Search Results

Search found 15087 results on 604 pages for 'copy constructor'.

Page 142/604 | < Previous Page | 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149  | Next Page >

  • Printing prn file in window service.

    - by Asad
    I am unable to print prn file on network printer from .Net window Service. I use File.Copy method but it does not work. I use cmd.exe through Process.Start method but it does not work. But If I copy the same code in windows form application then it works fine. Can anybody help me.

    Read the article

  • Image upload not functioning correctly

    - by PurpleSmurf
    I'm still trying to get to grips with PHP, and I'm trying to make a form that uploads a picture to a database. I don't have permissions for move_uploaded_file so I'm using the copy() as an alternative. Everywhere I've seen experiencing similar problems have all been with move_uploaded_file so I'm rather stuck. Trying to copy the image from the desktop doesn't seem to be working, it's not throwing up any more PHP errors but is displaying the error message for if something goes wrong. The form sends data to two tables in the database but I'm mainly concerned with the upload not working. There's over 200 lines so I'll post a snippet of the upload code, thank you in advance: function getExtension($str) { $i = strrpos($str,"."); if (!$i) { return ""; } $l = strlen($str) - $i; $ext = substr($str,$i+1,$l); return $ext; } //This variable is used as a flag. The value is initialized with 0 (meaning no error found) and it will be changed to 1 if an errro occures. If the error occures the file will not be uploaded. $errors=0; //checks if the form has been submitted if(isset($_POST['submitted'])) { //reads the name of the file the user submitted for uploading $image=$_FILES['image']['name']; //if it is not empty if ($image) { //get the original name of the file from the clients machine $filename = stripslashes($_FILES['image']['name']); //get the extension of the file in a lower case format $extension = getExtension($filename); $extension = strtolower($extension); //if it is unknown extension, class as an error and do not upload the file, otherwise continue if (($extension != "jpg") && ($extension != "jpeg") && ($extension != "png") && ($extension != "gif")) { //print error message echo '<h1>Unknown extension!</h1>'; $errors=1; } else { //get the size of the image in bytes //$_FILES['image']['tmp_name'] is the temporary filename of the file in which the uploaded file was stored on the server $size=filesize($_FILES['image']['tmp_name']); //give an unique name, for example the time in unix time format $image_name=time().'.'.$extension; //the new name will be containing the full path where will be stored (images folder) $newname="/home/k0929907/www/uploads/".$image_name; //verify if the image has been uploaded, and print error instead $copied = copy($_FILES['image']['tmp_name'], $newname); if (!$copied) { echo '<h1>Copy unsuccessfull!</h1>'; $errors=1; } } } }

    Read the article

  • python copytree with negated ignore pattern

    - by Chris H
    I'm trying to use python to copy a tree of files/directories. is it possible to use copytree to copy everything that ends in foo? There is an ignore_patterns patterns function, can I give it a negated regular expression? Are they supported in python? eg. copytree(src, dest, False, ignore_pattern('!*.foo')) Where ! means NOT anything that ends in foo. thanks.

    Read the article

  • Need a scenario where would fail Array.ConstrainedCopy()

    - by Sir Psycho
    Hi, Just playing around with some of the APIs in .NET and I can't seem to find a way to cause Array.ConstrainedCopy() fail. According to MSDN, it's treated as an atomic operation. If it fails during the copy, the entire call fails resulting in no elements being copied as opposed to its Array.Copy() counterpart. Can someone demonstrate this or tell me how to do this?

    Read the article

  • Creating app data on first use

    - by rity
    I once read somewhere that apps should not copy data while doing an installation but rather all data creation must be done the first time the app is used. Q1: Does this apply to Windows Mobile apps also? Q2: Is it not okay then to copy a blank database to the \appdata\product\ folder and populate it when the user uses the app or must I wait for the user to se the app to even create the database. Win Mobile C# .NET

    Read the article

  • How does Undo work?

    - by dontWatchMyProfile
    How does undo work? Does it copy all the managed objects every time any of the values change? Or does it only copy the actual changes together with an information which objects were affected? Is that heavy or lightweight?

    Read the article

  • Algorithm to rotate an image 90 degrees in place? (No extra memory)

    - by user9876
    In an embedded C app, I have a large image that I'd like to rotate by 90 degrees. Currently I use the well-known simple algorithm to do this. However, this algorithm requires me to make another copy of the image. I'd like to avoid allocating memory for a copy, I'd rather rotate it in-place. Since the image isn't square, this is tricky. Does anyone know of a suitable algorithm?

    Read the article

  • Nice Generic Example that implements an interface.

    - by mbcrump
    I created this quick generic example after noticing that several people were asking questions about it. If you have any questions then let me know. using System; using System.Collections.Generic; using System.Linq; using System.Text; using System.Globalization; namespace ConsoleApplication4 { //New class where Type implements IConvertible interface (interface = contract) class Calculate<T> where T : IConvertible { //Setup fields public T X; NumberFormatInfo fmt = NumberFormatInfo.CurrentInfo; //Constructor 1 public Calculate() { X = default(T); } //Constructor 2 public Calculate (T x) { X = x; } //Method that we know will return a double public double DistanceTo (Calculate<T> cal) { //Remove the.ToDouble if you want to see the methods available for IConvertible return (X.ToDouble(fmt) - cal.X.ToDouble(fmt)); } } class Program { static void Main(string[] args) { //Pass value type and call DistanceTo with an Int. Calculate<int> cal = new Calculate<int>(); Calculate<int> cal2 = new Calculate<int>(10); Console.WriteLine("Int : " + cal.DistanceTo(cal2)); //Pass value type and call DistanceTo with an Double. Calculate<double> cal3 = new Calculate<double>(); Calculate<double> cal4 = new Calculate<double>(10.6); Console.WriteLine("Double : " + cal3.DistanceTo(cal4)); //Pass reference type and call DistanceTo with an String. Calculate<string> cal5 = new Calculate<string>("0"); Calculate<string> cal6 = new Calculate<string>("345"); Console.WriteLine("String : " + cal5.DistanceTo(cal6)); } } }

    Read the article

  • Creating an ITemplate from a String

    - by Damon
    I do a lot of work with control templates, and one of the pieces of functionality that I've always wanted is the ability to build a ITemplate from a string.  Throughout the years, the topic has come up from time to time, and I never really found anything about how to do it. though I have run across a number of postings from people who are also wanting the same capability.  As I was messing around with things the other day, I stumbled on how to make it work and I feel really foolish for not figuring it out sooner. ITemplate is an interface that exposes a single method named InstantiateIn.  I've been searching for years for some magical .NET framework component that would take a string and convert it into an ITemplate, when all along I could just build my own.  Here's the code: /// <summary> ///   Allows string-based ITempalte implementations /// </summary> public class StringTemplate : ITemplate {     #region Constructor(s)     ////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////     /// <summary>     ///   Constructor     /// </summary>     /// <param name="template">String based version of the control template.</param>     public StringTemplate(string template)     {         Template = template;     }     /// <summary>     ///   Constructor     /// </summary>     /// <param name="template">String based version of the control template.</param>     /// <param name="copyToContainer">True to copy intermediate container contents to the instantiation container, False to leave the intermediate container in place.</param>     public StringTemplate(string template, bool copyToContainer)     {         Template = template;         CopyToContainer = copyToContainer;     }     ////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////     #endregion     #region Properties     ////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////     /// <summary>     ///   String based template     /// </summary>     public string Template     {         get;         set;     }     /// <summary>     ///   When a StringTemplate is instantiated it is created inside an intermediate control     ///   due to limitations of the .NET Framework.  Specifying True for the CopyToContainer     ///   property copies all the controls from the intermediate container into instantiation     ///   container passed to the InstantiateIn method.     /// </summary>     public bool CopyToContainer     {         get;         set;     }     ////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////     #endregion     #region ITemplate Members     ////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////     /// <summary>     ///   Creates the template in the specified control.     /// </summary>     /// <param name="container">Control in which to make the template</param>     public void InstantiateIn(Control container)     {         Control tempContainer = container.Page.ParseControl(Template);         if (CopyToContainer)         {             for (int i = tempContainer.Controls.Count - 1; i >= 0; i--)             {                 Control tempControl = tempContainer.Controls[i];                 tempContainer.Controls.RemoveAt(i);                 container.Controls.AddAt(0, tempControl);             }                         }         else         {             container.Controls.Add(tempContainer);         }     }     ////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////     #endregion } //class Converting a string into a user control is fairly easy using the ParseControl method from a Page object.  Fortunately, the container passed into the InstantiateIn method has a Page property.  One caveat, however, is that the Page property only has a reference to a Page if the container is located ON the page.  If you run into this problem, you may have to find a creative way to get the Page reference (you can add it to the constructor, store it in the request context, etc).  Another issue that I ran into is that the ParseControl creates a new control, parses the string template, places any controls defined in the template onto the new control it created, and returns that new control with the template on it.  You cannot pass in your own container. Adding this directly to the container provided as a parameter in the InstantiateIn means that you end up with an additional "level" in the control hierarchy.  To avoid this, I added code in that removes each control from the intermediate container and places it into the actual container.  I am not, however, sure about the performance penalty associated with moving a bunch of control from one place to another, nor am I completely sure if doing such a move completely screws something up if you have a code behind, etc.  It seems to work when it's just a template, but my testing was ever-so-slightly shy of thorough when it comes to other crazy scenarios.  As a catch-all, I added a Boolean property called CopyToContainer that allows you to turn the copying on or off depending on your desires and needs. Technorati Tags: .NET,ASP.NET,ITemplate,Development,C#,Custom Controls,Server Controls

    Read the article

  • JavaScript objects and Crockford's The Good Parts

    - by Jonathan
    I've been thinking quite a bit about how to do OOP in JS, especially when it comes to encapsulation and inheritance, recently. According to Crockford, classical is harmful because of new(), and both prototypal and classical are limited because their use of constructor.prototype means you can't use closures for encapsulation. Recently, I've considered the following couple of points about encapsulation: Encapsulation kills performance. It makes you add functions to EACH member object rather than to the prototype, because each object's methods have different closures (each object has different private members). Encapsulation forces the ugly "var that = this" workaround, to get private helper functions to have access to the instance they're attached to. Either that or make sure you call them with privateFunction.apply(this) everytime. Are there workarounds for either of two issues I mentioned? if not, do you still consider encapsulation to be worth it? Sidenote: The functional pattern Crockford describes doesn't even let you add public methods that only touch public members, since it completely forgoes the use of new() and constructor.prototype. Wouldn't a hybrid approach where you use classical inheritance and new(), but also call Super.apply(this, arguments) to initialize private members and privileged methods, be superior?

    Read the article

  • Dapper and object validation/business rules enforcement

    - by Eugene
    This isn't really Dapper-specific, actually, as it relates to any XML-serializeable object.. but it came up when I was storing an object using Dapper. Anyways, say I have a user class. Normally, I'd do something like this: class User { public string SIN {get; private set;} public string DisplayName {get;set;} public User(string sin) { if (string.IsNullOrWhiteSpace(sin)) throw new ArgumentException("SIN must be specified"); this.SIN = sin; } } Since a SIN is required, I'd just create a constructor with a sin parameter, and make it read-only. However, with a Dapper (and probably any other ORM), I need to provide a parameterless constructor, and make all properties writeable. So now I have this: class User: IValidatableObject { public int Id { get; set; } public string SIN { get; set; } public string DisplayName { get; set; } public IEnumerable<ValidationResult> Validate(ValidationContext validationContext) { // implementation } } This seems.. can't really pick the word, a bad smell? A) I'm allowing to change properties that should not be changed ever after an object has been created (SIN, userid) B) Now I have to implement IValidatableObject or something like that to test those properties before updating them to db. So how do you go about it ?

    Read the article

  • Is there a clean separation of my layers with this attempt at Domain Driven Design in XAML and C#

    - by Buddy James
    I'm working on an application. I'm using a mixture of TDD and DDD. I'm working hard to separate the layers of my application and that is where my question comes in. My solution is laid out as follows Solution MyApp.Domain (WinRT class library) Entity (Folder) Interfaces(Folder) IPost.cs (Interface) BlogPosts.cs(Implementation of IPost) Service (Folder) Interfaces(Folder) IDataService.cs (Interface) BlogDataService.cs (Implementation of IDataService) MyApp.Presentation(Windows 8 XAML + C# application) ViewModels(Folder) BlogViewModel.cs App.xaml MainPage.xaml (Contains a property of BlogViewModel MyApp.Tests (WinRT Unit testing project used for my TDD) So I'm planning to use my ViewModel with the XAML UI I'm writing a test and define my interfaces in my system and I have the following code thus far. [TestMethod] public void Get_Zero_Blog_Posts_From_Presentation_Layer_Returns_Empty_Collection() { IBlogViewModel viewModel = _container.Resolve<IBlogViewModel>(); viewModel.LoadBlogPosts(0); Assert.AreEqual(0, viewModel.BlogPosts.Count, "There should be 0 blog posts."); } viewModel.BlogPosts is an ObservableCollection<IPost> Now.. my first thought is that I'd like the LoadBlogPosts method on the ViewModel to call a static method on the BlogPost entity. My problem is I feel like I need to inject the IDataService into the Entity object so that it promotes loose coupling. Here are the two options that I'm struggling with: Not use a static method and use a member method on the BlogPost entity. Have the BlogPost take an IDataService in the constructor and use dependency injection to resolve the BlogPost instance and the IDataService implementation. Don't use the entity to call the IDataService. Put the IDataService in the constructor of the ViewModel and use my container to resolve the IDataService when the viewmodel is instantiated. So with option one the layers will look like this ViewModel(Presentation layer) - Entity (Domain layer) - IDataService (Service Layer) or ViewModel(Presentation layer) - IDataService (Service Layer)

    Read the article

  • DI and hypothetical readonly setters in C#

    - by Luis Ferrao
    Sometimes I would like to declare a property like this: public string Name { get; readonly set; } I am wondering if anyone sees a reason why such a syntax shouldn't exist. I believe that because it is a subset of "get; private set;", it could only make code more robust. My feeling is that such setters would be extremely DI friendly, but of course I'm more interested in hearing your opinions than my own, so what do you think? I am aware of 'public readonly' fields, but those are not interface friendly so I don't even consider them. That said, I don't mind if you bring them up into the discussion Edit I realize reading the comments that perhaps my idea is a little confusing. The ultimate purpose of this new syntax would be to have an automatic property syntax that specifies that the backing private field should be readonly. Basically declaring a property using my hypothetical syntax public string Name { get; readonly set; } would be interpreted by C# as: private readonly string name; public string Name { get { return this.name; } } And the reason I say this would be DI friendly is because when we rely heavily on constructor injection, I believe it is good practice to declare our constructor injected fields as readonly.

    Read the article

  • Purpose of "new" keyword

    - by Channel72
    The new keyword in languages like Java, Javascript, and C# creates a new instance of a class. This syntax seems to have been inherited from C++, where new is used specifically to allocate a new instance of a class on the heap, and return a pointer to the new instance. In C++, this is not the only way to construct an object. You can also construct an object on the stack, without using new - and in fact, this way of constructing objects is much more common in C++. So, coming from a C++ background, the new keyword in languages like Java, Javascript, and C# seemed natural and obvious to me. Then I started to learn Python, which doesn't have the new keyword. In Python, an instance is constructed simply by calling the constructor, like: f = Foo() At first, this seemed a bit off to me, until it occurred to me that there's no reason for Python to have new, because everything is an object so there's no need to disambiguate between various constructor syntaxes. But then I thought - what's really the point of new in Java? Why should we say Object o = new Object();? Why not just Object o = Object();? In C++ there's definitely a need for new, since we need to distinguish between allocating on the heap and allocating on the stack, but in Java all objects are constructed on the heap, so why even have the new keyword? The same question could be asked for Javascript. In C#, which I'm much less familiar with, I think new may have some purpose in terms of distinguishing between object types and value types, but I'm not sure. Regardless, it seems to me that many languages which came after C++ simply "inherited" the new keyword - without really needing it. It's almost like a vestigial keyword. We don't seem to need it for any reason, and yet it's there. Question: Am I correct about this? Or is there some compelling reason that new needs to be in C++-inspired memory-managed languages like Java, Javascript and C#?

    Read the article

  • A Look Inside JSR 360 - CLDC 8

    - by Roger Brinkley
    If you didn't notice during JavaOne the Java Micro Edition took a major step forward in its consolidation with Java Standard Edition when JSR 360 was proposed to the JCP community. Over the last couple of years there has been a focus to move Java ME back in line with it's big brother Java SE. We see evidence of this in JCP itself which just recently merged the ME and SE/EE Executive Committees into a single Java Executive Committee. But just before that occurred JSR 360 was proposed and approved for development on October 29. So let's take a look at what changes are now being proposed. In a way JSR 360 is returning back to the original roots of Java ME when it was first introduced. It was indeed a subset of the JDK 4 language, but as Java progressed many of the language changes were not implemented in the Java ME. Back then the tradeoff was still a functionality, footprint trade off but the major market was feature phones. Today the market has changed and CLDC, while it will still target feature phones, will have it primary emphasis on embedded devices like wireless modules, smart meters, health care monitoring and other M2M devices. The major changes will come in three areas: language feature changes, library changes, and consolidating the Generic Connection Framework.  There have been three Java SE versions that have been implemented since JavaME was first developed so the language feature changes can be divided into changes that came in JDK 5 and those in JDK 7, which mostly consist of the project Coin changes. There were no language changes in JDK 6 but the changes from JDK 5 are: Assertions - Assertions enable you to test your assumptions about your program. For example, if you write a method that calculates the speed of a particle, you might assert that the calculated speed is less than the speed of light. In the example code below if the interval isn't between 0 and and 1,00 the an error of "Invalid value?" would be thrown. private void setInterval(int interval) { assert interval > 0 && interval <= 1000 : "Invalid value?" } Generics - Generics add stability to your code by making more of your bugs detectable at compile time. Code that uses generics has many benefits over non-generic code with: Stronger type checks at compile time. Elimination of casts. Enabling programming to implement generic algorithms. Enhanced for Loop - the enhanced for loop allows you to iterate through a collection without having to create an Iterator or without having to calculate beginning and end conditions for a counter variable. The enhanced for loop is the easiest of the new features to immediately incorporate in your code. In this tip you will see how the enhanced for loop replaces more traditional ways of sequentially accessing elements in a collection. void processList(Vector<string> list) { for (String item : list) { ... Autoboxing/Unboxing - This facility eliminates the drudgery of manual conversion between primitive types, such as int and wrapper types, such as Integer.  Hashtable<Integer, string=""> data = new Hashtable<>(); void add(int id, String value) { data.put(id, value); } Enumeration - Prior to JDK 5 enumerations were not typesafe, had no namespace, were brittle because they were compile time constants, and provided no informative print values. JDK 5 added support for enumerated types as a full-fledged class (dubbed an enum type). In addition to solving all the problems mentioned above, it allows you to add arbitrary methods and fields to an enum type, to implement arbitrary interfaces, and more. Enum types provide high-quality implementations of all the Object methods. They are Comparable and Serializable, and the serial form is designed to withstand arbitrary changes in the enum type. enum Season {WINTER, SPRING, SUMMER, FALL}; } private Season season; void setSeason(Season newSeason) { season = newSeason; } Varargs - Varargs eliminates the need for manually boxing up argument lists into an array when invoking methods that accept variable-length argument lists. The three periods after the final parameter's type indicate that the final argument may be passed as an array or as a sequence of arguments. Varargs can be used only in the final argument position. void warning(String format, String... parameters) { .. for(String p : parameters) { ...process(p);... } ... } Static Imports -The static import construct allows unqualified access to static members without inheriting from the type containing the static members. Instead, the program imports the members either individually or en masse. Once the static members have been imported, they may be used without qualification. The static import declaration is analogous to the normal import declaration. Where the normal import declaration imports classes from packages, allowing them to be used without package qualification, the static import declaration imports static members from classes, allowing them to be used without class qualification. import static data.Constants.RATIO; ... double r = Math.cos(RATIO * theta); Annotations - Annotations provide data about a program that is not part of the program itself. They have no direct effect on the operation of the code they annotate. There are a number of uses for annotations including information for the compiler, compiler-time and deployment-time processing, and run-time processing. They can be applied to a program's declarations of classes, fields, methods, and other program elements. @Deprecated public void clear(); The language changes from JDK 7 are little more familiar as they are mostly the changes from Project Coin: String in switch - Hey it only took us 18 years but the String class can be used in the expression of a switch statement. Fortunately for us it won't take that long for JavaME to adopt it. switch (arg) { case "-data": ... case "-out": ... Binary integral literals and underscores in numeric literals - Largely for readability, the integral types (byte, short, int, and long) can also be expressed using the binary number system. and any number of underscore characters (_) can appear anywhere between digits in a numerical literal. byte flags = 0b01001111; long mask = 0xfff0_ff08_4fff_0fffl; Multi-catch and more precise rethrow - A single catch block can handle more than one type of exception. In addition, the compiler performs more precise analysis of rethrown exceptions than earlier releases of Java SE. This enables you to specify more specific exception types in the throws clause of a method declaration. catch (IOException | InterruptedException ex) { logger.log(ex); throw ex; } Type Inference for Generic Instance Creation - Otherwise known as the diamond operator, the type arguments required to invoke the constructor of a generic class can be replaced with an empty set of type parameters (<>) as long as the compiler can infer the type arguments from the context.  map = new Hashtable<>(); Try-with-resource statement - The try-with-resources statement is a try statement that declares one or more resources. A resource is an object that must be closed after the program is finished with it. The try-with-resources statement ensures that each resource is closed at the end of the statement.  try (DataInputStream is = new DataInputStream(...)) { return is.readDouble(); } Simplified varargs method invocation - The Java compiler generates a warning at the declaration site of a varargs method or constructor with a non-reifiable varargs formal parameter. Java SE 7 introduced a compiler option -Xlint:varargs and the annotations @SafeVarargs and @SuppressWarnings({"unchecked", "varargs"}) to supress these warnings. On the library side there are new features that will be added to satisfy the language requirements above and some to improve the currently available set of APIs.  The library changes include: Collections update - New Collection, List, Set and Map, Iterable and Iteratator as well as implementations including Hashtable and Vector. Most of the work is too support generics String - New StringBuilder and CharSequence as well as a Stirng formatter. The javac compiler  now uses the the StringBuilder instead of String Buffer. Since StringBuilder is synchronized there is a performance increase which has necessitated the wahat String constructor works. Comparable interface - The comparable interface works with Collections, making it easier to reuse. Try with resources - Closeable and AutoCloseable Annotations - While support for Annotations is provided it will only be a compile time support. SuppressWarnings, Deprecated, Override NIO - There is a subset of NIO Buffer that have been in use on the of the graphics packages and needs to be pulled in and also support for NIO File IO subset. Platform extensibility via Service Providers (ServiceLoader) - ServiceLoader interface dos late bindings of interface to existing implementations. It helpe to package an interface and behavior of the implementation at a later point in time.Provider classes must have a zero-argument constructor so that they can be instantiated during loading. They are located and instantiated on demand and are identified via a provider-configuration file in the METAINF/services resource directory. This is a mechansim from Java SE. import com.XYZ.ServiceA; ServiceLoader<ServiceA> sl1= new ServiceLoader(ServiceA.class); Resources: META-INF/services/com.XYZ.ServiceA: ServiceAProvider1 ServiceAProvider2 ServiceAProvider3 META-INF/services/ServiceB: ServiceBProvider1 ServiceBProvider2 From JSR - I would rather use this list I think The Generic Connection Framework (GCF) was previously specified in a number of different JSRs including CLDC, MIDP, CDC 1.2, and JSR 197. JSR 360 represents a rare opportunity to consolidated and reintegrate parts that were duplicated in other specifications into a single specification, upgrade the APIs as well provide new functionality. The proposal is to specify a combined GCF specification that can be used with Java ME or Java SE and be backwards compatible with previous implementations. Because of size limitations as well as the complexity of the some features like InvokeDynamic and Unicode 6 will not be included. Additionally, any language or library changes in JDK 8 will be not be included. On the upside, with all the changes being made, backwards compatibility will still be maintained. JSR 360 is a major step forward for Java ME in terms of platform modernization, language alignment, and embedded support. If you're interested in following the progress of this JSR see the JSR's java.net project for details of the email lists, discussions groups.

    Read the article

  • Questioning the motivation for dependency injection: Why is creating an object graph hard?

    - by oberlies
    Dependency injection frameworks like Google Guice give the following motivation for their usage (source): To construct an object, you first build its dependencies. But to build each dependency, you need its dependencies, and so on. So when you build an object, you really need to build an object graph. Building object graphs by hand is labour intensive (...) and makes testing difficult. But I don't buy this argument: Even without dependency injection, I can write classes which are both easy to instantiate and convenient to test. E.g. the example from the Guice motivation page could be rewritten in the following way: class BillingService { private final CreditCardProcessor processor; private final TransactionLog transactionLog; // constructor for tests, taking all collaborators as parameters BillingService(CreditCardProcessor processor, TransactionLog transactionLog) { this.processor = processor; this.transactionLog = transactionLog; } // constructor for production, calling the (productive) constructors of the collaborators public BillingService() { this(new PaypalCreditCardProcessor(), new DatabaseTransactionLog()); } public Receipt chargeOrder(PizzaOrder order, CreditCard creditCard) { ... } } So dependency injection may really be an advantage in advanced use cases, but I don't need it for easy construction and testability, do I?

    Read the article

  • What's a good entity hierarchy for a 2D game?

    - by futlib
    I'm in the process of building a new 2D game out of some code I wrote a while ago. The object hierarchy for entities is like this: Scene (e.g. MainMenu): Contains multiple entities and delegates update()/draw() to each Entity: Base class for all things in a scene (e.g. MenuItem or Alien) Sprite: Base class for all entities that just draw a texture, i.e. don't have their own drawing logic Does it make sense to split up entities and sprites up like that? I think in a 2D game, the terms entity and sprite are somewhat synonymous, right? But I do believe that I need some base class for entities that just draw a texture, as opposed to drawing themselves, to avoid duplication. Most entities are like that. One weird case is my Text class: It derives from Sprite, which accepts either the path of an image or an already loaded texture in its constructor. Text loads a texture in its constructor and passes that to Sprite. Can you outline a design that makes more sense? Or point me to a good object-oriented reference code base for a 2D game? I could only find 3D engine code bases of decent code quality, e.g. Doom 3 and HPL1Engine.

    Read the article

  • This is something new

    - by shmoolca
    Normal 0 false false false EN-US X-NONE X-NONE MicrosoftInternetExplorer4 /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-priority:99; mso-style-qformat:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt; mso-para-margin-top:0cm; mso-para-margin-right:0cm; mso-para-margin-bottom:10.0pt; mso-para-margin-left:0cm; line-height:115%; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast; mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;} I have created GUI with lots of my own controls. This control has style as a resource inside control resources. My performance profiler shows that InitializeComponent of this control is 7.5 times longer than control that has defined style in resources of application. It occurs because constructor is loading whole BAML each time constructor is called. Sounds logical for me :)

    Read the article

  • Why do memory-managed languages retain the `new` keyword?

    - by Channel72
    The new keyword in languages like Java, Javascript, and C# creates a new instance of a class. This syntax seems to have been inherited from C++, where new is used specifically to allocate a new instance of a class on the heap, and return a pointer to the new instance. In C++, this is not the only way to construct an object. You can also construct an object on the stack, without using new - and in fact, this way of constructing objects is much more common in C++. So, coming from a C++ background, the new keyword in languages like Java, Javascript, and C# seemed natural and obvious to me. Then I started to learn Python, which doesn't have the new keyword. In Python, an instance is constructed simply by calling the constructor, like: f = Foo() At first, this seemed a bit off to me, until it occurred to me that there's no reason for Python to have new, because everything is an object so there's no need to disambiguate between various constructor syntaxes. But then I thought - what's really the point of new in Java? Why should we say Object o = new Object();? Why not just Object o = Object();? In C++ there's definitely a need for new, since we need to distinguish between allocating on the heap and allocating on the stack, but in Java all objects are constructed on the heap, so why even have the new keyword? The same question could be asked for Javascript. In C#, which I'm much less familiar with, I think new may have some purpose in terms of distinguishing between object types and value types, but I'm not sure. Regardless, it seems to me that many languages which came after C++ simply "inherited" the new keyword - without really needing it. It's almost like a vestigial keyword. We don't seem to need it for any reason, and yet it's there. Question: Am I correct about this? Or is there some compelling reason that new needs to be in C++-inspired memory-managed languages like Java, Javascript and C#?

    Read the article

  • Design for object with optional and modifiable attributtes?

    - by Ikuzen
    I've been using the Builder pattern to create objects with a large number of attributes, where most of them are optional. But up until now, I've defined them as final, as recommended by Joshua Block and other authors, and haven't needed to change their values. I am wondering what should I do though if I need a class with a substantial number of optional but non-final (mutable) attributes? My Builder pattern code looks like this: public class Example { //All possible parameters (optional or not) private final int param1; private final int param2; //Builder class public static class Builder { private final int param1; //Required parameters private int param2 = 0; //Optional parameters - initialized to default //Builder constructor public Builder (int param1) { this.param1 = param1; } //Setter-like methods for optional parameters public Builder param2(int value) { param2 = value; return this; } //build() method public Example build() { return new Example(this); } } //Private constructor private Example(Builder builder) { param1 = builder.param1; param2 = builder.param2; } } Can I just remove the final keyword from the declaration to be able to access the attributes externally (through normal setters, for example)? Or is there a creational pattern that allows optional but non-final attributes that would be better suited in this case?

    Read the article

  • How to implement child-parent aggregation link in C++?

    - by Giorgio
    Suppose that I have three classes P, C1, C2, composition (strong aggregation) relations between P <>- C1 and P <>- C2, i.e. every instance of P contains an instance of C1 and an instance of C2, which are destroyed when the parent P instance is destroyed. an association relation between instances of C1 and C2 (not necessarily between children of the same P). To implement this, in C++ I normally define three classes P, C1, C2, define two member variables of P of type boost::shared_ptr<C1>, boost::shared_ptr<C2>, and initialize them with newly created objects in P's constructor, implement the relation between C1 and C2 using a boost::weak_ptr<C2> member variable in C1 and a boost::weak_ptr<C1> member variable in C2 that can be set later via appropriate methods, when the relation is established. Now, I also would like to have a link from each C1 and C2 object to its P parent object. What is a good way to implement this? My current idea is to use a simple constant raw pointer (P * const) that is set from the constructor of P (which, in turn, calls the constructors of C1 and C2), i.e. something like: class C1 { public: C1(P * const p, ...) : paren(p) { ... } private: P * const parent; ... }; class P { public: P(...) : childC1(new C1(this, ...)) ... { ... } private: boost::shared_ptr<C1> childC1; ... }; Honestly I see no risk in using a private constant raw pointer in this way but I know that raw pointers are often frowned upon in C++ so I was wondering if there is an alternative solution.

    Read the article

  • Interview Questions in OOP

    - by Fero
    Hi all, I faced the below interview questions in OOP under PHP language. Kindly clear my clarifications regarding this. I am very confused. As i am a beginner to OOP i got too confused. Could anyone clarify these things clearly? Difference between Abstract class and interface. Interviewer : Let us consider abstract class contains three abstract methods such as a,b,c and interface contains three methods a,b,c. In this case these do the same functionality. Then why are going for abstract and why are we going for interface. Me : ? static keyword. Interviewer: We call static method without creating object by using scope resolution operator in PHP. As well as we can able to call concrete methods also. Then what is need of static keyword there? Me : .... final keyword. Interviewer: Give me any scenario of using final keyword. Me : For db connection related method Interviewer: Other than that? Me: ... Constructor. Interviewer: What is the use of constructor? Me : There is no need for object to access this. It will call automatically when the class calls. Interviewer: Other than that? Me : .... Thanks in advance...

    Read the article

  • Object oriented wrapper around a dll

    - by Tom Davies
    So, I'm writing a C# managed wrapper around a native dll. The dll contains several hundred functions. In most cases, the first argument to each function is an opaque handle to a type internal to the dll. So, an obvious starting point for defining some classes in the wrapper would be to define classes corresponding to each of these opaque types, with each instance holding and managing the opaque handle (passed to its constructor) Things are a little awkward when dealing with callbacks from the dll. Naturally, the callback handlers in my wrapper have to be static, but the callbacks arguments invariable contain an opaque handle. In order to get from the static callback back to an object instance, I've created a static dictionary in each class, associating handles with class instances. In the constructor of each class, an entry is put into the dictionary, and this entry is then removed in the Destructors. When I receive a callback, I can then consult the dictionary to retrieve the class instance corresponding to the opaque reference. Are there any obvious flaws to this? Something that seems to be a problem is that the existence static dictionary means that the garbage collector will not act on my class instances that are otherwise unreachable. As they are never garbage collected, they never get removed from the dictionary, so the dictionary grows. It seems I might have to manually dispose of my objects, which is something absolutely would like to avoid. Can anyone suggest a good design that allows me to avoid having to do this?

    Read the article

  • Balancing dependency injection with public API design

    - by kolektiv
    I've been contemplating how to balance testable design using dependency injection with providing simple fixed public API. My dilemma is: people would want to do something like var server = new Server(){ ... } and not have to worry about creating the many dependencies and graph of dependencies that a Server(,,,,,,) may have. While developing, I don't worry too much, as I use an IoC/DI framework to handle all that (I'm not using the lifecycle management aspects of any container, which would complicate things further). Now, the dependencies are unlikely to be re-implemented. Componentisation in this case is almost purely for testability (and decent design!) rather than creating seams for extension, etc. People will 99.999% of the time wish to use a default configuration. So. I could hardcode the dependencies. Don't want to do that, we lose our testing! I could provide a default constructor with hard-coded dependencies and one which takes dependencies. That's... messy, and likely to be confusing, but viable. I could make the dependency receiving constructor internal and make my unit tests a friend assembly (assuming C#), which tidies the public API but leaves a nasty hidden trap lurking for maintenance. Having two constructors which are implicitly connected rather than explicitly would be bad design in general in my book. At the moment that's about the least evil I can think of. Opinions? Wisdom?

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149  | Next Page >