Search Results

Search found 3061 results on 123 pages for 'interfaces'.

Page 2/123 | < Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >

  • Designing interfaces: predict methods needed, discipline yourself and deal with code that comes to m

    - by fireeyedboy
    Was: Design by contract: predict methods needed, discipline yourself and deal with code that comes to mind I like the idea of designing by contract a lot (at least, as far as I understand the principal). I believe it means you define intefaces first before you start implementing actual code, right? However, from my limited experience (3 OOP years now) I usually can't resist the urge to start coding pretty early, for several reasons: because my limited experience has shown me I am unable to predict what methods I will be needing in the interface, so I might as well start coding right away. or because I am simply too impatient to write out the whole interfaces first. or when I do try it, I still wind up implementing bits of code already, because I fear I might forget this or that imporant bit of code, that springs to mind when I am designing the interfaces. As you see, especially with the last two points, this leads to a very disorderly way of doing things. Tasks get mixed up. I should draw a clear line between designing interfaces and actual coding. If you, unlike me, are a good/disciplined planner, as intended above, how do you: ...know the majority of methods you will be needing up front so well? Especially if it's components that implement stuff you are not familiar with yet. ...resist the urge to start coding right away? ...deal with code that comes to mind when you are designing the interfaces? UPDATE: Thank you for the answers so far. Valuable insights! And... I stand corrected; it seems I misinterpreted the idea of Design By Contract. For clarity, what I actually meant was: "coming up with interface methods before implementing the actual components". An additional thing that came up in my mind is related to point 1): b) How do you know the majority of components you will be needing. How do you flesh out these things before you start actually coding? For arguments sake, let's say I'm a novice with the MVC pattern, and I wanted to implement such a component/architecture. A naive approach would be to think of: a front controller some abstract action controller some abstract view ... and be done with it, so to speak. But, being more familiar with the MVC pattern, I know now that it makes sense to also have: a request object a router a dispatcher a response object view helpers etc.. etc.. If you map this idea to some completely new component you want to develop, with which you have no experience yet; how do you come up with these sort of additional components without actually coding the thing, and stuble upon the ideas that way? How would you know up front how fine grained some components should be? Is this a matter of disciplining yourself to think it out thoroughly? Or is it a matter of being good at thinking in abstractions?

    Read the article

  • Connection and Collection Interfaces in Java

    - by Bhupi
    Which class implements all the Connection Interfaces which are in javax.microedition.io package and how? And in the same way which class implements the some of Collection interfaces like Iterator interface. I saw a code: - Iterator it; ArrayList list = new ArrayList(); it = list.iterator(); The iterator() return type is "Iterator" which is an interface. Please tell me what this code is doing is it returning an object of type Iterator? but as far as I know, interface can't be initialized.

    Read the article

  • How to force multiple Interfaces to include certain the same properties?

    - by Jed
    I am trying to figure out a way to force all of my Interfaces to include properties of the same name/type. For example: I have two Interfaces; IGetAlarms and IGetDiagnostics. Each of the Interfaces will contain properties that are specific to the Interface itself, however I want to force the two Interfaces (and all other Interfaces that may be added later) to include properties of the same name. So, the result may look something like the this: interface IGetAlarms { string GetAlarms(); DateTime LastRuntime { get; set; } } interface IGetDiagnostics { string GetDiagnostics(); DateTime LastRuntime { get; set; } } Notice that both Interfaces include a DateTime property named LastRuntime. I would like to know if there is some way I can force other Interfaces that will be added later to include the DateTime LastRuntime property. I have naively attempted to have all my Interfaces implement another Interface (IService) - which includes the LastRuntime property. However, that doesn't solve my problem as that simply forces the class to implement the property - not all the Interfaces. Thanks.

    Read the article

  • Alternatives to static methods on interfaces for enforcing consistency

    - by jayshao
    In Java, I'd like to be able to define marker interfaces, that forced implementations to provide static methods. For example, for simple text-serialization/deserialization I'd like to be able to define an interface that looked something like this: public interface TextTransformable<T>{ public static T fromText(String text); public String toText(); Since interfaces in Java can't contain static methods though (as noted in a number of other posts/threads: here, here, and here this code doesn't work. What I'm looking for however is some reasonable paradigm to express the same intent, namely symmetric methods, one of which is static, and enforced by the compiler. Right now the best we can come up with is some kind of static factory object or generic factory, neither of which is really satisfactory. Note: in our case our primary use-case is we have many, many "value-object" types - enums, or other objects that have a limited number of values, typically carry no state beyond their value, and which we parse/de-parse thousands of time a second, so actually do care about reusing instances (like Float, Integer, etc.) and its impact on memory consumption/g.c. Any thoughts?

    Read the article

  • Java/Hibernate using interfaces over the entities.

    - by Dennetik
    I am using annoted Hibernate, and I'm wondering whether the following is possible. I have to set up a series of interfaces representing the objects that can be persisted, and an interface for the main database class containing several operations for persisting these objects (... an API for the database). Below that, I have to implement these interfaces, and persist them with Hibernate. So I'll have, for example: public interface Data { public String getSomeString(); public void setSomeString(String someString); } @Entity public class HbnData implements Data, Serializable { @Column(name = "some_string") private String someString; public String getSomeString() { return this.someString; } public void setSomeString(String someString) { this.someString = someString; } } Now, this works fine, sort of. The trouble comes when I want nested entities. The interface of what I'd want is easy enough: public interface HasData { public Data getSomeData(); public void setSomeData(Data someData); } But when I implement the class, I can follow the interface, as below, and get an error from Hibernate saying it doesn't know the class "Data". @Entity public class HbnHasData implements HasData, Serializable { @OneToOne(cascade = CascadeType.ALL) private Data someData; public Data getSomeData() { return this.someData; } public void setSomeData(Data someData) { this.someData = someData; } } The simple change would be to change the type from "Data" to "HbnData", but that would obviously break the interface implementation, and thus make the abstraction impossible. Can anyone explain to me how to implement this in a way that it will work with Hibernate?

    Read the article

  • How to use interfaces in exception handling

    - by vikp
    Hi, I'm working on the exception handling layer for my application. I have read few articles on interfaces and generics. I have used inheritance before quite a lot and I'm comfortable with in that area. I have a very brief design that I'm going to implement: public interface IMyExceptionLogger { public void LogException(); // Helper methods for writing into files,db, xml } I'm slightly confused what I should be doing next. public class FooClass: IMyExceptionLogger { // Fields // Constructors } Should I implement LogException() method within FooClass? If yes, than I'm struggling to see how I'm better of using an interface instead of the concrete class... I have a variety of classes that will make a use of that interface, but I don't want to write an implementation of that interface within each class. In the same time If I implement an interface in one class, and then use that class in different layers of the application I will be still using concrete classes instead of interfaces, which is a bad OO design... I hope this makes sense. Any feedback and suggestions are welcome. Please notice that I'm not interested in using net4log or its competitors because I'm doing this to learn. Thank you Edit: Wrote some more code. So I will implement variety of loggers with this interface, i.e. DBExceptionLogger, CSVExceptionLogger, XMLExceptionLogger etc. Than I will still end up with concrete classes that I will have to use in different layers of my application.

    Read the article

  • Explicit C# interface implementation of interfaces that inherit from other interfaces

    - by anthony
    Consider the following three interfaces: interface IBaseInterface { event EventHandler SomeEvent; } interface IInterface1 : IBaseInterface { ... } interface IInterface 2 : IBaseInterface { ... } Now consider the following class that implements both IInterface1 and IInterface 2: class Foo : IInterface1, IInterface2 { event EventHandler IInterface1.SomeEvent { add { ... } remove { ... } } event EventHandler IInterface2.SomeEvent { add { ... } remove { ... } } } This results in an error because SomeEvent is not part of IInterface1 or IInterface2, it is part of IBaseInterface. How can the class Foo implement both IInterface1 and IInterface2?

    Read the article

  • Java Interfaces

    - by Mandar
    I have a doubt.. Why do we need interfaces ? Can't we acheive the same effect by writing the implementation directly in the class? It would be great if you could illustrate your point with an example. Thanks in advance.

    Read the article

  • VB.NET Interfaces

    - by PJ
    I am not quite clear as to why or when to use Interfaces. Can someone post a complete, simple and small example of an Interface using VB.NET in a Console Application. How is it extensible?

    Read the article

  • Method hiding with interfaces

    - by fearofawhackplanet
    interface IFoo { int MyReadOnlyVar { get; } } class Foo : IFoo { int MyReadOnlyVar { get; set; } } public IFoo GetFoo() { return new Foo { MyReadOnlyVar = 1 }; } Is the above an acceptable way of implementing a readonly/immutable object? The immutability of IFoo can be broken with a temporary cast to Foo. In general (non-critical) cases, is hiding functionality through interfaces a common pattern? Or is it considered lazy coding? Or even an anti-pattern?

    Read the article

  • Protocols/Interfaces in Ruby

    - by fifigyuri
    While coding in Ruby I did not really miss the type-orientedness of Java or C++ so far, but for some cases I think it is useful to have them. For Python there was a project PyProtocols which defined interfaces and protocols for objects. Does a similar initiative also exist for Ruby? I would like to be able to declare the expected parameters for some methods for some objects (for the entire code I find such think useless). It the method during the execution receives an unexpected input, it tries to adapt it or if it cannot, it throws an exception. Does something similar exist for Ruby? Introducing types for a type-less language like Ruby might sound freak, but I think types are sometimes useful. Thanks for help.

    Read the article

  • List.ForEach method and collection interfaces

    - by tyndall
    In .NET 3.5 List< gains a ForEach method. I notice this does not exist on IList< or IEnumerable< what was the thinking here? Is there another way to do this? Nice and simple short way to do this? I ask because I was at a talk where the speaker said always use the more general interfaces. But why would I use IList< as a return type if I want to be able to turn around and use ForEach? Then I would just end up casting it back to a List<.

    Read the article

  • IoC & Interfaces Best Practices

    - by n8wrl
    I'm experimenting with IoC on my way to TDD by fiddling with an existing project. In a nutshell, my question is this: what are the best practices around IoC when public and non-public methods are of interest? There are two classes: public abstract class ThisThingBase { public virtual void Method1() {} public virtual void Method2() {} public ThatThing GetThat() { return new ThatThing(this); } internal virtual void Method3() {} internal virtual void Method4() {} } public class Thathing { public ThatThing(ThisThingBase thing) { m_thing = thing; } ... } ThatThing does some stuff using its ThisThingBase reference to call methods that are often overloaded by descendents of ThisThingBase. Method1 and Method2 are public. Method3 and Method4 are internal and only used by ThatThings. I would like to test ThatThing without ThisThing and vice-versa. Studying up on IoC my first thought was that I should define an IThing interface, implement it by ThisThingBase and pass it to the ThatThing constructor. IThing would be the public interface clients could call but it doesn't include Method3 or Method4 that ThatThing also needs. Should I define a 2nd interface - IThingInternal maybe - for those two methods and pass BOTH interfaces to ThatThing?

    Read the article

  • How do I enumerate a list of interfaces that are directly defined on an inheriting class/interface?

    - by Jordan
    Given the following C# class: public class Foo : IEnumerable<int> { // implementation of Foo and all its inherited interfaces } I want a method like the following that doesn't fail on the assertions: public void SomeMethod() { // This doesn't work Type[] interfaces = typeof(Foo).GetInterfaces(); Debug.Assert(interfaces != null); Debug.Assert(interfaces.Length == 1); Debug.Assert(interfaces[0] == typeof(IEnumerable<int>)); } Can someone help by fixing this method so the assertions don't fail? Calling typeof(Foo).GetInterfaces() doesn't work because it returns the entire interface hierarchy (i.e. interfaces variable contains IEnumerable<int> and IEnumerable), not just the top level.

    Read the article

  • Java - Interfaces

    - by RayAllen
    I had a doubt .. Why do we need interface in Java ? Instead of interface can't we write the methods in the class itself ? Why do we need seperate interface?

    Read the article

  • Structs, Interfaces and Boxing

    - by Sekhat
    Take this code: interface ISomeInterface { public int SomeProperty { get; } } struct SomeStruct : ISomeInterface { int someValue; public int SomeProperty { get { return someValue; } } public SomeStruct(int value) { someValue = value; } } and then I do this somewhere: ISomeInterface someVariable = new SomeStruct(2); is the SomeStruct boxed in this case?

    Read the article

  • selecting ppp of multiple interfaces

    - by Neeraj
    Hi everyone, I am currently having a hard time on getting the mobile broadband connection running on ubuntu 10.04(lucid lynx). I am using a USB modem and used wvdial to connect to the web It went like: Sending ATZ ... OK sending some more flags OK modem initialized connecting Local IP x.x.x.x Remote IP y.y.y.y Primary DNS z.z.z.z Secondary DNS a.a.a.a (Some more output) I tested this with invalid username to make sure it is really connected and i think it was connected as connection failed with invalid usernames. Now when I do a remote ping say 8.8.8.8 (Google DNS servers), the ping says unreachable I think this might be because the system may be using the ethernet to send packets which was indeed disconnected. So can anyone help me out with this. How can I select ppp as the interface to send packets or is there some other problem. A command line solution will be appreciated as my network manager applet doesnt works correctly. Any help is much much appreciated. -- thx

    Read the article

  • FindBugs and CheckForNull on classes vs. interfaces

    - by ndn
    Is there any way to let FindBugs check and warn me if a CheckForNull annotation is present on the implementation of a method in a class, but not on the declaration of the method in the interface? import javax.annotation.CheckForNull; interface Foo { public String getBar(); } class FooImpl implements Foo { @CheckForNull @Override public String getBar() { return null; } } public class FindBugsDemo { public static void main(String[] args) { Foo foo = new FooImpl(); System.out.println(foo.getBar().length()); } } I just discovered a bug in my application due to a missing null check that was not spotted by FindBugs because CheckForNull was only present on FooImpl, but not on Foo, and I don't want to spot all other locations of this problem manually.

    Read the article

  • Understanding Covariant and Contravariant interfaces in C#

    - by SLC
    I've come across these in a textbook I am reading on C#, but I am having difficulty understanding them, probably due to lack of context. Is there a good concise explanation of what they are and what they are useful for out there? Edit for clarification: Covariant interface: interface IBibble<out T> . . Contravariant interface: interface IBibble<in T> . .

    Read the article

  • Unit Testing Interfaces in Python

    - by Nicholas Mancuso
    I am currently learning python in preperation for a class over the summer and have gotten started by implementing different types of heaps and priority based data structures. I began to write a unit test suite for the project but ran into difficulties into creating a generic unit test that only tests the interface and is oblivious of the actual implementation. I am wondering if it is possible to do something like this.. suite = HeapTestSuite(BinaryHeap()) suite.run() suite = HeapTestSuite(BinomialHeap()) suite.run() What I am currently doing just feels... wrong (multiple inheritance? ACK!).. class TestHeap: def reset_heap(self): self.heap = None def test_insert(self): self.reset_heap() #test that insert doesnt throw an exception... for x in self.inseq: self.heap.insert(x) def test_delete(self): #assert we get the first value we put in self.reset_heap() self.heap.insert(5) self.assertEquals(5, self.heap.delete_min()) #harder test. put in sequence in and check that it comes out right self.reset_heap() for x in self.inseq: self.heap.insert(x) for x in xrange(len(self.inseq)): val = self.heap.delete_min() self.assertEquals(val, x) class BinaryHeapTest(TestHeap, unittest.TestCase): def setUp(self): self.inseq = range(99, -1, -1) self.heap = BinaryHeap() def reset_heap(self): self.heap = BinaryHeap() class BinomialHeapTest(TestHeap, unittest.TestCase): def setUp(self): self.inseq = range(99, -1, -1) self.heap = BinomialHeap() def reset_heap(self): self.heap = BinomialHeap() if __name__ == '__main__': unittest.main()

    Read the article

  • Design issue when having classes implement different interfaces to restrict client actions

    - by devoured elysium
    Let's say I'm defining a game class that implements two different views: interface IPlayerView { void play(); } interface IDealerView { void deal(); } The view that a game sees when playing the game, and a view that the dealer sees when dealing the game (this is, a player can't make dealer actions and a dealer can't make player actions). The game definition is as following: class Game : IPlayerView, IDealerView { void play() { ... } void deal() { ... } } Now assume I want to make it possible for the players to play the game, but not to deal it. My original idea was that instead of having public Game GetGame() { ... } I'd have something like public IPlayerView GetGame() { ... } But after some tests I realized that if I later try this code, it works: IDealerView dealerView = (IDealerView)GameClass.GetGame(); this works as lets the user act as the dealer. Am I worrying to much? How do you usually deal with this patterns? I could instead make two different classes, maybe a "main" class, the dealer class, that would act as factory of player classes. That way I could control exactly what I would like to pass on the the public. On the other hand, that turns everything a bit more complex than with this original design. Thanks

    Read the article

  • How to give properties to c++ classes (interfaces)

    - by caas
    Hello, I have built several classes (A, B, C...) which perform operations on the same BaseClass. Example: struct BaseClass { int method1(); int method2(); int method3(); } struct A { int methodA(BaseClass& bc) { return bc.method1(); } } struct B { int methodB(BaseClass& bc) { return bc.method2()+bc.method1(); } } struct C { int methodC(BaseClass& bc) { return bc.method3()+bc.method2(); } } But as you can see, each class A, B, C... only uses a subset of the available methods of the BaseClass and I'd like to split the BaseClass into several chunks such that it is clear what it used and what is not. For example a solution could be to use multiple inheritance: // A uses only method1() struct InterfaceA { virtual int method1() = 0; } struct A { int methodA(InterfaceA&); } // B uses method1() and method2() struct InterfaceB { virtual int method1() = 0; virtual int method2() = 0; } struct B { int methodB(InterfaceB&); } // C uses method2() and method3() struct InterfaceC { virtual int method2() = 0; virtual int method3() = 0; } struct C { int methodC(InterfaceC&); } The problem is that each time I add a new type of operation, I need to change the implementation of BaseClass. For example: // D uses method1() and method3() struct InterfaceD { virtual int method1() = 0; virtual int method3() = 0; } struct D { int methodD(InterfaceD&); } struct BaseClass : public A, B, C // here I need to add class D { ... } Do you know a clean way I can do this? Thanks for your help edit: I forgot to mention that it can also be done with templates. But I don't like this solution either because the required interface does not appear explicitly in the code. You have to try to compile the code to verify that all required methods are implemented correctly. Plus, it would require to instantiate different versions of the classes (one for each BaseClass type template parameter) and this is not always possible nor desired.

    Read the article

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