Is there a way to pass a C# interface through JNI/Unity to my attemptLogin function? Or is there a way to create a mimic-ing interface in C# that I can call from inside the Java code (and pass in any kind of parameter)? Thanks in advance! :)

    Read the article

  • Motivation for service layer (instead of just copying dlls)?

    - by BornToCode
    I'm creating an application which has 2 different UIs so I'm making it with a service layer which I understood is appropriate for such case. However I found myself just creating web methods for every single method I have in the BL layer, so the services basically built from methods that looks like this: return customers_bl.Get_Customer_Prices(customer_id); I understood that a main point of the service layer is to prevent duplication of code so I asked myself - well, why not just import the BL.dll (and the DAL.dll) to the other UI, and whenever making a change re-copy the dll files, it might not be so 'neat', but is the all purpose of the service layer to prevent this? {I know something is wrong in my approach, I'm probably missing the importance of service layer, I'd like to get more motivation to create another layer, especially because as it is I found that many of my BL functions ALREADY looks like: return customers_dal.Get_Customer_Prices(cust_id) which led me to ask: was it really necessary to create the BL just because on several functions I actually have LOGIC inside the BL?} so I'm looking for more motivation to creating ONE MORE layer, I'm sure it's not just to make it more convenient that I won't have to re-copy the dlls on changes? Am I grasping it wrong? Any simple guidelines on how to design service layer (corresponding to all the BL layer functions or not? any simple example?) any enlightenment on the subject?

    Read the article

  • Motivation for a service layer (instead of just copying dlls)?

    - by BornToCode
    I'm creating an application which has 2 different UIs so I'm making it with a service layer which I understood is appropriate for such scenario. However I found myself just creating web methods for every single method I have in the BL layer, so the services basically built from methods that looks like this: return customers_bl.Get_Customer_Prices(customer_id); I understood that a main point of the service layer is to prevent duplication of code so I asked myself - why not just import the BL.DLL (and the dal.dll) to the other UI, and whenever making a change re-copy the dlls, it might not be so 'neat', but still less hassle than one more layer? {I know something is wrong in my approach, I'm probably missing the importance of service layer, I'd like to get more motivation to create another layer, especially because as it is I found that many of my BL functions ALREADY looks like: return customers_dal.Get_Customer_Prices(cust_id) which led me to ask: was it really necessary to create the BL just because on several functions I actually have LOGIC inside the BL?} so I'm looking for more motivation to creating ONE MORE layer, I'm sure it's not just to make it more convenient that I won't have to re-copy the dlls on changes? Am I grasping it wrong? Any simple guidelines on how to design service layer (corresponding to all the BL layer functions or not? any simple example?) any enlightenment on the subject?

    Read the article

  • Create a rectangle struct to be rotated and have a .Intersects() function

    - by MintyAnt
    In my XNA program, I am trying to swing a sword. The sword starts at an angle of 180 degrees, then rotates (clockwise) to an angle of 90 degrees. The Rectangle struct that XNA provides, Rectangle mAttackBox = new Rectangle(int x, int y, int width, int height); However, this struct has two problems: Holds position and size in Integers, not Floats Cannot be rotated I was hoping someone could help me in either telling me that i'm wrong and the Rectangle can be used for both these methods, or can lead me down the right path for rotating a rectangle. I know how to create a Struct. I believe that I can make methods like classes. I can determine the 4 vertices of a 2D rectangle by calculating out the x,y of the other 3 given the length, width. I'm sure theres a Matrix class I can use to multiply each point against a Rotation matrix. But once i have my 4 vertices, I got two other problems: - How do I test other rectangles against it? How does .Intersects() work for the rectangle struct? - Is this even the fastest way to do it? I'd be constantly doing matrix multiplication, wouldnt that slow things down?

    Read the article

  • Combinatorial explosion of interfaces: How many is too many?

    - by mga
    I'm a relative newcomer to OOP, and I'm having a bit of trouble creating good designs when it comes to interfaces. Consider a class A with N public methods. There are a number of other classes, B, C, ..., each of which interacts with A in a different way, that is, accesses some subset (<= N) of A's methods. The maximum degree of encapsulation is achieved by implementing an interface of A for each other class, i.e. AInterfaceForB, AInterfaceForC, etc. However, if B, C, ... etc. also interact with A and with each other, then there will be a combinatorial explosion of interfaces (a maximum of n(n-1), to be precise), and the benefit of encapsulation becomes outweighed by a code-bloat. What is the best practice in this scenario? Is the whole idea of restricting access to a class's public functions in different ways for other different classes just silly altogether? One could imagine a language that explicitly allows for this sort of encapsulation (e.g. instead of declaring a function public, one could specify exactly which classes it is visible to); Since this is not a feature of C++, maybe it's misguided to try to do it through the back door with interaces?

    Read the article

  • I cannot change the grub Default item from OS-1, but I can from OS-2 (dual-boot 10.04 on both)

    - by fred.bear
    My 10.04 system (OS-1) got into a tangle the other day, so I installed a second, dual-boot 10.04 (OS-2), so that I could trouble-shoot the hung system... In case it is relevant to my question, I'll mention that since I got OS-1 working again, it has shown a few battle wounds from its ordeal (.. actually the ordeal was mine ... trying to figure it all out ;) ... I lost some custom settings, but not all. (For the curious: the hangup was caused by rsync writing 600 GB to OS-1's 320 GB drive.. The destination drive was unmounted at the time, and rsync dutifully wrote directly to /media/usb_back; filling it to capacity... I have since, ammended my script :) Because the dual-boot MBR was prepared by OS-2, it is first on the grub list.. However, I want OS-1 to be the default OS to boot... From OS-1, I tried two methods to change the grub-menu's defaule OS. eg. Directly editing /etc/default/grub (then update-grub) Running 'Startup Manager' (then update-grub) Neither of these methods had any effect... so I started OS-2, and tried method 1... It worked! Why can I not change the grub menu from OS-1? .. or if it can be done, How?

    Read the article

  • In developing a soap client proxy, which return structure is easier to use and more sensible?

    - by cori
    I'm writing (in PHP) a client/proxy for a SOAP web service. The return types are consistently wrapped in response objects that contain the return values. In many cases this make a lot of sense - for instance when multiple values are being returned: GetDetailsResponse Object ( Results Object ( [TotalResults] => 10 [NextPage] => 2 ) [Details] => Array ( [0] => Detail Object ( [Id] => 1 ) ) ) But some of the methods return a single scalar value or a single object or array wrapped in a response object: GetThingummyIdResponse Object ( [ThingummyId] => 42 ) In some cases these objects might be pretty deep, so getting at properties within requires drilling down several layers: $response->Details->Detail[0]->Contents->Item[5]->Id And if I unwrap them before passing them back I can strip out a layer from consumers' code. I know I'm probably being a little bit of an Architecture Astronaut here, but the latter style really bug me, so I've been working through my code to have my proxy methods just return the scalar value to the client code where there's no absolute need for a wrapper object. My question is, am I actually making things more difficult for the consumers of my code? Would I be better off just leaving the return values wrapped in response objects so that everything is consistent, or is removing unneccessary layers of indirection/abstraction worthwhile?

    Read the article

  • Using the Coherence ConcurrentMap Interface (Locking API)

    - by jpurdy
    For many developers using Coherence, the first place they look for concurrency control is the com.tangosol.util.ConcurrentMap interface (part of the NamedCache interface). The ConcurrentMap interface includes methods for explicitly locking data. Despite the obvious appeal of a lock-based API, these methods should generally be avoided for a variety of reasons: They are very "chatty" in that they can't be bundled with other operations (such as get and put) and there are no collection-based versions of them. Locks do directly not impact mutating calls (including puts and entry processors), so all code must make explicit lock requests before modifying (or in some cases reading) cache entries. They require coordination of all code that may mutate the objects, including the need to lock at the same level of granularity (there is no built-in lock hierarchy and thus no concept of lock escalation). Even if all code is properly coordinated (or there's only one piece of code), failure during updates that may leave a collection of changes to a set of objects in a partially committed state. There is no concept of a read-only lock. In general, use of locking is highly discouraged for most applications. Instead, the use of entry processors provides a far more efficient approach, at the cost of some additional complexity.

    Read the article

  • Interfaces: profit of using

    - by Zapadlo
    First of all, my ubiquitous language is PHP, and I'm thinking about learning Java. So let me split my question on two closely related parts. Here goes the first part. Say I have a domain-model class. It has some getters, setters, some query methods etc. And one day I want to have a possibility to compare them. So it looks like: class MyEntity extends AbstractEntity { public function getId() { // get id property } public function setId($id) { // set id property } // plenty of other methods that set or retrieve data public function compareTo(MyEntity $anotherEntity) { // some compare logic } } If it would have been Java, I should have implemented a Comparable interface. But why? Polymorphism? Readbility? Or something else? And if it was PHP -- should I create Comparable interface for myself? So here goes the second part. My colleague told me that it is a rule of thumb in Java to create an interface for every behavioral aspect of the class. For example, if I wanted to present this object as a string, I should state this behaviour by something like implements Stringable, where in case of PHP Stringable would look like: interface Stringable { public function __toString(); } Is that really a rule of thumb? What benefits are gained with this approach? And does it worth it in PHP? And in Java?

    Read the article

  • Adding functionality to any TextReader

    - by strager
    I have a Location class which represents a location somewhere in a stream. (The class isn't coupled to any specific stream.) The location information will be used to match tokens to location in the input in my parser, to allow for nicer error reporting to the user. I want to add location tracking to a TextReader instance. This way, while reading tokens, I can grab the location (which is updated by the TextReader as data is read) and give it to the token during the tokenization process. I am looking for a good approach on accomplishing this goal. I have come up with several designs. Manual location tracking Every time I need to read from the TextReader, I call AdvanceString on the Location object of the tokenizer with the data read. Advantages Very simple. No class bloat. No need to rewrite the TextReader methods. Disadvantages Couples location tracking logic to tokenization process. Easy to forget to track something (though unit testing helps with this). Bloats existing code. Plain TextReader wrapper Create a LocatedTextReaderWrapper class which surrounds each method call, tracking a Location property. Example: public class LocatedTextReaderWrapper : TextReader { private TextReader source; public Location Location { get; set; } public LocatedTextReaderWrapper(TextReader source) : this(source, new Location()) { } public LocatedTextReaderWrapper(TextReader source, Location location) { this.Location = location; this.source = source; } public override int Read(char[] buffer, int index, int count) { int ret = this.source.Read(buffer, index, count); if(ret >= 0) { this.location.AdvanceString(string.Concat(buffer.Skip(index).Take(count))); } return ret; } // etc. } Advantages Tokenization doesn't know about Location tracking. Disadvantages User needs to create and dispose a LocatedTextReaderWrapper instance, in addition to their TextReader instance. Doesn't allow different types of tracking or different location trackers to be added without layers of wrappers. Event-based TextReader wrapper Like LocatedTextReaderWrapper, but decouples it from the Location object raising an event whenever data is read. Advantages Can be reused for other types of tracking. Tokenization doesn't know about Location tracking or other tracking. Can have multiple, independent Location objects (or other methods of tracking) tracking at once. Disadvantages Requires boilerplate code to enable location tracking. User needs to create and dispose the wrapper instance, in addition to their TextReader instance. Aspect-orientated approach Use AOP to perform like the event-based wrapper approach. Advantages Can be reused for other types of tracking. Tokenization doesn't know about Location tracking or other tracking. No need to rewrite the TextReader methods. Disadvantages Requires external dependencies, which I want to avoid. I am looking for the best approach in my situation. I would like to: Not bloat the tokenizer methods with location tracking. Not require heavy initialization in user code. Not have any/much boilerplate/duplicated code. (Perhaps) not couple the TextReader with the Location class. Any insight into this problem and possible solutions or adjustments are welcome. Thanks! (For those who want a specific question: What is the best way to wrap the functionality of a TextReader?) I have implemented the "Plain TextReader wrapper" and "Event-based TextReader wrapper" approaches and am displeased with both, for reasons mentioned in their disadvantages.

    Read the article

  • CSS/JavaScript/hacking: Detect :visited styling on a link *without* checking it directly OR do it fa

    - by Sai Emrys
    This is for research purposes on http://cssfingerprint.com Consider the following code: <style> div.csshistory a { display: none; color: #00ff00;} div.csshistory a:visited { display: inline; color: #ff0000;} </style> <div id="batch" class="csshistory"> <a id="1" href="http://foo.com">anything you want here</a> <a id="2" href="http://bar.com">anything you want here</a> [etc * ~2000] </div> My goal is to detect whether foo has been rendered using the :visited styling. I want to detect whether foo.com is visited without directly looking at $('1').getComputedStyle (or in Internet Explorer, currentStyle), or any other direct method on that element. The purpose of this is to get around a potential browser restriction that would prevent direct inspection of the style of visited links. For instance, maybe you can put a sub-element in the <a> tag, or check the styling of the text directly; etc. Any method that does not directly or indierctly rely on $('1').anything is acceptable. Doing something clever with the child or parent is probably necessary. Note that for the purposes of this point only, the scenario is that the browser will lie to JavaScript about all properties of the <a> element (but not others), and that it will only render color: in :visited. Therefore, methods that rely on e.g. text size or background-image will not meet this requirement. I want to improve the speed of my current scraping methods. The majority of time (at least with the jQuery method in Firefox) is spent on document.body.appendChild(batch), so finding a way to improve that call would probably most effective. See http://cssfingerprint.com/about and http://cssfingerprint.com/results for current speed test results. The methods I am currently using can be seen at http://github.com/saizai/cssfingerprint/blob/master/public/javascripts/history_scrape.js To summarize for tl;dr, they are: set color or display on :visited per above, and check each one directly w/ getComputedStyle put the ID of the link (plus a space) inside the <a> tag, and using jQuery's :visible selector, extract only the visible text (= the visited link IDs) FWIW, I'm a white hat, and I'm doing this in consultation with the EFF and some other fairly well known security researchers. If you contribute a new method or speedup, you'll get thanked at http://cssfingerprint.com/about (if you want to be :-P), and potentially in a future published paper. ETA: The bounty will be rewarded only for suggestions that can, on Firefox, avoid the hypothetical restriction described in point 1 above, or perform at least 10% faster, on any browser for which I have sufficient current data, than my best performing methods listed in the graph at http://cssfingerprint.com/about In case more than one suggestion fits either criterion, the one that does best wins.

    Read the article

  • Java multiple class compositing and boiler plate reduction

    - by h2g2java
    We all know why Java does/should not have multiple inheritance. So this is not questioning about what has already been debated till-cows-come-home. This discusses what we would do when we wish to create a class that has the characteristics of two or more other classes. Probably, most of us would do this to "inherit" from three classes. For simplicity, I left out the constructor.: class Car extends Vehicle { final public Transport transport; final public Machine machine; } So that, Car class directly inherits methods and objects of Vehicle class, but would have to refer to transport and machine explicitly to refer to objects instantiated in Transport and Machine. Car car = new Car(); car.drive(); // from Vehicle car.transport.isAmphibious(); // from Transport car.machine.getCO2Footprint(); // from Machine I thought this was a good idea until when I encounter frameworks that require setter and getter methods. For example, the XML <Car amphibious='false' footPrint='1000' model='Fordstatic999'/> would look for the methods setAmphibious(..), setFootPrint(..) and setModel(..). Therefore, I have to project the methods from Transport and Machine classes class Car extends Vehicle { final public Transport transport; final public Machine machine; public void setAmphibious(boolean b){ this.transport.setAmphibious(b); } public void setFootPrint(String fp){ this.machine.setFootPrint(fp); } } This is OK, if there were just a few characteristics. Right now, I am trying to adapt all of SmartGWT into GWT UIBinder, especially those classes that are not a GWT widget. There are lots of characteristics to project. Wouldn't it be nice if there exists some form of annotation framework that is like this: class Car extends Vehicle @projects {Transport @projects{Machine @projects Guzzler}} { /* No need to explicitly instantiate Transport, Machine or Guzzler */ .... } Where, in case of common names of characteristics exist, the characteristics of Machine would take precedence Guzzler's, and Transport's would have precedence over Machine's, and Vehicle's would have precedence over Transport's. The annotation framework would then instantiate Transport, Machine and Guzzler as hidden members of Car and expand to break-out the protected/public characteristics, in the precedence dictated by the @project annotation sequence, into actual source code or into byte-code. Preferably into byte-code. So that the setFootPrint method is found in both Machine and Guzzler, only that of Machine's would be projected. Questions: Don't you think this is a good idea to have such a framework? Does such a framework already exist? Tell me where/what. Is there an eclipse plugin that does it? Is there a proposal or plan anywhere that you know about such an annotation framework? It would be wonderful too, if the annotation/plugin framework lets me specify that boolean, int, or whatever else needs to be converted from String and does the conversion/parsing for me too. Please advise, somebody. I hope wording of my question was clear enough. Thx. Edited: To avoid OO enthusiasts jumping to conclusion, I have renamed the title of this question.

    Read the article

  • Break a class in twain, or impose an interface for restricted access?

    - by bedwyr
    What's the best way of partitioning a class when its functionality needs to be externally accessed in different ways by different classes? Hopefully the following example will make the question clear :) I have a Java class which accesses a single location in a directory allowing external classes to perform read/write operations to it. Read operations return usage stats on the directory (e.g. available disk space, number of writes, etc.); write operations, obviously, allow external classes to write data to the disk. These methods always work on the same location, and receive their configuration (e.g. which directory to use, min disk space, etc.) from an external source (passed to the constructor). This class looks something like this: public class DiskHandler { public DiskHandler(String dir, int minSpace) { ... } public void writeToDisk(String contents, String filename) { int space = getAvailableSpace(); ... } public void getAvailableSpace() { ... } } There's quite a bit more going on, but this will do to suffice. This class needs to be accessed differently by two external classes. One class needs access to the read operations; the other needs access to both read and write operations. public class DiskWriter { DiskHandler diskHandler; public DiskWriter() { diskHandler = new DiskHandler(...); } public void doSomething() { diskHandler.writeToDisk(...); } } public class DiskReader { DiskHandler diskHandler; public DiskReader() { diskHandler = new DiskHandler(...); } public void doSomething() { int space = diskHandler.getAvailableSpace(...); } } At this point, both classes share the same class, but the class which should only read has access to the write methods. Solution 1 I could break this class into two. One class would handle read operations, and the other would handle writes: // NEW "UTILITY" CLASSES public class WriterUtil { private ReaderUtil diskReader; public WriterUtil(String dir, int minSpace) { ... diskReader = new ReaderUtil(dir, minSpace); } public void writeToDisk(String contents, String filename) { int = diskReader.getAvailableSpace(); ... } } public class ReaderUtil { public ReaderUtil(String dir, int minSpace) { ... } public void getAvailableSpace() { ... } } // MODIFIED EXTERNALLY-ACCESSING CLASSES public class DiskWriter { WriterUtil diskWriter; public DiskWriter() { diskWriter = new WriterUtil(...); } public void doSomething() { diskWriter.writeToDisk(...); } } public class DiskReader { ReaderUtil diskReader; public DiskReader() { diskReader = new ReaderUtil(...); } public void doSomething() { int space = diskReader.getAvailableSpace(...); } } This solution prevents classes from having access to methods they should not, but it also breaks encapsulation. The original DiskHandler class was completely self-contained and only needed config parameters via a single constructor. By breaking apart the functionality into read/write classes, they both are concerned with the directory and both need to be instantiated with their respective values. In essence, I don't really care to duplicate the concerns. Solution 2 I could implement an interface which only provisions read operations, and use this when a class only needs access to those methods. The interface might look something like this: public interface Readable { int getAvailableSpace(); } The Reader class would instantiate the object like this: Readable diskReader; public DiskReader() { diskReader = new DiskHandler(...); } This solution seems brittle, and prone to confusion in the future. It doesn't guarantee developers will use the correct interface in the future. Any changes to the implementation of the DiskHandler could also need to update the interface as well as the accessing classes. I like it better than the previous solution, but not by much. Frankly, neither of these solutions seems perfect, but I'm not sure if one should be preferred over the other. I really don't want to break the original class up, but I also don't know if the interface buys me much in the long run. Are there other solutions I'm missing?

    Read the article

  • Languages and VMs: Features that are hard to optimize and why

    - by mrjoltcola
    I'm doing a survey of features in preparation for a research project. Name a mainstream language or language feature that is hard to optimize, and why the feature is or isn't worth the price paid, or instead, just debunk my theories below with anecdotal evidence. Before anyone flags this as subjective, I am asking for specific examples of languages or features, and ideas for optimization of these features, or important features that I haven't considered. Also, any references to implementations that prove my theories right or wrong. Top on my list of hard to optimize features and my theories (some of my theories are untested and are based on thought experiments): 1) Runtime method overloading (aka multi-method dispatch or signature based dispatch). Is it hard to optimize when combined with features that allow runtime recompilation or method addition. Or is it just hard, anyway? Call site caching is a common optimization for many runtime systems, but multi-methods add additional complexity as well as making it less practical to inline methods. 2) Type morphing / variants (aka value based typing as opposed to variable based) Traditional optimizations simply cannot be applied when you don't know if the type of someting can change in a basic block. Combined with multi-methods, inlining must be done carefully if at all, and probably only for a given threshold of size of the callee. ie. it is easy to consider inlining simple property fetches (getters / setters) but inlining complex methods may result in code bloat. The other issue is I cannot just assign a variant to a register and JIT it to the native instructions because I have to carry around the type info, or every variable needs 2 registers instead of 1. On IA-32 this is inconvenient, even if improved with x64's extra registers. This is probably my favorite feature of dynamic languages, as it simplifies so many things from the programmer's perspective. 3) First class continuations - There are multiple ways to implement them, and I have done so in both of the most common approaches, one being stack copying and the other as implementing the runtime to use continuation passing style, cactus stacks, copy-on-write stack frames, and garbage collection. First class continuations have resource management issues, ie. we must save everything, in case the continuation is resumed, and I'm not aware if any languages support leaving a continuation with "intent" (ie. "I am not coming back here, so you may discard this copy of the world"). Having programmed in the threading model and the contination model, I know both can accomplish the same thing, but continuations' elegance imposes considerable complexity on the runtime and also may affect cache efficienty (locality of stack changes more with use of continuations and co-routines). The other issue is they just don't map to hardware. Optimizing continuations is optimizing for the less-common case, and as we know, the common case should be fast, and the less-common cases should be correct. 4) Pointer arithmetic and ability to mask pointers (storing in integers, etc.) Had to throw this in, but I could actually live without this quite easily. My feelings are that many of the high-level features, particularly in dynamic languages just don't map to hardware. Microprocessor implementations have billions of dollars of research behind the optimizations on the chip, yet the choice of language feature(s) may marginalize many of these features (features like caching, aliasing top of stack to register, instruction parallelism, return address buffers, loop buffers and branch prediction). Macro-applications of micro-features don't necessarily pan out like some developers like to think, and implementing many languages in a VM ends up mapping native ops into function calls (ie. the more dynamic a language is the more we must lookup/cache at runtime, nothing can be assumed, so our instruction mix is made up of a higher percentage of non-local branching than traditional, statically compiled code) and the only thing we can really JIT well is expression evaluation of non-dynamic types and operations on constant or immediate types. It is my gut feeling that bytecode virtual machines and JIT cores are perhaps not always justified for certain languages because of this. I welcome your answers.

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123  | Next Page >