Search Results

Search found 1449 results on 58 pages for 'oop'.

Page 24/58 | < Previous Page | 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31  | Next Page >

  • How to deal with class composition when components cannot be accessed from the outside?

    - by Chathuranga
    For example if I say I have three classes A, B, and C where B and C have a composition relation ship with A. That means the life of B and C is handled by A, and also B and C cannot access directly from the outside. For some reason my DataService class needs to return objects of B and C as It cant return a object of A as B and C cannot be initialized at the same time. (to be able to initializeC you have to initializeB first). So that I'm returning DataTables from DataService and then inside the class A those data tables are converted to B / C objects. If B and C objects cannot be initialized at the same time is it valid to say that B and C have a composition relationship with A? If its composition is it must to generate A with B and C inside? What is the proper way to handle this sort of a problem? EDIT: Following code explains the way I'm doing it now with DataTables. Example: class A { private List<B> B; private List <C> C; public A() { B= new List<B>(); C= new List<C>(); } public List<B> GetB( DataTable dt) { // Create a B list from dt return B; } } class Presenter { private void Show B() { _View.DataGrid = A.GetB(DataService.GetAListOfB()); } } The actual scenario is I have a class called WageInfo and classes Earning and Deduction having a composition relationship in the design. But for you to generate Deductions first you should Generate earnings and should be saved in a table. Then only you can generate deductions for the earnings to calculate balance wages. Also note that these contained classes have a one to many relationship with the containing class WageInfo. So actually WageInfo has a List<Earnings> and List<Deduction> My initial question was, is it ok if my DataService class returns Deductions / Earnings objects (actually lists) not a WageInfo? Still not clear?

    Read the article

  • How to restrict an access to some of the functions at third level in Classes (OOPs)

    - by Shantanu Gupta
    I have created a class say A which has some functions defined as protected. Now Class B inherits A and class C inherits B. Class A has private default constructor and protected parameterized constructor. I want Class B to be able to access all the protected functions defined in Class A but class C can have access on some of the functions only not all the functions and class C is inheriting class B. How can I restrict access to some of the functions of Class A from Class C ? Class A { private A(){} protected A(int ){} } Class B : A {} CLass C:B { }

    Read the article

  • Python: Why Does a Method Behave Differently with an Added Parameter?

    - by SteveStifler
    I have a method in a Pygame Sprite subclass, defined as such: def walk(self): """move across screen""" displacement = self.rect.move((self.move, 0)) if self.rect.left < self.area.left or self.rect.right > self.area.right: self.move = -self.move displacement = self.rect.move((self.move, 0)) self.rect = displacement I modified it, adding a parameter speed_x, and now the program is broken. def walk(self, speed_x): """move across screen""" displacement = self.rect.move((speed_x, 0)) if self.rect.left < self.area.left or self.rect.right > self.area.right: speed_x = -speed_x displacement = self.rect.move((speed_x, 0)) self.rect = displacement Before I called the method like this: def update(self): self.walk() Now I do: def update(self): self.walk(self.move) Why doesn't this work?

    Read the article

  • List<> of objects, different types, sort and pull out types individually?

    - by Brazos
    I've got a handful of products, any, all, or none of which may be associated with a specific submission. All 7 products are subclasses of the class Product. I need to store all the products associated with a submission, and then retrieve them and their field data on my presentation layer. I've been using a List, and List, but when I use the OfType, I throw an error saying that I can't implicitly convert systems.generic.IEnumerable to type 'Product'. I've tried to cast, but to no avail. When I use prodlist.OfType<EPL>(); there are no errors, but when I try and store that in an instance of EPL "tempEpl", I get the aforementioned cast-related error. What gives? Code below. ProductService pserv = new ProductService(); IList<object> prodlist = pserv.getProductById(x); EPL tempEpl = new EPL(); if ((prodlist.OfType<EPL>()) != null) { tempEpl = prodlist.OfType<EPL>(); // this throws a conversion error. } the Data layer List<object> TempProdList = new List<object>(); conn.Open(); SqlCommand EplCmd = new SqlCommand(EPLQuery, conn); SqlDataReader EplRead = null; EplRead = EplCmd.ExecuteReader(); EPL TempEpl = new EPL(); if (EplRead.Read()) { TempEpl.Entity1 = EplRead.GetString(0); TempEpl.Employees1 = EplRead.GetInt32(1); TempEpl.CA1 = EplRead.GetInt32(2); TempEpl.MI1 = EplRead.GetInt32(3); TempEpl.NY1 = EplRead.GetInt32(4); TempEpl.NJ1 = EplRead.GetInt32(5); TempEpl.PrimEx1 = EplRead.GetInt32(6); TempEpl.EplLim1 = EplRead.GetInt32(7); TempEpl.EplSir1 = EplRead.GetInt32(8); TempEpl.Premium1 = EplRead.GetInt32(9); TempEpl.Wage1 = EplRead.GetInt32(10); TempEpl.Sublim1 = EplRead.GetInt32(11); TempProdList.Add(TempEpl); }

    Read the article

  • HMVC or PAC - how to handle shared abstractions/models?

    - by fig-gnuton
    In HMVC/PAC, what's the recommended way to code if two or more triads/agents share a common model/abstraction? Do you instantiate a new instance of that model wherever needed, and propogate a change in one to all the other instances via the controllers? Or do instantiate one model at some common upper level, and inject that instance wherever needed? (Or neither if I'm missing something fundamental about these patterns?)

    Read the article

  • JavaScript String Library - Hitting a Minor Roadblock

    - by OneNerd
    Ok - am trying to create a string library that contains a handful of useful things missing from JavaScript. Here is what I have so far: ;function $__STRING__$(in_string) { /* internal functions */ this.s = in_string; this.toString = function(){return this.s;}; /******* these functions CAN be chained (they return the $__STRING__$ object) ******/ this.uppercase = function(){this.s = this.s.toUpperCase(); return this;}; this.lowercase = function(){this.s = this.s.toLowerCase(); return this;}; this.trim = function(){this.s = this.s.replace(/^\s+|\s+$/g,""); return this;}; this.ltrim = function(){this.s = this.s.replace(/^\s+/,""); return this;}; this.rtrim = function(){this.s = this.s.replace(/\s+$/,""); return this;}; this.striptags = function(){this.s = this.s.replace(/<\/?[^>]+(>|$)/g, ""); return this;}; this.escapetags = function(){this.s = this.s.replace(/</g,"<").replace(/>/g,">"); return this;}; this.unescapetags = function(){this.s = this.s.replace(/</g,"<").replace(/>/g,">"); return this;}; this.underscorize = function(){this.s = this.s.replace(/ /g,"_"); return this;}; this.dasherize = function(){this.s = this.s.replace(/ /g,"-"); return this;}; this.spacify = function(){this.s = this.s.replace(/_/g," "); return this;}; this.left = function(length){this.s = this.s.substring(length,0); return this;}; this.right = function(length){this.s = this.s.substring(this.s.length,this.s.length-length); return this;}; this.shorten = function(length){if(this.s.length<=length){return this.s;}else{this.left(this.s,length)+"..."; return this;}}; this.mid = function(start,length){return this.s.substring(start,(length+start));}; this._down = function(){return this.s;}; // breaks chain, but lets you run core js string functions /******* these functions CANNOT be chained (they do not return the $__STRING__$ object) ******/ this.contains = function(needle){if(this.s.indexOf(needle)!==-1){return true;}else{return false;}}; this.startswith = function(needle){if(this.left(this.s,needle.length)==needle){return true;}else{return false;}}; this.endswith = function(needle){if(this.right(this.s,needle.length)==needle){return true;}else{return false;};}; } function $E(in_string){return new $__STRING__$(in_string);} String.prototype._enhance = function(){return new $__STRING__$(this);}; String.prototype._up = function(){return new $__STRING__$(this);}; It works fairly well, and I can chain commands etc. I set it up so I can cast a string as an enhanced string these 2 ways: $E('some string'); 'some string'._enhance(); However, each time I want to use a built-in string method, I need to convert it back to a string first. So for now, I put in _down() and _up() methods like so: alert( $E("hello man").uppercase()._down().replace("N", "Y")._up().dasherize() ); alert( "hello man"._enhance().uppercase()._down().replace("N", "Y")._up().dasherize() ); It works fine, but what I really want to do it be able to use all of the built-in functions a string can use. I realize I can just replicate each function inside my object, but I was hoping there was a simpler way. So question is, is there an easy way to do that? Thanks -

    Read the article

  • A better UPDATE method in LINQ to SQL

    - by Refracted Paladin
    The below is a typical, for me, Update method in L2S. I am still fairly new to a lot of this(L2S & business app development) but this just FEELs wrong. Like there MUST be a smarter way of doing this. Unfortunately, I am having trouble visualizing it and am hoping someone can provide an example or point me in the right direction. To take a stab in the dark, would I have a Person Object that has all these fields as Properties? Then what, though? Is that redundant since L2S already mapped my Person Table to a Class? Is this just 'how it goes', that you eventually end up passing 30 parameters(or MORE) to an UPDATE statement at some point? For reference, this is a business app using C#, WinForms, .Net 3.5, and L2S over SQL 2005 Standard. Here is a typical Update Call for me. This is in a file(BLLConnect.cs) with other CRUD methods. Connect is the name of the DB that holds tblPerson When a user clicks save() this is what is eventually called with all of these fields having, potentially, been updated-- public static void UpdatePerson(int personID, string userID, string titleID, string firstName, string middleName, string lastName, string suffixID, string ssn, char gender, DateTime? birthDate, DateTime? deathDate, string driversLicenseNumber, string driversLicenseStateID, string primaryRaceID, string secondaryRaceID, bool hispanicOrigin, bool citizenFlag, bool veteranFlag, short ? residencyCountyID, short? responsibilityCountyID, string emailAddress, string maritalStatusID) { using (var context = ConnectDataContext.Create()) { var personToUpdate = (from person in context.tblPersons where person.PersonID == personID select person).Single(); personToUpdate.TitleID = titleID; personToUpdate.FirstName = firstName; personToUpdate.MiddleName = middleName; personToUpdate.LastName = lastName; personToUpdate.SuffixID = suffixID; personToUpdate.SSN = ssn; personToUpdate.Gender = gender; personToUpdate.BirthDate = birthDate; personToUpdate.DeathDate = deathDate; personToUpdate.DriversLicenseNumber = driversLicenseNumber; personToUpdate.DriversLicenseStateID = driversLicenseStateID; personToUpdate.PrimaryRaceID = primaryRaceID; personToUpdate.SecondaryRaceID = secondaryRaceID; personToUpdate.HispanicOriginFlag = hispanicOrigin; personToUpdate.CitizenFlag = citizenFlag; personToUpdate.VeteranFlag = veteranFlag; personToUpdate.ResidencyCountyID = residencyCountyID; personToUpdate.ResponsibilityCountyID = responsibilityCountyID; personToUpdate.EmailAddress = emailAddress; personToUpdate.MaritalStatusID = maritalStatusID; personToUpdate.UpdateUserID = userID; personToUpdate.UpdateDateTime = DateTime.Now; context.SubmitChanges(); } }

    Read the article

  • Some specific questions about object oriented and MVC design.

    - by Samn
    I have two objects, Users and Mail. Users create Mail objects and send them to other users. If I wanted to get all mail for a User, I could create a method like GetMail() that would return an array of Mail objects owned by that User. But if I wanted to get all mail across the system, what "type" of object would be responsible for that? To solve this problem, I usually create a Manager, which is an object responsible for dealing with a collection of a particular type of object. MailManager deals with collections of Mail objects. GetMailForUser() is one method, GetAllMail() is another method. The User objects invokes the MailManager and executes GetMailForUser(me). Is this stupid? When a user executes the controller CreateMail, a new instance of the Mail object is created. The Mail object, seeing it is creating a new Mail of type 'sent', decides to go ahead and create a second Mail object for the recipient, of type 'received'. Creating one Mail object triggers the creation of a second Mail object. Is this stupid? Should the controller have created both Mail objects, or just the first 'sent' one? When two Users are friends, the association is stored in a table of Relationships. I use a simple object for Relationships. A RelationshipManager has a method called GetFriendsForUser(). The User object has a method GetFriends(), which invokes the RelationshipManager. Is this stupid?

    Read the article

  • Resetting Objects vs. Constructing New Objects

    - by byronh
    Is it considered better practice and/or more efficient to create a 'reset' function for a particular object that clears/defaults all the necessary member variables to allow for further operations, or to simply construct a new object from outside? I've seen both methods employed a lot, but I can't decide which one is better. Of course, for classes that represent database connections, you'd have to use a reset method rather than constructing a new one resulting in needless connecting/disconnecting, but I'm talking more in terms of abstraction classes. Can anyone give me some real-world examples of when to use each method? In my particular case I'm thinking mostly in terms of ORM or the Model in MVC. For example, if I would want to retrieve a bunch of database objects for display and modify them in one operation.

    Read the article

  • PHP MVC: How to implement an effective Controller/View Association like ZendFramework guys do!

    - by Navi
    Hi, I am making my own PHP-MVC framework. i have a question regarding Controller and View Association. I love the way Zend framework uses view within Controller as follow: $this->view->data = 'Data here'; so it can be used in view as follow: echo $this->data; I am wondering how can i implement this association. I want to remove codes between /** **/ and want to replace with some magic functions. My codes for controller as as follow: class UserController extends Controller{ /************************************/ public function __construct(){ $this->view = new View(); $this->view->setLayout( 'home' ); } function __destruct(){ $this->view->render(); } /************************************/ public function index(){ $this->redirect('user/login'); } public function login(){ } public function register(){ } public function forgotPassword(){ } } Thanks and best regards, -Navi

    Read the article

  • Limiting method access in protected section to few classes

    - by Bharat
    Hi, I want to limit the access of protected methods to certain inherited classes only. For example there is a base class like TBase = Class Protected Method1; Method2; Method3; Method4; End; I have two classes derived from TBase TDerived1 = Class(TBase) //Here i must access only Method1 and Method2 End; TDerived2 = Class(TBase) //Here i must access only Method3 and Method4 End; Then is it possible to access only Method1 and Method2 when i use objects of TDerived1 and Method3 and Method4 when i use objects of TDerived2

    Read the article

  • How should I pass the translated text to my object in my multilingual application?

    - by boatingcow
    Up until now, I have maintained a 'dictionary' table in my database, for example: +-----------+---------------------------------------+-----------------------------------------------+--------+ | phrase | en | fr | etc... | +-----------+---------------------------------------+-----------------------------------------------+--------+ | generated | Generated in %1$01.2f seconds at %2$s | Créée en %1$01.2f secondes à %2$s aujourd'hui | ... | | submit | Submit... | Envoyer... | ... | +-----------+---------------------------------------+-----------------------------------------------+--------+ I'll then select all rows from the database for the column that matches the locale we're interested in (or read the cache from a file to speed db lookup) and dump the dictionary into an array called $lng. Then I'll have HTML helper objects like this in my view: $html->input(array('type' => 'submit', 'value' => $lng['submit'], etc...)); ... $html->div(array('value' => sprintf($lng['generated'], $generated, date('H:i')), etc...)); The translations can appear in PDF, XLS and AJAX responses too. The problem with my approach so far is that I now have loads of global $lng; in every class where there is a function that spits out UI code.. How do other people get the translation into the object? Is it one scenario where globals aren't actually that bad? Would it be madness to create a class with accessors when the dictionary terms are all static?

    Read the article

  • What would you do if you coded a C++/OO cross-platform framework and realize its laying on your disk

    - by Manuel
    This project started as a development platform because i wanted to be able to write games for mobile devices, but also being able to run and debug the code on my desktop machine too (ie, the EPOC device emulator was so bad): the platforms it currently supports are: Window-desktop WinCE Symbian iPhone The architecture it's quite complete with 16bit 565 video framebuffer, blitters, basic raster ops, software pixel shaders, audio mixer with shaders (dsp fx), basic input, a simple virtual file system... although this thing is at it's first write and so there are places where some refactoring would be needed. Everything has been abstracted away and the guiding principle are: mostly clean code, as if it was a book to just be read object-orientation, without sacrifying performances mobile centric The idea was to open source it, but without being able to manage it, i doubt the software itself would benefit from this move.. Nevertheless, i myself have learned a lot from unmaintained projects. So, thanking you in advance for reading all this... really, what would you do?

    Read the article

  • when does static member gets memory.

    - by vaibhav
    I have a class which have a static member. As I understand all static members are common for all instance of the class. So it means static members would get memory only once. Where is this memory is allocated (Stack or Heap) and when this memory get allocated.

    Read the article

  • C++ overloading virtual = operator

    - by taz
    Hello, here is the code for my question: class ICommon { public: virtual ICommon& operator=(const ICommon & p)const=0; }; class CSpecial : public ICommon { public: CSpecial& operator=(const CSpecial & cs) { //custom operations return *this; } }; CSpecial obj; Basically: I want the interface ICommon to force it's descendants to implement = operator but don't want to have any typecasts in the implementation. The compiler says "can't instantiate an abstract class. Any help/advice will be appreciated.

    Read the article

  • Explicit method tables in C# instead of OO - good? bad?

    - by FunctorSalad
    Hi! I hope the title doesn't sound too subjective; I absolutely do not mean to start a debate on OO in general. I'd merely like to discuss the basic pros and cons for different ways of solving the following sort of problem. Let's take this minimal example: you want to express an abstract datatype T with functions that may take T as input, output, or both: f1 : Takes a T, returns an int f2 : Takes a string, returns a T f3 : Takes a T and a double, returns another T I'd like to avoid downcasting and any other dynamic typing. I'd also like to avoid mutation whenever possible. 1: Abstract-class-based attempt abstract class T { abstract int f1(); // We can't have abstract constructors, so the best we can do, as I see it, is: abstract void f2(string s); // The convention would be that you'd replace calls to the original f2 by invocation of the nullary constructor of the implementing type, followed by invocation of f2. f2 would need to have side-effects to be of any use. // f3 is a problem too: abstract T f3(double d); // This doesn't express that the return value is of the *same* type as the object whose method is invoked; it just expresses that the return value is *some* T. } 2: Parametric polymorphism and an auxilliary class (all implementing classes of TImpl will be singleton classes): abstract class TImpl<T> { abstract int f1(T t); abstract T f2(string s); abstract T f3(T t, double d); } We no longer express that some concrete type actually implements our original spec -- an implementation is simply a type Foo for which we happen to have an instance of TImpl. This doesn't seem to be a problem: If you want a function that works on arbitrary implementations, you just do something like: // Say we want to return a Bar given an arbitrary implementation of our abstract type Bar bar<T>(TImpl<T> ti, T t); At this point, one might as well skip inheritance and singletons altogether and use a 3 First-class function table class /* or struct, even */ TDictT<T> { readonly Func<T,int> f1; readonly Func<string,T> f2; readonly Func<T,double,T> f3; TDict( ... ) { this.f1 = f1; this.f2 = f2; this.f3 = f3; } } Bar bar<T>(TDict<T> td; T t); Though I don't see much practical difference between #2 and #3. Example Implementation class MyT { /* raw data structure goes here; this class needn't have any methods */ } // It doesn't matter where we put the following; could be a static method of MyT, or some static class collecting dictionaries static readonly TDict<MyT> MyTDict = new TDict<MyT>( (t) => /* body of f1 goes here */ , // f2 (s) => /* body of f2 goes here */, // f3 (t,d) => /* body of f3 goes here */ ); Thoughts? #3 is unidiomatic, but it seems rather safe and clean. One question is whether there are any performance concerns with it. I don't usually need dynamic dispatch, and I'd prefer if these function bodies get statically inlined in places where the concrete implementing type is known statically. Is #2 better in that regard?

    Read the article

  • Designing different Factory classes (and what to use as argument to the factories!)

    - by devoured elysium
    Let's say we have the following piece of code: public class Event { } public class SportEvent1 : Event { } public class SportEvent2 : Event { } public class MedicalEvent1 : Event { } public class MedicalEvent2 : Event { } public interface IEventFactory { bool AcceptsInputString(string inputString); Event CreateEvent(string inputString); } public class EventFactory { private List<IEventFactory> factories = new List<IEventFactory>(); public void AddFactory(IEventFactory factory) { factories.Add(factory); } //I don't see a point in defining a RemoveFactory() so I won't. public Event CreateEvent(string inputString) { try { //iterate through all factories. If one and only one of them accepts //the string, generate the event. Otherwise, throw an exception. return factories.Single(factory => factory.AcceptsInputString(inputString)).CreateEvent(inputString); } catch (InvalidOperationException e) { throw new InvalidOperationException("No valid factory found to generate this kind of Event!", e); } } } public class SportEvent1Factory : IEventFactory { public bool AcceptsInputString(string inputString) { return inputString.StartsWith("SportEvent1"); } public Event CreateEvent(string inputString) { return new SportEvent1(); } } public class MedicalEvent1Factory : IEventFactory { public bool AcceptsInputString(string inputString) { return inputString.StartsWith("MedicalEvent1"); } public Event CreateEvent(string inputString) { return new MedicalEvent1(); } } And here is the code that runs it: static void Main(string[] args) { EventFactory medicalEventFactory = new EventFactory(); medicalEventFactory.AddFactory(new MedicalEvent1Factory()); medicalEventFactory.AddFactory(new MedicalEvent2Factory()); EventFactory sportsEventFactory = new EventFactory(); sportsEventFactory.AddFactory(new SportEvent1Factory()); sportsEventFactory.AddFactory(new SportEvent2Factory()); } I have a couple of questions: Instead of having to add factories here in the main method of my application, should I try to redesign my EventFactory class so it is an abstract factory? It'd be better if I had a way of not having to manually add EventFactories every time I want to use them. So I could just instantiate MedicalFactory and SportsFactory. Should I make a Factory of factories? Maybe that'd be over-engineering? As you have probably noticed, I am using a inputString string as argument to feed the factories. I have an application that lets the user create his own events but also to load/save them from text files. Later, I might want to add other kinds of files, XML, sql connections, whatever. The only way I can think of that would allow me to make this work is having an internal format (I choose a string, as it's easy to understand). How would you make this? I assume this is a recurrent situation, probably most of you know of any other more intelligent approach to this. I am then only looping in the EventFactory for all the factories in its list to check if any of them accepts the input string. If one does, then it asks it to generate the Event. If you find there is something wrong or awkward with the method I'm using to make this happen, I'd be happy to hear about different implementations. Thanks! PS: Although I don't show it in here, all the different kind of events have different properties, so I have to generate them with different arguments (SportEvent1 might have SportName and Duration properties, that have to be put in the inputString as argument).

    Read the article

  • Overriding rubies spaceship operator <=>

    - by ericsteen1
    I am trying to override rubies <= (spaceship) operator to sort apples and oranges so that apples come first sorted by weight, and oranges second, sorted by sweetness. Like so: module Fruity attr_accessor :weight, :sweetness def <=>(other) # use Array#<=> to compare the attributes [self.weight, self.sweetness] <=> [other.weight, other.sweetness] end include Comparable end class Apple include Fruity def initialize(w) self.weight = w end end class Orange include Fruity def initialize(s) self.sweetness = s end end fruits = [Apple.new(2),Orange.new(4),Apple.new(6),Orange.new(9),Apple.new(1),Orange.new(22)] p fruits #should work? p fruits.sort But this does not work, can someone tell what I am doing wrong here, or a better way to do this?

    Read the article

  • how to return the current object?

    - by ajsie
    in code igniter you can type: $query = $this->db->query("YOUR QUERY"); foreach ($query->result() as $row) { echo $row->title; echo $row->name; echo $row->body; } i guess that the query method returns the object it's part of. am i correct? if i am, how do you type the line where it returns the object? so what i wonder is how it looks like inside the query method for the above code to be functional. public function query($sql) { // some db logic here with the $sql and saves the values to the properties (title, name and body) return X } with other words, what should X be?

    Read the article

  • What's the idiomatic way of inheriting data access functionality as well as object properties?

    - by Knut Arne Vedaa
    Suppose the following (slightly pseudo-code for brevity): class Basic { String foo; } class SomeExtension extends Basic { String bar; } class OtherExtension extends Basic { String baz; } class BasicService { Basic getBasic() { } } class SomeExtensionService extends BasicService { SomeExtension getSomeExtension() { } } class OtherExtensionService extends BasicService { OtherExtension getOtherExtension() { } } What would be the most idiomatic, elegant way to implement the get-() service methods with the most possible code reuse? Obviously you could do it like this: class BasicService { Basic getBasic() { Basic basic = new Basic(); basic.setFoo("some kind of foo"); return basic; } } class SomeExtensionService { SomeExtension getSomeExtension() { SomeExtension someExtension = new SomeExtension; Basic basic = getBasic(); someExtension.setFoo(basic.getFoo()); someExtension.setBar("some kind of bar"); return someExtension; } } But this would be ugly if Basic has a lot of properties, and also you only need one object, as SomeExtension already inherits Basic. However, BasicService can obviously not return a SomeExtension object. You could also have the get methods not create the object themselves, but create it at the outermost level and pass it to the method for filling in the properties, but I find that too imperative. (Please let me know if the question is confusingly formulated.)

    Read the article

  • real time scenario between interface/abstract class ?

    - by JavaUser
    Hi , Please give me a real time simple example for the below questions : Where to use interface rather abstract class Where to use abstract class rather interface I need code snippet for both . Which takes low memory and which performs well . Do I need to consider the design aspect also? What is the conceptual difference not the syntactical difference .

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31  | Next Page >