Search Results

Search found 1494 results on 60 pages for 'prototypal inheritance'.

Page 13/60 | < Previous Page | 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20  | Next Page >

• How to layout class definition when inheriting from multiple interfaces

  - by gabr

  Given two interface definitions ... IOmniWorkItem = interface ['{3CE2762F-B7A3-4490-BF22-2109C042EAD1}'] function GetData: TOmniValue; function GetResult: TOmniValue; function GetUniqueID: int64; procedure SetResult(const value: TOmniValue); // procedure Cancel; function DetachException: Exception; function FatalException: Exception; function IsCanceled: boolean; function IsExceptional: boolean; property Data: TOmniValue read GetData; property Result: TOmniValue read GetResult write SetResult; property UniqueID: int64 read GetUniqueID; end; IOmniWorkItemEx = interface ['{3B48D012-CF1C-4B47-A4A0-3072A9067A3E}'] function GetOnWorkItemDone: TOmniWorkItemDoneDelegate; function GetOnWorkItemDone_Asy: TOmniWorkItemDoneDelegate; procedure SetOnWorkItemDone(const Value: TOmniWorkItemDoneDelegate); procedure SetOnWorkItemDone_Asy(const Value: TOmniWorkItemDoneDelegate); // property OnWorkItemDone: TOmniWorkItemDoneDelegate read GetOnWorkItemDone write SetOnWorkItemDone; property OnWorkItemDone_Asy: TOmniWorkItemDoneDelegate read GetOnWorkItemDone_Asy write SetOnWorkItemDone_Asy; end; ... what are your ideas of laying out class declaration that inherits from both of them? My current idea (but I don't know if I'm happy with it): TOmniWorkItem = class(TInterfacedObject, IOmniWorkItem, IOmniWorkItemEx) strict private FData : TOmniValue; FOnWorkItemDone : TOmniWorkItemDoneDelegate; FOnWorkItemDone_Asy: TOmniWorkItemDoneDelegate; FResult : TOmniValue; FUniqueID : int64; strict protected procedure FreeException; protected //IOmniWorkItem function GetData: TOmniValue; function GetResult: TOmniValue; function GetUniqueID: int64; procedure SetResult(const value: TOmniValue); protected //IOmniWorkItemEx function GetOnWorkItemDone: TOmniWorkItemDoneDelegate; function GetOnWorkItemDone_Asy: TOmniWorkItemDoneDelegate; procedure SetOnWorkItemDone(const Value: TOmniWorkItemDoneDelegate); procedure SetOnWorkItemDone_Asy(const Value: TOmniWorkItemDoneDelegate); public constructor Create(const data: TOmniValue; uniqueID: int64); destructor Destroy; override; public //IOmniWorkItem procedure Cancel; function DetachException: Exception; function FatalException: Exception; function IsCanceled: boolean; function IsExceptional: boolean; property Data: TOmniValue read GetData; property Result: TOmniValue read GetResult write SetResult; property UniqueID: int64 read GetUniqueID; public //IOmniWorkItemEx property OnWorkItemDone: TOmniWorkItemDoneDelegate read GetOnWorkItemDone write SetOnWorkItemDone; property OnWorkItemDone_Asy: TOmniWorkItemDoneDelegate read GetOnWorkItemDone_Asy write SetOnWorkItemDone_Asy; end; As noted in answers, composition is a good approach for this example but I'm not sure it applies in all cases. Sometimes I'm using multiple inheritance just to split read and write access to some property into public (typically read-only) and private (typically write-only) part. Does composition still apply here? I'm not really sure as I would have to move the property in question out from the main class and I'm not sure that's the correct way to do it. Example: // public part of the interface interface IOmniWorkItemConfig = interface function OnExecute(const aTask: TOmniBackgroundWorkerDelegate): IOmniWorkItemConfig; function OnRequestDone(const aTask: TOmniWorkItemDoneDelegate): IOmniWorkItemConfig; function OnRequestDone_Asy(const aTask: TOmniWorkItemDoneDelegate): IOmniWorkItemConfig; end; // private part of the interface IOmniWorkItemConfigEx = interface ['{42CEC5CB-404F-4868-AE81-6A13AD7E3C6B}'] function GetOnExecute: TOmniBackgroundWorkerDelegate; function GetOnRequestDone: TOmniWorkItemDoneDelegate; function GetOnRequestDone_Asy: TOmniWorkItemDoneDelegate; end; // implementing class TOmniWorkItemConfig = class(TInterfacedObject, IOmniWorkItemConfig, IOmniWorkItemConfigEx) strict private FOnExecute : TOmniBackgroundWorkerDelegate; FOnRequestDone : TOmniWorkItemDoneDelegate; FOnRequestDone_Asy: TOmniWorkItemDoneDelegate; public constructor Create(defaults: IOmniWorkItemConfig = nil); public //IOmniWorkItemConfig function OnExecute(const aTask: TOmniBackgroundWorkerDelegate): IOmniWorkItemConfig; function OnRequestDone(const aTask: TOmniWorkItemDoneDelegate): IOmniWorkItemConfig; function OnRequestDone_Asy(const aTask: TOmniWorkItemDoneDelegate): IOmniWorkItemConfig; public //IOmniWorkItemConfigEx function GetOnExecute: TOmniBackgroundWorkerDelegate; function GetOnRequestDone: TOmniWorkItemDoneDelegate; function GetOnRequestDone_Asy: TOmniWorkItemDoneDelegate; end;

  Read the article

• Why do Windows Forms / Swing frameworks favour inheritance instead of Composition?

  - by devoured elysium

  Today a professor of mine commented that he found it odd that while SWT's philosophy is one of making your own controls by composition, Swing seems to favour inheritance. I have almost no contact with both frameworks, but from what I remember in C#'s Windows Forms one usually extends controls, just like Swing. Being that generally people tend to prefer composition over inheritance, why didn't Swing/Windows Forms folks favour composition instead of inheritance?

  Read the article

• Calling function using 'new' is less expensive than without it?

  - by Matthew Taylor

  Given this very familiar model of prototypal construction: function Rectangle(w,h) { this.width = w; this.height = h; } Rectangle.prototype.area = function() { return this.width * this.height; }; Can anyone explain why calling "new Rectangle(2,3)" is consistently 10x FASTER than calling "Rectangle(2,3)" without the 'new' keyword? I would have assumed that because new adds more complexity to the execution of a function by getting prototypes involved, it would be slower. Example: var myTime; function startTrack() { myTime = new Date(); } function stopTrack(str) { var diff = new Date().getTime() - myTime.getTime(); println(str + ' time in ms: ' + diff); } function trackFunction(desc, func, times) { var i; if (!times) times = 1; startTrack(); for (i=0; i<times; i++) { func(); } stopTrack('(' + times + ' times) ' + desc); } var TIMES = 1000000; trackFunction('new rect classic', function() { new Rectangle(2,3); }, TIMES); trackFunction('rect classic (without new)', function() { Rectangle(2,3); }, TIMES); Yields (in Chrome): (1000000 times) new rect classic time in ms: 33 (1000000 times) rect classic (without new) time in ms: 368 (1000000 times) new rect classic time in ms: 35 (1000000 times) rect classic (without new) time in ms: 374 (1000000 times) new rect classic time in ms: 31 (1000000 times) rect classic (without new) time in ms: 368

  Read the article

• Class Methods Inheritence

  - by Roman A. Taycher

  I was told that static methods in java didn't have Inheritance but when I try the following test package test1; public class Main { /** * @param args the command line arguments */ public static void main(String[] args) { TB.ttt(); TB.ttt2(); } } package test1; public class TA { static public Boolean ttt() { System.out.println("TestInheritenceA"); return true; } static public String test ="ClassA"; } package test1; public class TB extends TA{ static public void ttt2(){ System.out.println(test); } } it printed : TestInheritenceA ClassA so do java static methods (and fields have) inheritance (if you try to call a class method does it go down the inheritance chai looking for class methods). Was this ever not the case,are there any inheritance OO languages that are messed up like that for class methods?

  Read the article

• Interface and abtract classes

  - by dan

  Why Java allows multiple inheritance from interfaces but not from abstract or concrete classes

  Read the article

• What is happening in Crockford's object creation technique?

  - by Chris Noe

  There are only 3 lines of code, and yet I'm having trouble fully grasping this: Object.create = function (o) { function F() {} F.prototype = o; return new F(); }; newObject = Object.create(oldObject); (from Prototypal Inheritance) 1) Object.create() starts out by creating an empty function called F. I'm thinking that a function is a kind of object. Where is this F object being stored? Globally I guess. 2) Next our oldObject, passed in as o, becomes the prototype of function F. Function (i.e., object) F now "inherits" from our oldObject, in the sense that name resolution will route through it. Good, but I'm curious what the default prototype is for an object, Object? Is that also true for a function-object? 3) Finally, F is instantiated and returned, becoming our newObject. Is the "new" operation strictly necessary here? Doesn't F already provide what we need, or is there a critical difference between function-objects and non-function-objects? Clearly it won't be possible to have a constructor function using this technique. What happens the next time Object.create() is called? Is global function F overwritten? Surely it is not reused, because that would alter previously configured objects. And what happens if multiple threads call Object.create(), is there any sort of synchronization to prevent race conditions on F?

  Read the article

• When would I need to call base() in C#?

  - by user310291

  My BaseClass Constructor is called whereas I have a constructor in derived class so when would I need to call base() ? class BaseClass { public BaseClass() { Debug.Print("BaseClass"); } } class InheritedClass : BaseClass { public InheritedClass() { Debug.Print("InheritedClass"); } } private void Form1_Load(object sender, EventArgs e) { InheritedClass inheritedClass = new InheritedClass(); } Output 'Inheritance.vshost.exe' (Managed (v4.0.30319)): Loaded 'C:\WINDOWS\Microsoft.Net\assembly\GAC_MSIL\Accessibility\v4.0_4.0.0.0__b03f5f7f11d50a3a\Accessibility.dll' 'Inheritance.vshost.exe' (Managed (v4.0.30319)): Loaded 'C:\WINDOWS\Microsoft.Net\assembly\GAC_MSIL\System.Configuration\v4.0_4.0.0.0__b03f5f7f11d50a3a\System.Configuration.dll', Skipped loading symbols. Module is optimized and the debugger option 'Just My Code' is enabled. BaseClass InheritedClass The thread 'vshost.RunParkingWindow' (0x12b4) has exited with code 0 (0x0). The thread '<No Name>' (0x85c) has exited with code 0 (0x0). The program '[4368] Inheritance.vshost.exe: Program Trace' has exited with code 0 (0x0). The program '[4368] Inheritance.vshost.exe: Managed (v4.0.30319)' has exited with code 0 (0x0).

  Read the article

• Multiple Inheritance in LINQtoSQL?

  - by Bumble Bee

  Guys, I have been surfing thru the web to find a way that I could use Multiple-Table-Inheritance in LINQ-To-SQL. But it looks like that it only supports single table inheritance which is not the best way to achieve inheritance in a ORM framework. I got to read that this will be addressed in next LINQ and Entity framework implementations. But how longer a stay we are talking about? In the meantime, if any of you guys have tried out a work-around implementation to achieve this, please let me know. And I thought of using my leisure time to come up with such an implementation so suggestions are welcome! /Bumble Bee

  Read the article

• Rails - inheritance hierarchy of classes where an subtipe can play two roles

  - by Miquel

  I need to model Owners and Rentees in an application, so you have stuff that is always owned by someone and can be rented for someone else. I first approached this problem with Single Table Inheritance because both types of person will share all attributes, so you would have a model called Person associated to a table people with Owner and Rentee inheriting from Person. The problem is that Single type inheritance discerns subtypes using a field type and therefore a record in the table can represent either an Owner or a Rentee but not both at the same time, while in the real context you can have an Owner which is renting something from another Owner and therefore that person is at the same time an Owner and a Rentee. How would you approach this problem? Would you use separated tables fro owners and rentees? Is there any other type of table inheritance in Rails?

  Read the article

• Rails - inheritance hierarchy of classes where a subtype can play two roles

  - by Miquel

  I need to model Owners and Rentees in an application, so you have stuff that is always owned by someone and can be rented for someone else. I first approached this problem with Single Table Inheritance because both types of person will share all attributes, so you would have a model called Person associated to a table people with Owner and Rentee inheriting from Person. The problem is that Single type inheritance discerns subtypes using a field type and therefore a record in the table can represent either an Owner or a Rentee but not both at the same time, while in the real context you can have an Owner which is renting something from another Owner and therefore that person is at the same time an Owner and a Rentee. How would you approach this problem? Would you use separated tables for owners and rentees? Is there any other type of table inheritance in Rails?

  Read the article

• inheritance in document database?

  - by nils petersohn

  i am wondering because i searched the pdf "xxx the definitive guide" and "beginning xxx" for the word "inheritance" but i didn't find anything? am i missing something? because i am doing a tablePerHierarchy inheritance with hibernate and mysql, does that become deprecated for some reason in xxx? (replace xxx with the "not only sql" database you like)

  Read the article

• Difference between multiple inheritance and interfaces in c#

  - by Sunil Ramu

  Does c# really support multiple inheritance. People say it supports multiple inheritance in the form of interfaces ? But I dont think so

  Read the article

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

  - by Konstantin Ð.

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

  Read the article

• Matching the superclass's constructor's parameter list, is treating a null default value as a non-null value within a constructor a violation of LSP?

  - by Panzercrisis

  I kind of ran into this when messing around with FlashPunk, and I'm going to use it as an example. Essentially the main sprite class is pretty much class Entity. Entity's constructor has four parameters, each with a default value. One of them is graphic, whose default value is null. Entity is designed to be inherited from, with many such subclasses providing their own graphic within their own internal workings. Normally these subclasses would not have graphic in their constructor's parameter lists, but would simply pick something internally and go with it. However I was looking into possibly still adhering to the Liskov Substitution Principal. Which led me to the following example: package com.blank.graphics { import net.flashpunk.*; import net.flashpunk.graphics.Image; public class SpaceGraphic extends Entity { [Embed(source = "../../../../../../assets/spaces/blank.png")] private const BLANK_SPACE:Class; public function SpaceGraphic(x:Number = 0, y:Number = 0, graphic:Graphic = null, mask:Mask = null) { super(x, y, graphic, mask); if (!graphic) { this.graphic = new Image(BLANK_SPACE); } } } } Alright, so now there's a parameter list in the constructor that perfectly matches the one in the super class's constructor. But if the default value for graphic is used, it'll exhibit two different behaviors, depending on whether you're using the subclass or the superclass. In the superclass, there won't be a graphic, but in the subclass, it'll choose the default graphic. Is this a violation of the Liskov Substitution Principal? Does the fact that subclasses are almost intended to use different parameter lists have any bearing on this? Would minimizing the parameter list violate it in a case like this? Thanks.

  Read the article

• Very simple OOP question

  - by Mosty Mostacho

  I was creating and discussing a class diagram with a partner of mine. To simplify things, I've modify the real domain we're working on and made up the following diagram: Basically, a company works on constructions that are quite different one from each other but are still constructions. Note I've added one field for each class but there should be many more. Now, I thought this was the way to go but my partner told me that if in the future new construction classes appear we would have to modify the Company class, which is correct. So the new proposed class diagram would be this: Now I've been wondering: Should the fact that in no place of the application will there be mixed lists of planes and bridges affect the design in any way? When we have to list only planes for a company, how are we supposed to distinguish them from the other elements in the list without checking for their class names? Related to the previous question, is it correct to assume that this type of diagram should be high-level and this is something it shouldn't matter at this stage but rather be thought and decided at implementation time? Any comment will be appreciated.

  Read the article

• Why does Java allow to implement different interfaces, each containing a method with the same signature?

  - by Software Engeneering Learner

  I've recently found that I can have two interfaces containing method with the same signature as a method in the other interface. And then I can have an interface or class that implements both of that interfaces. So the descendant class/interface has implicitly implements two different methods as a one method. Why is this allowed in Java? I can see a numerous problems that arises from that. Even eclipse only can find out about implementations for only one interface method, but for the second one it doesn't show any implementations at all. Also I believe there would be problems with automatic refactoring, like when you would like to change the signature of the method in one of the interfaces and IDE won't be able to correctly change that signature in all implementations, as they implement two different interfaces and how will IDE know what interface method it implementation descends. Why don't just make a compiler error like 'interfaces method names clashes' or something like that?

  Read the article

• Class hierarchy problem in this social network model

  - by Gerenuk

  I'm trying to design a class system for a social network data model - basically a link/object system. Now I have roughly the following structure (simplified and only relevant methods shown) class Data: "used to handle the data with mongodb" "can link, unlink data and also return other linked data" "is basically a proxy object that only stores _id and accesses mongodb on requests" "it looks like {_id: ..., _out: [id1, id2,...], _inc: [id3, id4, ...]}" def get_node(self, id) "create a new Data object from the underlying mongodb" "each data object can potentially create a reference object to new mongo data" "this is needed when the data returns the linked objects" class Node: """ this class proxies linking calls to .data it includes additional network logic operations whereas Data only contains a basic database solution """ def __init__(self, data): "the infrastructure realization is stored as composition by an included object data" "Node bascially proxies most calls to the infrastructure object data" def get_node(self, data): "creates a new object of class Object or Link depending on data" class Object(Node): "can have multiple connections to Link" class Link(Node): "has one 'in' and one 'out' connection to an Object" This system is working, however maybe wouldn't work outside Python. Note that after reading links Now I have two questions here: 1) I want to infrastructure of the data storage to be replacable. Earlier I had Data as a superclass of Node so that it provided the neccessary calls. But (without dirty Python tricks) you cannot replace the superclass dynamically. Is using composition therefore recommended? The drawback is that I have to proxy most calls (link, unlink etc). Any thoughts? 2) The class Node contains the common method .get_node which is used to built new Object or Link instances after reading out the data. Some attribute of data decided whether the object which is only stored by id should be instantiated as an Object or Link class. The problem here is that Node needs to know about Object and Link in advance, which seems dodgy. Do you see a different solution? Both Object and Link need to instantiate one of all possible types depending on what the find in their linked data. Are there any other ideas how to implement a flexible Object/Link structure where the underlying database storage is isolated?

  Read the article

• Implementation of instance testing in Java, C++, C#

  - by Jake

  For curiosity purposes as well as understanding what they entail in a program, I'm curious as to how instance testing (instanceof/is/using dynamic_cast in c++) works. I've tried to google it (particularly for java) but the only pages that come up are tutorials on how to use the operator. How do the implementations vary across those langauges? How do they treat classes with identical signatures? Also, it's been drilled into my head that using instance testing is a mark of bad design. Why exactly is this? When is that applicable, instanceof should still be used in methods like .equals() and such right? I was also thinking of this in the context of exception handling, again particularly in Java. When you have mutliple catch statements, how does that work? Is that instance testing or is it just resolved during compilation where each thrown exception would go to?

  Read the article

• How do you handle objects that need custom behavior, and need to exist as an entity in the database?

  - by Scott Whitlock

  For a simple example, assume your application sends out notifications to users when various events happen. So in the database I might have the following tables: TABLE Event EventId uniqueidentifier EventName varchar TABLE User UserId uniqueidentifier Name varchar TABLE EventSubscription EventUserId EventId UserId The events themselves are generated by the program. So there are hard-coded points in the application where an event instance is generated, and it needs to notify all the subscribed users. So, the application itself doesn't edit the Event table, except during initial installation, and during an update where a new Event might be created. At some point, when an event is generated, the application needs to lookup the Event and get a list of Users. What's the best way to link the event in the source code to the event in the database? Option 1: Store the EventName in the program as a fixed constant, and look it up by name. Option 2: Store the EventId in the program as a static Guid, and look it up by ID. Extra Credit In other similar circumstances I may want to include custom behavior with the event type. That is, I'll want subclasses of my Event entity class with different behaviors, and when I lookup an event, I want it to return an instance of my subclass. For instance: class Event { public Guid Id { get; } public Guid EventName { get; } public ReadOnlyCollection<EventSubscription> EventSubscriptions { get; } public void NotifySubscribers() { foreach(var eventSubscription in EventSubscriptions) { eventSubscription.Notify(); } this.OnSubscribersNotified(); } public virtual void OnSubscribersNotified() {} } class WakingEvent : Event { private readonly IWaker waker; public WakingEvent(IWaker waker) { if(waker == null) throw new ArgumentNullException("waker"); this.waker = waker; } public override void OnSubscribersNotified() { this.waker.Wake(); base.OnSubscribersNotified(); } } So, that means I need to map WakingEvent to whatever key I'm using to look it up in the database. Let's say that's the EventId. Where do I store this relationship? Does it go in the event repository class? Should the WakingEvent know declare its own ID in a static member or method? ...and then, is this all backwards? If all events have a subclass, then instead of retrieving events by ID, should I be asking my repository for the WakingEvent like this: public T GetEvent<T>() where T : Event { ... // what goes here? ... } I can't be the first one to tackle this. What's the best practice?

  Read the article

• What alternative is better to diagram this scenario?

  - by Mosty Mostacho

  I was creating and discussing a class diagram with a partner of mine. To simplify things, I've modify the real domain we're working on and made up the following diagram: Basically, a company works on constructions that are quite different one from each other but are still constructions. Note I've added one field for each class but there should be many more. Now, I thought this was the way to go but my partner told me that if in the future new construction classes appear we would have to modify the Company class, which is correct. So the new proposed class diagram would be this: Now I've been wondering: Should the fact that in no place of the application will there be mixed lists of planes and bridges affect the design in any way? When we have to list only planes for a company, how are we supposed to distinguish them from the other elements in the list without checking for their class names? Related to the previous question, is it correct to assume that this type of diagram should be high-level and this is something it shouldn't matter at this stage but rather be thought and decided at implementation time? Any comment will be appreciated.

  Read the article

• Avoid overwriting all the methods in the child class

  - by Heckel

  The context I am making a game in C++ using SFML. I have a class that controls what is displayed on the screen (manager on the image below). It has a list of all the things to draw like images, text, etc. To be able to store them in one list I created a Drawable class from which all the other drawable class inherit. The image below represents how I would organize each class. Drawable has a virtual method Draw that will be called by the manager. Image and Text overwrite this method. My problem is that I would like Image::draw method to work for Circle, Polygon, etc. since sf::CircleShape and sf::ConvexShape inherit from sf::Shape. I thought of two ways to do that. My first idea would be for Image to have a pointer on sf::Shape, and the subclasses would make it point onto their sf::CircleShape or sf::ConvexShape classes (Like on the image below). In the Polygon constructor I would write something like ptr_shape = &polygon_shape; This doesn't look very elegant because I have two variables that are, in fact, just one. My second idea is to store the sf::CircleShape and sf::ConvexShape inside the ptr_shape like ptr_shape = new sf::ConvexShape(...); and to use a function that is only in ConvexShape I would cast it like so ((sf::ConvexShape*)ptr_shape)->convex_method(); But that doesn't look very elegant either. I am not even sure I am allowed to do that. My question I added details about the whole thing because I thought that maybe my whole architecture was wrong. I would like to know how I could design my program to be safe without overwriting all the Image methods. I apologize if this question has already been asked; I have no idea what to google.

  Read the article

• Are trivial protected getters blatant overkill?

  - by Panzercrisis

  Something I really have not thought about before (AS3 syntax): private var m_obj:Object; protected function get obj():Object { return m_obj; } private var m_str:String; protected function get str():String { return m_str; } At least subclasses won't be able to set m_obj or m_str (though they could still modify m_obj). Is this just blatant overkill? I am not talking about doing this as opposed to making them public. I am talking about doing this instead of just making the variables themselves protected. Like this: protected var m_obj:Object; //more accessible than a private variable with a protected getter protected var m_str:String; //more accessible than a private variable with a protected getter

  Read the article

• OO Software Architecture - base class that everything inherits from. Bad/good idea?

  - by ale

  I am reviewing a proposed OO software architecture that looks like this: Base Foo Something Bar SomethingElse Where Base is a static class. My immediate thought was that every object in any class will inherit all the methods in Base which would create a large object. Could this cause problems for a large system? The whole architecture is hierarchical.. the 'tree' is much bigger than this really. Does this sort of architecture have a name (hierarchical?!). What are the known pros and cons?

  Read the article

• REST API wrapper - class design for 'lite' object responses

  - by sasfrog

  I am writing a class library to serve as a managed .NET wrapper over a REST API. I'm very new to OOP, and this task is an ideal opportunity for me to learn some OOP concepts in a real-life situation that makes sense to me. Some of the key resources/objects that the API returns are returned with different levels of detail depending on whether the request is for a single instance, a list, or part of a "search all resources" response. This is obviously a good design for the REST API itself, so that full objects aren't returned (thus increasing the size of the response and therefore the time taken to respond) unless they're needed. So, to be clear: .../car/1234.json returns the full Car object for 1234, all its properties like colour, make, model, year, engine_size, etc. Let's call this full. .../cars.json returns a list of Car objects, but only with a subset of the properties returned by .../car/1234.json. Let's call this lite. ...search.json returns, among other things, a list of car objects, but with minimal properties (only ID, make and model). Let's call this lite-lite. I want to know what the pros and cons of each of the following possible designs are, and whether there is a better design that I haven't covered: Create a Car class that models the lite-lite properties, and then have each of the more detailed responses inherit and extend this class. Create separate CarFull, CarLite and CarLiteLite classes corresponding to each of the responses. Create a single Car class that contains (nullable?) properties for the full response, and create constructors for each of the responses which populate it to the extent possible (and maybe include a property that returns the response type from which the instance was created). I expect among other things there will be use cases for consumers of the wrapper where they will want to iterate through lists of Cars, regardless of which response type they were created from, such that the three response types can contribute to the same list. Happy to be pointed to good resources on this sort of thing, and/or even told the name of the concept I'm describing so I can better target my research.

  Read the article

• Is "If a method is re-used without changes, put the method in a base class, else create an interface" a good rule-of-thumb?

  - by exizt

  A colleague of mine came up with a rule-of-thumb for choosing between creating a base class or an interface. He says: Imagine every new method that you are about to implement. For each of them, consider this: will this method be implemented by more than one class in exactly this form, without any change? If the answer is "yes", create a base class. In every other situation, create an interface. For example: Consider the classes cat and dog, which extend the class mammal and have a single method pet(). We then add the class alligator, which doesn't extend anything and has a single method slither(). Now, we want to add an eat() method to all of them. If the implementation of eat() method will be exactly the same for cat, dog and alligator, we should create a base class (let's say, animal), which implements this method. However, if it's implementation in alligator differs in the slightest way, we should create an IEat interface and make mammal and alligator implement it. He insists that this method covers all cases, but it seems like over-simplification to me. Is it worth following this rule-of-thumb?

  Read the article

< Previous Page | 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20  | Next Page >