Search Results

Search found 9353 results on 375 pages for 'implementation phase'.

Page 2/375 | < Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >

  • Error : Implementation for method missing (Delphi Prism)

    - by Ilya
    I wrote my method: LangChange type MainForm = partial class(System.Windows.Forms.Form) private ... method LangChange(); protected method Dispose(disposing: Boolean); override; public constructor; end; implementation ... method LangChange(); begin ... end; However,I have an error Error 1 (PE33) Implementation for method "Compiler.MainForm.LangChange" missing What is wrong?Help please!

    Read the article

  • Best way to deal with a system without a user acceptance / testing phase

    - by billy.bob
    Historically I've been able to get away with making small changes to an in-house helpdesk system riding on a LAMP stack and just making a backup prior to editing. This has no user acceptance / testing phase and I work on the live .php files directly. However now the requirement has arisen that will require a bit more coding done, and I'm obviously not particularly happy about making these changes without a framework to support me. What would the best way forward be? I could just make another backup I suppose.

    Read the article

  • Chrome débarque sur iPhone et sur iPad et sort de sa phase bêta sur Android

    Chrome débarque sur iPhone et iPad Et sort de sa phase bêta sur Android Alors que Mozilla travaille sur une pré-version de Firefox pour iPad, Google lui vient d'annoncer la première version de Chrome pour la tablette d'Apple, mais aussi pour l'iPhone. Pour Google, le but affiché est de pouvoir synchroniser les différentes expériences de navigation (PC et mobiles) des utilisateurs, quelques soient les marques des appareils qu'ils possèdent. Il est aussi ? et surtout ? de continuer à gagner des parts de marché en surfant sur la popularité toujours grandissante de iOS.

    Read the article

  • How can I execute several maven plugins within a single phase and set their respective execution ord

    - by Yaneeve
    Hi all, I would like to breakup certain phases in the maven life cycle into sub phases. I would like to control the execution flow from one sub-phase to another, sort of like with ant dependencies. For example, I would like to use the NSIS plugin in order to package up my project into an installer at the package stage, AFTER my project had been packaged into a war file. I would like to do all that at the package phase. Is that possible? Thanks

    Read the article

  • Software development project inception phase

    - by john ryan
    Currently our team develops Web Applications and now we are going to Windows Forms applications. I have created the inception phase for our Windows Forms project structure. eg: ApplicationSolution --> Security Project(Login Authentication) a. Users will be registered with different applications in our application database. eg: ProjectApplicationId|ProjectName | UserId 1 |ProjectApplication1| user 2 |ProjectApplication2| user b. Execute Application (Start) c. On Security dialog, application automatically get the userid of the user and see all the application it is registered using System.Security.Principal.WindowsIdentity.GetCurrent() eg: Prototype Welcome User! Please Choose Appliations you are registered on below: ProjectApplication1 <--this will be a dropdown ProjectApplication2 Password: [*********************] [Access Application Button] d. User selects the application with its password e. If the password is incorrect (application.exit()) else execute Selected Application eg: ProjectApplication1 is selected then execute ProjectApplication1 --> ProjectApplication1 --> ProjectApplication2 --> Many to come ++ if ProjectApplications has been closed then restart security Application. My questions on this use case: Is my use case possible? Can you give me any recommendations ? Currently we use setup and deployment to create installer in each Windows Forms application.

    Read the article

  • Tell Us Once&ndash;Final Phase goes live

    - by BizTalk Visionary
    Yesterday the final phase of ‘Tell Us Once’ went live. This completes the 4 1/2 year journey Solidsoft started on this cross government project with the addition of full electronic distribution of data and the most import piece – access for the citizen to use the service on-line. Tell Us Once (TUO) is the award-winning, cross-government programme that lets people inform central government and local authorities just once of a birth or death. In service in over 95% of councils in England, Scotland and Wales, it provides a permanent solution to the long-standing and frustrating issue of people having to notify the government multiple times. Several years ago, research showed that people had to make up to 44 contacts when reporting a death to government bodies and their local authority. The TUO service is offered as a face-to-face interview by the local authority or by telephone to a dedicated telephony service run by the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP). and a  now a TUO online service for death. From the bereavement section of the  Direct Gov web site the citizen is able to ‘enrich’ the standard death registration data to allow the ‘Tell Us Once’ system inform the various government departments about the death. These include the local council, DVLA, DWP, Passport service and HMRC. For the record this is an excellent example of how an SME working with a large SI partner can deliver success for government in a responsive and agile manner. For me personally it is a proud moment in which a vision I started with a very small team was followed through, extended and finally delivered by an excellent team at Solidsoft.

    Read the article

  • Simplest database implementation

    - by MaX
    I am looking for a really simple database implementation; basically one with no complex parsing SQL engine. What I am looking for is something demonstrating B+ trees and ACID storage (Suitable for educational purposes). What I have found up-till now form my current searches was hamster-db. I am looking for something even simpler with a smaller code-base. If there is any such opensource project in your knowledge please let me know.

    Read the article

  • Implementation code of native methods

    - by Tapas Bose
    At first I want to let you know that this question is not related with What is native implementation in Java. I got many useful information from that thread. I want to know that are the codes of the native implementations available? I have jdk source code but I can not find the native codes for System.currentTimeMillis or Runtime.getRuntime().availableProcessors() or other native method. Thanks and regards.

    Read the article

  • C++ R - tree implementation wanted

    - by Kotti
    Hi, Does anyone know good and simple to use in production code R-tree (actually, any implementations - R*, R+ or PR-tree would be great)? It doesn't matter if it is a template or library implementation, but some implementations that google found look very disappointing... Thanks in advance.

    Read the article

  • Why can't I call methods within a class that explicitly implements an interface?

    - by tyrone302
    Here's the story. I created and interface, IVehicle. I explicitly implemented the interface in my class, Vehicle.cs. Here is my interface: Interface IVehicle { int getWheel(); } here is my class: class Vehicle: IVehicle { public int IVehicle.getWheel() { return wheel; } public void printWheel() { Console.WriteLine(getWheel()); } } Notice that "getWheel()" is explicitly implemented. Now, when I try to call that method within my Vehicle class, I receive an error indicating that getWheel() does not exist in the current context. Can someone help me understand what I am doing wrong?

    Read the article

  • Objective-C method implementation nuances

    - by altdotnetgeek
    I have just started to develop for the iPhone and am in the process of learning Objective-C. I have seen some code that implements a method in the @implementation side of a class like this: -(void)myMethod; { // method body } What makes this interesting is that there is no mention of myMethod in the @interface for the class. I tried a sample project with this and when I compile I get a warning from XCode that myMethod may not be seen by the calling code. Can anyone tell me what is going on? Thanks!

    Read the article

  • C# Language Design: explicit interface implementation of an event

    - by ControlFlow
    Small question about C# language design :)) If I had an interface like this: interface IFoo { int Value { get; set; } } It's possible to explicitly implement such interface using C# 3.0 auto-implemented properties: sealed class Foo : IFoo { int IFoo.Value { get; set; } } But if I had an event in the interface: interface IFoo { event EventHandler Event; } And trying to explicitly implement it using field-like event: sealed class Foo : IFoo { event EventHandler IFoo.Event; } I will get the following compiler error: error CS0071: An explicit interface implementation of an event must use event accessor syntax I think that field-like events is the some kind of dualism for auto-implemented properties. So my question is: what is the design reason for such restriction done?

    Read the article

  • FIFO implementation

    - by Narek
    While implementing a FIFO I have used the following structure: struct Node { T info_; Node* link_; Node(T info, Node* link=0): info_(info), link_(link) {} }; I think this a well known trick for lots of STL containers (for example for List). Is this a good practice? What it means for compiler when you say that Node has a member with a type of it's pointer? Is this a kind of infinite loop? And finally, if this is a bad practice, how I could implement a better FIFO. EDIT: People, this is all about implemenation. I am enough familiar with STL library, and know a plenty of containers from several libraries. Just I want to discuss with people who can gave a good implementation or a good advice.

    Read the article

  • A B+tree simple implementation in C

    - by initpy
    Hi guys, I'm working on a fun project where I need a simple key/value store that uses B+Trees. I studied them some years ago, and to be honest, I don't want to reinvent the wheel, so I'm looking for a simple implementation in C of b+tree that I can just include in my project. I know of sqlite's, dbm's and tokyocabinet's ones but they're a little too "complicated" for my needs. Is there any (even pedagogical) work on this you can refer me to? Do you have some code to share? Thanks a lot!

    Read the article

  • Testing for interface implementation in WCF/SOA

    - by rabidpebble
    I have a reporting service that implements a number of reports. Each report requires certain parameters. Groups of logically related parameters are placed in an interface, which the report then implements: [ServiceContract] [ServiceKnownType(typeof(ExampleReport))] public interface IService1 { [OperationContract] void Process(IReport report); } public interface IReport { string PrintedBy { get; set; } } public interface IApplicableDateRangeParameter { DateTime StartDate { get; set; } DateTime EndDate { get; set; } } [DataContract] public abstract class Report : IReport { [DataMember] public string PrintedBy { get; set; } } [DataContract] public class ExampleReport : Report, IApplicableDateRangeParameter { [DataMember] public DateTime StartDate { get; set; } [DataMember] public DateTime EndDate { get; set; } } The problem is that the WCF DataContractSerializer does not expose these interfaces in my client library, thus I can't write the generic report generating front-end that I plan to. Can WCF expose these interfaces, or is this a limitation of the serializer? If the latter case, then what is the canonical approach to this OO pattern? I've looked into NetDataContractSerializer but it doesn't seem to be an officially supported implementation (which means it's not an option in my project). Currently I've resigned myself to including the interfaces in a library that is common between the service and the client application, but this seems like an unnecessary extra dependency to me. Surely there is a more straightforward way to do this? I was under the impression that WCF was supposed to replace .NET remoting; checking if an object implements an interface seems to be one of the most basic features required of a remoting interface?

    Read the article

  • Switch interface implementation using configuration

    - by Marcos
    We want to allow the same core service to be either fully implemented or, as other option, to be a proxy toward a client legacy system (via a WSDL for example). In that way, we have both implementation (proxy & full) and we switch which one to use in the configuration of the app. So in a nutshell, Some desired features: Two different implementation (proxy, full) instead of one implementation with a switch inside Switch implementation using configuration: dependency injection? reflection? Nice-to-have: the packaged delivered to the client doesn’t have to change depending on the choice between proxy or full Nice-to-have: Client can develop their custom implementation of the Core Interface and configure the applciation to use that one With this background, the question is: What alternatives we have to choose one implementation or other of an interface just changing configuration? Thanks

    Read the article

  • Oracle Global HR Cloud Implementation Training Can Help Meet Your Business Needs

    - by HCM-Oracle
    By Jim Vonick A key goal for the deployment of your Oracle Global HR Cloud applications is to accelerate the implementation and adoption of your applications, so that your business can start realizing all of the benefits that this rich solution offers.    Implementation team members need to have the skills and knowledge to ensure a smooth, rapid and successful implementation of your applications. During set-up, you want to optimize the configuration to best meet your business needs. In order to do this you need to understand the foundation and configuration options of your applications, so that decisions can be made during set-up that best align with your business.  To that end product level implementation training is recommended for Oracle Global HR Cloud deployments. Training For Implementation Team Members and Consultants Fusion Applications: HCM Security: Learn how to implement security for Oracle Fusion HCM applications by creating and customizing roles. You'll learn how to create security profiles to restrict data access, provision roles to users, create and manage user accounts, and verify security setup. Fusion Applications: HCM Global Human Resources: Learn how to set up your enterprise and workforce structures, how to perform functional tasks, and how to configure security for Global Human Resources data. Fusion Applications: HCM Compensation: Learn how to implement, configure, and use Oracle Fusion Compensation to manage base pay, individual compensation, workforce compensation, and total compensation statements. Fusion Applications: HCM Benefits: This course teaches you to implement, configure and manage Oracle Fusion Benefits, including how to implement benefit plans and programs.  Fusion Applications: HCM Payroll Implementation (US): This course provides implementation training for payroll managers or payroll administrators. Learn how to process payroll to ensure accurate setup results.  Learn More: See all Fusion HCM Training Jim Vonick is a Senior Product Manager with Oracle University focusing on training for Oracle Applications and Industry Solutions.

    Read the article

  • Query on simple C++ threadpool implementation

    - by ticketman
    Stackoverflow has been a tremendous help to me and I'd to give something back to the community. I have been implementing a simple threadpool using the tinythread C++ portable thread library, using what I have learnt from Stackoverflow. I am new to thread programming, so not that comfortable with mutexes, etc. I have a question best asked after presenting the code (which runs quite well under Linux): // ThreadPool.h class ThreadPool { public: ThreadPool(); ~ThreadPool(); // Creates a pool of threads and gets them ready to be used void CreateThreads(int numOfThreads); // Assigns a job to a thread in the pool, but doesn't start the job // Each SubmitJob call will use up one thread of the pool. // This operation can only be undone by calling StartJobs and // then waiting for the jobs to complete. On completion, // new jobs may be submitted. void SubmitJob( void (*workFunc)(void *), void *workData ); // Begins execution of all the jobs in the pool. void StartJobs(); // Waits until all jobs have completed. // The wait will block the caller. // On completion, new jobs may be submitted. void WaitForJobsToComplete(); private: enum typeOfWorkEnum { e_work, e_quit }; class ThreadData { public: bool ready; // thread has been created and is ready for work bool haveWorkToDo; typeOfWorkEnum typeOfWork; // Pointer to the work function each thread has to call. void (*workFunc)(void *); // Pointer to work data void *workData; ThreadData() : ready(false), haveWorkToDo(false) { }; }; struct ThreadArgStruct { ThreadPool *threadPoolInstance; int threadId; }; // Data for each thread ThreadData *m_ThreadData; ThreadPool(ThreadPool const&); // copy ctor hidden ThreadPool& operator=(ThreadPool const&); // assign op. hidden // Static function that provides the function pointer that a thread can call // By including the ThreadPool instance in the void * parameter, // we can use it to access other data and methods in the ThreadPool instance. static void ThreadFuncWrapper(void *arg) { ThreadArgStruct *threadArg = static_cast<ThreadArgStruct *>(arg); threadArg->threadPoolInstance->ThreadFunc(threadArg->threadId); } // The function each thread calls void ThreadFunc( int threadId ); // Called by the thread pool destructor void DestroyThreadPool(); // Total number of threads available // (fixed on creation of thread pool) int m_numOfThreads; int m_NumOfThreadsDoingWork; int m_NumOfThreadsGivenJobs; // List of threads std::vector<tthread::thread *> m_ThreadList; // Condition variable to signal each thread has been created and executing tthread::mutex m_ThreadReady_mutex; tthread::condition_variable m_ThreadReady_condvar; // Condition variable to signal each thread to start work tthread::mutex m_WorkToDo_mutex; tthread::condition_variable m_WorkToDo_condvar; // Condition variable to signal the main thread that // all threads in the pool have completed their work tthread::mutex m_WorkCompleted_mutex; tthread::condition_variable m_WorkCompleted_condvar; }; cpp file: // // ThreadPool.cpp // #include "ThreadPool.h" // This is the thread function for each thread. // All threads remain in this function until // they are asked to quit, which only happens // when terminating the thread pool. void ThreadPool::ThreadFunc( int threadId ) { ThreadData *myThreadData = &m_ThreadData[threadId]; std::cout << "Hello world: Thread " << threadId << std::endl; // Signal that this thread is ready m_ThreadReady_mutex.lock(); myThreadData->ready = true; m_ThreadReady_condvar.notify_one(); // notify the main thread m_ThreadReady_mutex.unlock(); while(true) { //tthread::lock_guard<tthread::mutex> guard(m); m_WorkToDo_mutex.lock(); while(!myThreadData->haveWorkToDo) // check for work to do m_WorkToDo_condvar.wait(m_WorkToDo_mutex); // if no work, wait here myThreadData->haveWorkToDo = false; // need to do this before unlocking the mutex m_WorkToDo_mutex.unlock(); // Do the work switch(myThreadData->typeOfWork) { case e_work: std::cout << "Thread " << threadId << ": Woken with work to do\n"; // Do work myThreadData->workFunc(myThreadData->workData); std::cout << "#Thread " << threadId << ": Work is completed\n"; break; case e_quit: std::cout << "Thread " << threadId << ": Asked to quit\n"; return; // ends the thread } // Now to signal the main thread that my work is completed m_WorkCompleted_mutex.lock(); m_NumOfThreadsDoingWork--; // Unsure if this 'if' would make the program more efficient // if(NumOfThreadsDoingWork == 0) m_WorkCompleted_condvar.notify_one(); // notify the main thread m_WorkCompleted_mutex.unlock(); } } ThreadPool::ThreadPool() { m_numOfThreads = 0; m_NumOfThreadsDoingWork = 0; m_NumOfThreadsGivenJobs = 0; } ThreadPool::~ThreadPool() { if(m_numOfThreads) { DestroyThreadPool(); delete [] m_ThreadData; } } void ThreadPool::CreateThreads(int numOfThreads) { // Check a thread pool has already been created if(m_numOfThreads > 0) return; m_NumOfThreadsGivenJobs = 0; m_NumOfThreadsDoingWork = 0; m_numOfThreads = numOfThreads; m_ThreadData = new ThreadData[m_numOfThreads]; ThreadArgStruct threadArg; for(int i=0; i<m_numOfThreads; ++i) { threadArg.threadId = i; threadArg.threadPoolInstance = this; // Creates the thread and save in a list so we can destroy it later m_ThreadList.push_back( new tthread::thread( ThreadFuncWrapper, (void *)&threadArg ) ); // It takes a little time for a thread to get established. // Best wait until it gets established before creating the next thread. m_ThreadReady_mutex.lock(); while(!m_ThreadData[i].ready) // Check if thread is ready m_ThreadReady_condvar.wait(m_ThreadReady_mutex); // If not, wait here m_ThreadReady_mutex.unlock(); } } // Adds a job to the batch, but doesn't start the job void ThreadPool::SubmitJob(void (*workFunc)(void *), void *workData) { // Check that the thread pool has been created if(!m_numOfThreads) return; if(m_NumOfThreadsGivenJobs >= m_numOfThreads) return; m_ThreadData[m_NumOfThreadsGivenJobs].workFunc = workFunc; m_ThreadData[m_NumOfThreadsGivenJobs].workData = workData; std::cout << "Submitted job " << m_NumOfThreadsGivenJobs << std::endl; m_NumOfThreadsGivenJobs++; } void ThreadPool::StartJobs() { // Check that the thread pool has been created // and some jobs have been assigned if(!m_numOfThreads || !m_NumOfThreadsGivenJobs) return; // Set 'haveworkToDo' flag for all threads m_WorkToDo_mutex.lock(); for(int i=0; i<m_NumOfThreadsGivenJobs; ++i) m_ThreadData[i].haveWorkToDo = true; m_NumOfThreadsDoingWork = m_NumOfThreadsGivenJobs; // Reset this counter so we can resubmit jobs later m_NumOfThreadsGivenJobs = 0; // Notify all threads they have work to do m_WorkToDo_condvar.notify_all(); m_WorkToDo_mutex.unlock(); } void ThreadPool::WaitForJobsToComplete() { // Check that a thread pool has been created if(!m_numOfThreads) return; m_WorkCompleted_mutex.lock(); while(m_NumOfThreadsDoingWork > 0) // Check if all threads have completed their work m_WorkCompleted_condvar.wait(m_WorkCompleted_mutex); // If not, wait here m_WorkCompleted_mutex.unlock(); } void ThreadPool::DestroyThreadPool() { std::cout << "Ask threads to quit\n"; m_WorkToDo_mutex.lock(); for(int i=0; i<m_numOfThreads; ++i) { m_ThreadData[i].haveWorkToDo = true; m_ThreadData[i].typeOfWork = e_quit; } m_WorkToDo_condvar.notify_all(); m_WorkToDo_mutex.unlock(); // As each thread terminates, catch them here for(int i=0; i<m_numOfThreads; ++i) { tthread::thread *t = m_ThreadList[i]; // Wait for thread to complete t->join(); } m_numOfThreads = 0; } Example of usage: (this calculates pi-squared/6) struct CalculationDataStruct { int inputVal; double outputVal; }; void LongCalculation( void *theSums ) { CalculationDataStruct *sums = (CalculationDataStruct *)theSums; int terms = sums->inputVal; double sum; for(int i=1; i<terms; i++) sum += 1.0/( double(i)*double(i) ); sums->outputVal = sum; } int main(int argc, char** argv) { int numThreads = 10; // Create pool ThreadPool threadPool; threadPool.CreateThreads(numThreads); // Create thread workspace CalculationDataStruct sums[numThreads]; // Set up jobs for(int i=0; i<numThreads; i++) { sums[i].inputVal = 3000*(i+1); threadPool.SubmitJob(LongCalculation, &sums[i]); } // Run the jobs threadPool.StartJobs(); threadPool.WaitForJobsToComplete(); // Print results for(int i=0; i<numThreads; i++) std::cout << "Sum of " << sums[i].inputVal << " terms is " << sums[i].outputVal << std::endl; return 0; } Question: In the ThreadPool::ThreadFunc method, would better performance be obtained if the following if statement if(NumOfThreadsDoingWork == 0) was included? Also, I'd be grateful of criticisms and ways to improve the code. At the same time, I hope the code is of use to others.

    Read the article

  • Implementation question involving implementing an interface

    - by Vivin Paliath
    I'm writing a set of collection classes for different types of Trees. I'm doing this as a learning exercise and I'm also hoping it turns out to be something useful. I really want to do this the right way and so I've been reading Effective Java and I've also been looking at the way Joshua Bloch implemented the collection classes by looking at the source. I seem to have a fair idea of what is being done, but I still have a few things to sort out. I have a Node<T> interface and an AbstractNode<T> class that implements the Node interface. I then created a GenericNode<T> (a node that can have 0 to n children, and that is part of an n-ary tree) class that extends AbstractNode<T> and implements Node<T>. This part was easy. Next, I created a Tree<T> interface and an AbstractTree<T> class that implements the Tree<T> interface. After that, I started writing a GenericTree<T> class that extends AbstractTree<T> and implements Tree<T>. This is where I started having problems. As far as the design is concerned, a GenericTree<T> can only consist of nodes of type GenericTreeNode<T>. This includes the root. In my Tree<T> interface I have: public interface Tree<T> { void setRoot(Node<T> root); Node<T> getRoot(); List<Node<T>> postOrder(); ... rest omitted ... } And, AbstractTree<T> implements this interface: public abstract class AbstractTree<T> implements Tree<T> { protected Node<T> root; protected AbstractTree() { } protected AbstractTree(Node<T> root) { this.root = root; } public void setRoot(Node<T> root) { this.root = root; } public Node<T> getRoot() { return this.root; } ... rest omitted ... } In GenericTree<T>, I can have: public GenericTree(Node<T> root) { super(root); } But what this means is that you can create a generic tree using any subtype of Node<T>. You can also set the root of a tree to any subtype of Node<T>. I want to be able to restrict the type of the node to the type of the tree that it can represent. To fix this, I can do this: public GenericTree(GenericNode<T> root) { super(root); } However, setRoot still accepts a parameter of type Node<T>. Which means a user can still create a tree with the wrong type of root node. How do I enforce this constraint? The only way I can think of doing is either: Do an instanceof which limits the check to runtime. I'm not a huge fan of this. Remove setRoot from the interface and have the base class implement this method. This means that it is not part of the contract and anyone who wants to make a new type of tree needs to remember to implement this method. Is there a better way? The second question I have concerns the return type of postOrder which is List<Node<T>>. This means that if a user is operating on a GenericTree<T> object and calls postOrder, he or she receives a list that consists of Node<T> objects. This means when iterating through (using a foreach construct) they would have perform an explicit cast to GenericNode<T> if they want to use methods that are only defined in that class. I don't like having to place this burden on the user. What are my options in this case? I can only think of removing the method from the interface and have the subclass implement this method making sure that it returns a list of appropriate subtype of Node<T>. However, this once again removes it from the contract and it's anyone who wants to create a new type of tree has to remember to implement this method. Is there a better way?

    Read the article

  • .NET C# Explicit implementation of grandparent's interface method in the parent interface

    - by Cristi Diaconescu
    That title's a mouthful, isn't it?... Here's what I'm trying to do: public interface IBar { void Bar(); } public interface IFoo: IBar { void Foo(); } public class FooImpl: IFoo { void IFoo.Foo() { /*works as expected*/ } //void IFoo.Bar() { /*i'd like to do this, but it doesn't compile*/ } void IBar.Bar() { /*works as expected*/ } } So... Is there a way to declare IFoo.Bar(){...} in my class, other than basically merging the two interfaces into one? And, if not, why?

    Read the article

  • Java: implementation of simple commands

    - by HH
    I have created a pkg for my regular simple commands. They are non-static, to be more extensible, but somewhat more time-consuming to use because of creating object to use one. My other classes use them. $ ls *.java CpF.java IsBinary.java RmLn.java Tools.java F2S.java IsRoot.java SaveToDisk.java WordCount.java Filters.java ModRelativePaths.java SetWord.java WordNumber.java Find.java powerTools.java Sort.java Which option would you choose to use them easier? to develop a small interface like 'powerTools.java' for the pkg. to create a class with static methods for them. to add a static method to each class to stop overusing 'creating too many files' and centralising some? sthing else?

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >