Search Results

Search found 14602 results on 585 pages for 'objected oriented design'.

Page 167/585 | < Previous Page | 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174  | Next Page >

  • domain modeling naming problem

    - by cherouvim
    Hello There are some simple entities in an application (e.g containing only id and title) which rarely change and are being referenced by the more complex entities of the application. These are usually entities such as Country, City, Language etc. How are these called? I've used the following names for those in the past but I'm not sure which is the best way to call them: reference data lookup values dictionaries thanks

    Read the article

  • ASP.Net Architecture Specific to Shared/Static functions

    - by Maxim Gershkovich
    Hello All, Could someone please advise in the context of a ASP.Net application is a shared/static function common to all users? If for example you have a function Public shared function GetStockByID(StockID as Guid) as Stock Is that function common to all current users of your application? Or is the shared function only specific to the current user and shared in the context of ONLY that current user? So more specifically my question is this, besides database concurrency issues such as table locking do I need to concern myself with threading issues in shared functions in an ASP.Net application? In my head; let’s say my application namespace is MyTestApplicationNamespace. Everytime a new user connects to my site a new instance of the MyTestApplicationNamespace is created and therefore all shared functions are common to that instance and user but NOT common across multiple users. Is this correct?

    Read the article

  • C#: why have all static methods/variables in a non-static class?

    - by Craig Johnston
    I have come across a class which is non-static, but all the methods and variables are static. Eg: public class Class1 { private static string String1 = "one"; private static string String2 = "two"; public static void PrintStrings(string str1, string str2) { ... All the variables are static across all instances, so there is no point having separate instances of the class. Is there any reason to create a class such as this?

    Read the article

  • Is there anything bad in declaring static inner class inside interface in java?

    - by Roman
    I have an interface ProductService with method findByCriteria. This method had a long list of nullable parameters, like productName, maxCost, minCost, producer and so on. I refactored this method by introducing Parameter Object. I created class SearchCriteria and now method signature looks like this: findByCriteria (SearchCriteria criteria) I thought that instances of SearchCriteria are only created by method callers and are only used inside findByCriteria method, i.e.: void processRequest() { SearchCriteria criteria = new SearchCriteria () .withMaxCost (maxCost) ....... .withProducer (producer); List<Product> products = productService.findByCriteria (criteria); .... } and List<Product> findByCriteria(SearchCriteria criteria) { return doSmthAndReturnResult(criteria.getMaxCost(), criteria.getProducer()); } So I did not want to create separate public class for SearchCriteria and put it inside ProductServiceInterface: public interface ProductService { List<Product> findByCriteria (SearchCriteria criteria); static class SearchCriteria { ... } } Is there anything bad in this interface? Where whould you place SearchCriteria class?

    Read the article

  • java protected method accessibility

    - by JavaUser
    In the below code the Consumer class can access the protected method of Parent class.How is it possible since there is no relation between Parent and Consumer class.Please explain class Parent { public void method1(){ System.out.println("PUBLIC METHOD"); } private void method2(){ System.out.println("PRIVATE METHOD"); } protected void method3(){ System.out.println("PROTECTED METHOD"); } } public class Consumer { public static void main(String[] args){ Parent parentObj = new Parent(); parentObj.method1(); //parentObj.method2(); parentObj.method3(); } } Thanks

    Read the article

  • Partial class or "chained inheritance"

    - by Charlie boy
    Hi From my understanding partial classes are a bit frowned upon by professional developers, but I've come over a bit of an issue; I have made an implementation of the RichTextBox control that uses user32.dll calls for faster editing of large texts. That results in quite a bit of code. Then I added spellchecking capabilities to the control, this was made in another class inheriting RichTextBox control as well. That also makes up a bit of code. These two functionalities are quite separate but I would like them to be merged so that I can drop one control on my form that has both fast editing capabilities and spellchecking built in. I feel that simply adding the code form one class to the other would result in a too large code file, especially since there are two very distinct areas of functionality, so I seem to need another approach. Now to my question; To merge these two classes should I make the spellchecking RichTextBox inherit from the fast edit one, that in turn inherits RichTextBox? Or should I make the two classes partials of a single class and thus making them more “equal” so to speak? This is more of a question of OO principles and exercise on my part than me trying to reinvent the wheel, I know there are plenty of good text editing controls out there. But this is just a hobby for me and I just want to know how this kind of solution would be managed by a professional. Thanks!

    Read the article

  • How should I declare default values for instance variables in Python?

    - by int3
    Should I give my class members default values like this: class Foo: num = 1 or like this? class Foo: def __init__(self): self.num = 1 In this question I discovered that in both cases, bar = Foo() bar.num += 1 is a well-defined operation. I understand that the first method will give me a class variable while the second one will not. However, if I do not require a class variable, but only need to set a default value for my instance variables, are both methods equally good? Or one of them more 'pythonic' than the other? One thing I've noticed is that in the Django tutorial, they use the second method to declare Models. Personally I think the second method is more elegant, but I'd like to know what the 'standard' way is.

    Read the article

  • Do you think functional language is good for applications that have a lot of business rules but very

    - by StackUnderflow
    I am convinced that functional programming is an excellent choice when it comes to applications that require a lot of computation (data mining, AI, nlp etc). But is it wise to use functional programming for a typical enterprise application where there are a lot of business rules but not much in terms of computation? Please disregard the fact that there are very few people using functional programming and that it's kind of tough. Thanks

    Read the article

  • PHP static objects giving a fatal error

    - by Webbo
    I have the following PHP code; <?php component_customer_init(); component_customer_go(); function component_customer_init() { $customer = Customer::getInstance(); $customer->set(1); } function component_customer_go() { $customer = Customer::getInstance(); $customer->get(); } class Customer { public $id; static $class = false; static function getInstance() { if(self::$class == false) { self::$class = new Customer; } else { return self::$class; } } public function set($id) { $this->id = $id; } public function get() { print $this->id; } } ?> I get the following error; Fatal error: Call to a member function set() on a non-object in ....../classes/customer.php on line 9 Can anyone tell me why I get this error? I know this code might look strange, but it's based on a component system that I'm writing for a CMS. The aim is to be able to replace HTML tags in the template e.g.; <!-- component:customer-login --> with; <?php component_customer_login(); ?> I also need to call pre-render methods of the "Customer" class to validate forms before output is made etc. If anyone can think of a better way, please let me know but in the first instance, I'd like to know why I get the "Fatal error" mentioned above. Cheers

    Read the article

  • Define an empty array in Perl class new()

    - by Laimoncijus
    Hi, I am just beginner with Perl, so if it sounds stupid - sorry for that :) My problem is - I am trying to write a class, which has an empty array, defined in constructor of a class. So I am doing this like this: package MyClass; use strict; sub new { my ($C) = @_; my $self = { items => () }; bless $self, ref $C || $C; } sub get { return $_[0]->{items}; } 1; Later I am testing my class with simple script: use strict; use Data::Dumper; use MyClass; my $o = MyClass->new(); my @items = $o->get(); print "length = ", scalar(@items), "\n", Dumper(@items); And while running the script I get following: $ perl my_test.pl length = 1 $VAR1 = undef; Why am I doing wrong what causes that I get my items array filled with undef? Maybe someone could show me example how the class would need to be defined so I would not get any default values in my array? Thanks!

    Read the article

  • C++ inheritance and member function pointers

    - by smh
    In C++, can member function pointers be used to point to derived (or even base) class members? EDIT: Perhaps an example will help. Suppose we have a hierarchy of three classes X, Y, Z in order of inheritance. Y therefore has a base class X and a derived class Z. Now we can define a member function pointer p for class Y. This is written as: void (Y::*p)(); (For simplicity, I'll assume we're only interested in functions with the signature void f() ) This pointer p can now be used to point to member functions of class Y. This question (two questions, really) is then: Can p be used to point to a function in the derived class Z? Can p be used to point to a function in the base class X?

    Read the article

  • What could possibly cause this error when declaring an object inside a class?

    - by M4design
    I'm battling with this assignment :) I've got two classes: Ocean and Grid. When I declare an object of the Grid inside the Ocean: unsigned int sharkCount; Grid grid; The compiler/complainer says: error C2146: syntax error : missing ';' before identifier 'grid' Can you possibly predict what produces this error with the limited info I provided? It seems that as if the Ocean doesn't like the Grid class. Could this be because of the poor implementation of the grid class. BTW the Grid has a default constructor. Yet the error happens in compiling time!. EDIT: They're each in separate header file, and I've included the Grid.h in the Ocean.h.

    Read the article

  • How to signal object instantiation in a Collaboration/Communication Diagram?

    - by devoured elysium
    I'd like to know how to translate the following line of code to a Collaboration Diagram: Food food = new Food("abc", 123); I know that I can call an Food's method using the following notation: MyStaticMethod() ----------------------> -------- | | | Food | | | -------- being that equivalent to Taste taste = Food.MyStaticMethod(); and MyInstanceMethod() ----------------------> --------------- | | | food : Food | | | --------------- is equivalent to food.MyInstanceMethod(); but how do I signal that I want to call a given constructor on Food? Thanks

    Read the article

  • What's The Best Object-Relational Mapping Tool For .NET?

    - by Icono123
    I've worked on a few Java web projects and we've always used Hibernate for our data object layer. I haven't worked on a large scale ASP.NET site and I'm unsure which solution to choose. I'm tempted to try NHibernate, but I don't like the fact that they use so many third party libraries. I found this list on Wikipedia of available ORM software: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_object-relational_mapping_software#.NET What ORM have you used? Was it easy to use? Would you recommend using it again? Was it used on a small, medium, or large project? Would you write your own? Thanks.

    Read the article

  • Using enums or a set of classes when I know I have a finite set of different options?

    - by devoured elysium
    Let's say I have defined the following class: public abstract class Event { public DateTime Time { get; protected set; } protected Event(DateTime time) { Time = time; } } What would you prefer between this: public class AsleepEvent : Event { public AsleepEvent(DateTime time) : base(time) { } } public class AwakeEvent : Event { public AwakeEvent(DateTime time) : base(time) { } } and this: public enum StateEventType { NowAwake, NowAsleep } public class StateEvent : Event { protected StateEventType stateType; public MealEvent(DateTime time, StateEventType stateType) : base(time) { stateType = stateType; } } and why? I am generally more inclined to the first option, but I can't explain why. Is it totally the same or are any advantages in using one instead of the other? Maybe with the first method its easier to add more "states", altough in this case I am 100% sure I will only want two states: now awake, and now asleep (they signal the moments when one awakes and one falls asleep).

    Read the article

  • How do I correct feature envy in this case?

    - by RMorrisey
    I have some code that looks like: class Parent { private Intermediate intermediateContainer; public Intermediate getIntermediate(); } class Intermediate { private Child child; public Child getChild() {...} public void intermediateOp(); } class Child { public void something(); public void somethingElse(); } class Client { private Parent parent; public void something() { parent.getIntermediate().getChild().something(); } public void somethingElse() { parent.getIntermediate().getChild().somethingElse(); } public void intermediate() { parent.getIntermediate().intermediateOp(); } } I understand that is an example of the "feature envy" code smell. The question is, what's the best way to fix it? My first instinct is to put the three methods on parent: parent.something(); parent.somethingElse(); parent.intermediateOp(); ...but I feel like this duplicates code, and clutters the API of the Parent class (which is already rather busy). Do I want to store the result of getIntermediate(), and/or getChild(), and keep my own references to these objects?

    Read the article

  • Make Java parent class not part of the interface

    - by Bart van Heukelom
    (This is a hypothetical question for discussion, I have no actual problem). Say that I'm making an implementation of SortedSet by extending LinkedHashMap: class LinkedHashSortedMapThing extends LinkedHashMap implements SortedSet { ... } Now programmers who use this class may do LinkedHashMap x = new LinkedHashSortedMapThing(); But what if I consider the extending of LinkedHashMap an implementation detail, and do not want it to be a part of the class' contract? If people use the line above, I can no longer freely change this detail without worrying about breaking existing code. Is there any way to prevent this sort of thing, other than favouring composition over inheritance (which is not always possible due to private/protected members)?

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174  | Next Page >