Search Results

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

Page 170/585 | < Previous Page | 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177  | Next Page >

  • Unstructured database design

    - by Linh
    Hi all, According to normal way, we design the table with fields. Example with an article the table can contain fields as follows: title, content, author..... But how does everybody think if we add up some fields to a field?

    Read the article

  • PHP: How do I access child properties from a method in a base object?

    - by Nick
    I'd like for all of my objects to be able to return a JSON string of themselves. So I created a base class for all of my objects to extend, with an AsJSON() method: class BaseObject { public function AsJSON() { $JSON=array(); foreach ($this as $key = $value) { if(is_null($value)) continue; $JSON[$key] = $value; } return json_encode($JSON); } } And then extend my child classes from that: class Package extends BaseObject { ... } So in my code, I expect to do this: $Box = new Package; $Box-SetID('123'); $Box-SetName('12x8x6'); $Box-SetBoxX('12'); $Box-SetBoxY('8'); $Box-SetBoxZ('6'); echo $Box-AsJSON(); But the JSON string it returns only contains the BaseClass's properties, not the child properties. How do I modify my AsJSON() function so that $this refers to the child's properties, not the parent's?

    Read the article

  • What is the Rule of Thumb on Exposing Encapsulated Class Methods

    - by javamonkey79
    Consider the following analogy: If we have a class: "Car" we might expect it to have an instance of "Engine" in it. As in: "The car HAS-A engine". Similarly, in the "Engine" class we would expect an instance of "Starting System" or "Cooling System" which each have their appropriate sub-components. By the nature of encapsulation, is it not true that the car "HAS-A" "radiator hose" in it as well as the engine? Therefore, is it appropriate OO to do something like this: public class Car { private Engine _engine; public Engine getEngine() { return _engine; } // is it ok to use 'convenience' methods of inner classes? // are the following 2 methods "wrong" from an OO point of view? public RadiatorHose getRadiatorHose() { return getCoolingSystem().getRadiatorHose(); } public CoolingSystem getCoolingSystem() { return _engine.getCoolingSystem(); } } public class Engine { private CoolingSystem _coolingSystem; public CoolingSystem getCoolingSystem() { return _coolingSystem; } } public class CoolingSystem { private RadiatorHose _radiatorHose; public RadiatorHose getRadiatorHose() { return _radiatorHose; } } public class RadiatorHose {//... }

    Read the article

  • Can't declare an abstract method private....

    - by Zombies
    I want to do this, yet I can't. Here is my scenario and rational. I have an abstract class for test cases that has an abstract method called test(). The test() method is to be defined by the subclass; it is to be implemented with logic for a certain application, such as CRMAppTestCase extends CompanyTestCase. I don't want the test() method to be invoked directly, I want the super class to call the test() method while the sub class can call a method which calls this (and does other work too, such as setting a current date-time right before the test is executed for example). Example code: public abstract class CompanyTestCase { //I wish this would compile, but it cannot be declared private private abstract void test(); public TestCaseResult performTest() { //do some work which must be done and should be invoked whenever //this method is called (it would be improper to expect the caller // to perform initialization) TestCaseResult result = new TestCaseResult(); result.setBeginTime(new Date()); long time = System.currentTimeMillis(); test(); //invoke test logic result.setDuration(System.currentTimeMillis() - time); return result; } } Then to extend this.... public class CRMAppTestCase extends CompanyTestCase { public void test() { //test logic here } } Then to call it.... TestCaseResult result = new CRMAppTestCase().performTest();

    Read the article

  • a design to avoid circular reference in this scenario

    - by BDotA
    Here is our dependency tree: BigApp - Child Apps - Libraries ALL of our components are HEAVILY using one of the Libraries as above ( LibA). But it has a ‘few’ public methods that require classes from ‘higher-level’ assemblies and we want to avoid CIRCULAR references. What do you propose as a good design for this?

    Read the article

  • Simple OOP-related question.

    - by M4design
    This question came to my mind quite a few times. Let my explain my question through an example. Say I've got two classes: 1- Grid. 2- Cell. Now the location of the cell 'should' be stored in the grid class, not in the cell class itself. Say that the cell wanted to get its location through a method in the grid. How can it do that? Keep in mind that the cell was created/initialised by the Grid class. What good OO approach to solve this problem? Thank you

    Read the article

  • I'd want a method to be called only by objects of a specific class

    - by mp
    Suppose you have this class: public class A { private int number; public setNumber(int n){ number = n; } } I'd like the method setNumber could be called only by objects of a specific class. Does it make sense? I know it is not possible, is it? Which are the design alternatives? Some well known design pattern? Sorry for the silly question, but I'm a bit rusty in OO design.

    Read the article

  • How to simplify the code?

    - by Tattat
    I have objectA, and objectB.... also I have objectAs, and objectBs. the objectA is only have the init method, and ObjectAs have somethings like this: #import "ObjectAs.h" @implementation ObjectAs @synthesize objectAs; -(id) init{ if( (self=[super init])) { self.objectAs = [[NSMutableArray alloc] init]; } return self; } -(int)getObjectAsNumber{ return [self.objectAs count]; } -(void)addObjectA:(ObjectA *)newObjectA{ [self.objectAs addObject:newObjectA]; } -(id)getObjectAByIdx:(int)objectAIdx{ return [self.objectAs objectAtIndex:objectAIdx]; } -(void)dealloc{ [super dealloc]; [objectAs release]; } @end The objectBs have similar have, I know that I can copy and paste, and replace it. Is there any way to simplify the objectBs, and objectAs? thz a lot.

    Read the article

  • Is it possible to create an enum whose instance can't be created but can be used for readonly purpos

    - by Shantanu Gupta
    I created an enum where I stored some table names. I want it to be used to get the name of the table like ds.Tables[BGuestInfo.TableName.L_GUEST_TYPE.ToString()]. public class a { public enum TableName : byte { L_GUEST_TYPE = 0 ,L_AGE_GROUP = 1 ,M_COMPANY = 2 ,L_COUNTRY = 3 ,L_EYE_COLOR = 4 ,L_GENDER = 5 ,L_HAIR_COLOR = 6 ,L_STATE_PROVINCE = 7 ,L_STATUS = 8 ,L_TITLE = 9 ,M_TOWER = 10 ,L_CITY = 11 ,L_REGISTER_TYPE = 12 } } class b { a.TableName x; //trying to restrict this ds.Tables[a.TableName.L_GUEST_TYPE] //accessible and can be used like this } This is my enum. Now I have not created any instance of this enum so that no one can use it for other than read only purpose. For this enum to be accessible in outer classes as well I have to make it public which means some outer class can create its object as well. So what can i do so as to restrict its instance creation.

    Read the article

  • Document Management System - Architectural Design Question

    - by Aspirant
    I need to design an in-house server-based system that will store hundreds of thousands of files (images, spreadsheets, text documents) with users accessing metadata as well as files remotely. What are my options? ASP.Net MVC or WinForms with WCF service? I am really stuck here because I am a newbie. Any advice will be appreciated. Thanks in advance.

    Read the article

  • Get class instance by class name string

    - by VDVLeon
    Hi all, I noticed the function Object.factory(char[] className) in D. But it does not work like I hoped it would work; it does not work ;) An example: import std.stdio; class TestClass { override string toString() { return typeof(this).stringof; // TestClass } }; void main(string[] args) { auto i = Object.factory("TestClass"); if (i is null) { writeln("Class not found"); } else { writeln("Class string: " ~ i); } } I think this should result in the message: "Class string: TestClass" but it says "Class not found". Does anybody know why this happens and how I could fix it ? Or do I need to make my own class factory. For example by make a class with a static array Object[string] classes; with class instances. When I want a new instance I do this: auto i = (className in classes); if (i is null) { return null; } return i.classinfo.create();

    Read the article

  • What is the business case for a dependency injection (DI) framework?

    - by kalkie
    At my company we want to start using a dependency injection (DI) framework for managing our dependencies. I have some difficulty with explaining the business value of such a framework. Currently I have come up with these reasons. Less source code, delete all the builder patterns in the code. Increase in flexibility. Easier to switch dependencies. Better separation of concern. The framework is responsible for creating instances instead of our code. Has anybody else had to persuade management? How did you do that? What reasons did you use?

    Read the article

  • How to create PHP method linking?

    - by Kerry
    I've seen other objects that do this: $obj->method1()->method2(); How do I do that? Is each function just modifying the pointer of an object or returning a pointer? I don't know the proper term for this style -- if anyone could help me with that, it would be great.

    Read the article

  • programing logic and design plzzzzzzzzz help [closed]

    - by alex
    `*the midvile park maintains records containing info about players on it's soccer teams . each record contain a players first name,last name,and team number . the team are team number team name 1 goal getters 2 the force 3 top gun 4 shooting stars 5 midfield monsters design a proggram that accept player data and creates a report that lists each player along with his or her team number and team name

    Read the article

  • [Perl] Use a Module / Object which is defined in the same file

    - by Robert S. Barnes
    I need to define some modules and use them all in the same file. No, I can't change the requirement. I would like to do something like the following: { package FooObj; sub new { ... } sub add_data { ... } } { package BarObj; use FooObj; sub new { ... # BarObj "has a" FooObj my $self = ( myFoo => FooObj->new() ); ... } sub some_method { ... } } my $bar = BarObj->new(); However, this results in the message: Can't locate FooObj.pm in @INC ... BEGIN failed... How do I get this to work?

    Read the article

  • do you call them functions, procedures or methods?

    - by lowlyintern
    consider a standard c# 'function' public void foo() { //some code } In c or c++ this is called a 'function' - even if taking no parameters and returning no value. In another language maybe it would be a 'procedure'. In object orientation speak it would be called a 'method' if a class member. What would be the correct term to use in c#?

    Read the article

  • Database design

    - by Hadad
    Hello, I've a system, that have two types of users (Companies and individuals).all types have a shared set of properties but they differ in another. What is the best design merge all in one table that allows null for unmatched properties, or separate them in two tables related to a basic table with a one to one relationship. Thanks.

    Read the article

  • What should layers in dotnet application ?

    - by haansi
    I am using layered architecture in dotnet (mostly I work on web projects). I am confuse what layers should I use ? I have small idea that there should be the following layers. user interface customer types (custom entities) business logic layer data access layer My purpose is sure quality of work and maximum re-usability of code. some one suggested to add common types layer in it. Please guide me what should be layers ? and in each layer what part should go ?

    Read the article

  • Why does C++ behave this way?

    - by eSKay
    #include<stdio.h> int b = 0; class A { public: int a;}; class B: public A { int c; int d; public: B(){ b++; a = b; printf("B:%d\n",b); } }; int main() { A* a = new B[10]; B* b = new B[10]; printf("\n%d", a->a); a++; printf("\n%d", a->a); // prints junk value printf("\n\n%d", b->a); b++; printf("\n%d", b->a); return 0; } The second printf prints a junk value. It should figure that it is pointing to an object of type B and increment by the sizof(B). Why does that not happen?

    Read the article

  • Why Is Java Missing Access Specifiers?

    - by Tom Tresansky
    Does anyone understand why Java is missing: An access specifier which allows access by the class and all subclasses, but NOT by other classes in the same package? (Protected-minus) An access specifier which allows access by the class, all classes in the same package, AND all classes in any sub-package? (Default-plus) An access specifier which adds classes in sub-packages to the entities currently allowed access by protected? (Protected-plus) I wish I had more choices than protected and default. In particular, I'm interested in the Protected-plus option. Say I want to use a Builder/Factory patterned class to produce an object with many links to other objects. The constructors on the objects are all default, because I want to force you to use the factory class to produce instances, in order to make sure the linking is done correctly. I want to group the factories in a sub-package to keep them all together and distinct from the objects they are instantiating---this just seems like a cleaner package structure to me. No can do, currently. I have to put the builders in the same package as the objects they are constructing, in order to gain the access to defaults. But separating project.area.objects from project.area.objects.builders would be so nice. So why is Java lacking these options? And, is there anyway to fake it?

    Read the article

  • Class with proprties that haven't been set

    - by koumides
    Hello there, I am creating a class in C# which eventually will be part of a library that other uses can use. A user of this class has to set some properties and then use a public method to retrieve the results. What shall I do when a user calls the method without setting all the properties? Throw exception and expect the user to catch it? Thanks

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177  | Next Page >