Search Results

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

Page 25/58 | < Previous Page | 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32  | Next Page >

  • Is there any way to achieve multiple inheritance in php?

    - by Starx
    Lets say I have a parent class class parent { } ..... This parent has three sub class class child1 { } class child2 { } class child3 { } and these child classes have further smaller parts like class child1subpar1 { } class child1subpar2 { public function foo() { echo "hi"; } } class child2subpar1 { } class child2subpar2 { } Now, how to sum this whole up like class child1 extends child1subpar1, child1subpar2 { } class child2 extends child2subpar1, childsubpar1 { } class parent extends child1,child2,child3 { } I need to execute the methods in its inherited classes and do something like this $objparent = new parent; $objparent - foo();

    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

  • What are the advantages of learning Go?

    - by Pangea
    What is so unique about Go? Over the 11 years of my career I've learnt Pascal, C, C++, COBOL and then Java. I always felt that going from C to C++ to Java was a incremental and value added progression. Now I see a proliferation of functional programming languages and I understand the benefit of learning few of them (like actors in scala etc). Now I was going through the Go programming language and was wondering why would I want to learn this? Is this going to simplify how I have been writing the code? What are its use cases? How can I make a case to promote it in my team? What is the next programming language that a Java team that builds business applications like us can benefit from? Appreciate your comments on this.

    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

  • 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

  • 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

  • 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

  • Static vs Non Static constructors

    - by Neil N
    I can't think of any reasons why one is better than the other. Compare these two implementations: public class MyClass { public myClass(string fileName) { // some code... } } as opposed to: public class MyClass { private myClass(){} public static Create(string fileName) { // some code... } } There are some places in the .Net framework that use the static method to create instances. At first I was thinking, it registers it's instances to keep track of them, but regular constructors could do the same thing through the use of private static variables. What is the reasoning behind this style?

    Read the article

  • Constructor within a constructor

    - by Chiramisu
    Is this a bad idea? Does calling a generic private constructor within a public constructor create multiple instances, or is this a valid way of initializing class variables? Private Class MyClass Dim _msg As String Sub New(ByVal name As String) Me.New() 'Do stuff End Sub Sub New(ByVal name As String, ByVal age As Integer) Me.New() 'Do stuff End Sub Private Sub New() 'Initializer constructor Me._msg = "Hello StackOverflow" 'Initialize other variables End Sub End Class

    Read the article

  • In what circumstances are instance variables declared as '_var' in 'use fields' private?

    - by Pedro Silva
    I'm trying to understand the behavior of the fields pragma, which I find poorly documented, regarding fields prefixed with underscores. This is what the documentation has to say about it: Field names that start with an underscore character are made private to the class and are not visible to subclasses. Inherited fields can be overridden but will generate a warning if used together with the -w switch. This is not consistent with its actual behavior, according to my test, below. Not only are _-prefixed fields visible within a subclass, they are visible within foreign classes as well (unless I don't get what 'visible' means). Also, directly accessing the restricted hash works fine. Where can I find more about the behavior of the fields pragma, short of going at the source code? { package Foo; use strict; use warnings; use fields qw/a _b __c/; sub new { my ( $class ) = @_; my Foo $self = fields::new($class); $self->a = 1; $self->b = 2; $self->c = 3; return $self; } sub a : lvalue { shift->{a} } sub b : lvalue { shift->{_b} } sub c : lvalue { shift->{__c} } } { package Bar; use base 'Foo'; use strict; use warnings; use Data::Dumper; my $o = Bar->new; print Dumper $o; ##$VAR1 = bless({'_b' => 2, '__c' => 3, 'a' => 1}, 'Foo'); $o->a = 4; $o->b = 5; $o->c = 6; print Dumper $o; ##$VAR1 = bless({'_b' => 5, '__c' => 6, 'a' => 4}, 'Foo'); $o->{a} = 7; $o->{_b} = 8; $o->{__c} = 9; print Dumper $o; ##$VAR1 = bless({'_b' => 8, '__c' => 9, 'a' => 7}, 'Foo'); }

    Read the article

  • PHP 5.3: Late static binding doesn't work for properties when defined in parent class while missing in child class

    - by DavidPesta
    Take a look at this example, and notice the outputs indicated. <?php class Mommy { protected static $_data = "Mommy Data"; public static function init( $data ) { static::$_data = $data; } public static function showData() { echo static::$_data . "<br>"; } } class Brother extends Mommy { } class Sister extends Mommy { } Brother::init( "Brother Data" ); Sister::init( "Sister Data" ); Brother::showData(); // Outputs: Sister Data Sister::showData(); // Outputs: Sister Data ?> My understanding was that using the static keyword would refer to the child class, but apparently it magically applies to the parent class whenever it is missing from the child class. (This is kind of a dangerous behavior for PHP, more on that explained below.) I have the following two things in mind for why I want to do this: I don't want the redundancy of defining all of the properties in all of the child classes. I want properties to be defined as defaults in the parent class and I want the child class definition to be able to override these properties wherever needed. The child class needs to exclude properties whenever the defaults are intended, which is why I don't define the properties in the child classes in the above example. However, if we are wanting to override a property at runtime (via the init method), it will override it for the parent class! From that point forward, child classes initialized earlier (as in the case of Brother) unexpectedly change on you. Apparently this is a result of child classes not having their own copy of the static property whenever it isn't explicitly defined inside of the child class--but instead of throwing an error it switches behavior of static to access the parent. Therefore, is there some way that the parent class could dynamically create a property that belongs to the child class without it appearing inside of the child class definition? That way the child class could have its own copy of the static property and the static keyword can refer to it properly, and it can be written to take into account parent property defaults. Or is there some other solution, good, bad, or ugly?

    Read the article

  • Is this class + constructor definition pattern overly redundant?

    - by Protector one
    I often come across a pattern similar to this: class Person { public string firstName, lastName; public Person(string firstName, string lastName) { this.firstName = firstName; this.lastName = lastName; } } This feels overly redundant (I imagine typing "firstName" once, instead of thrice could be enough…), but I can't think of a proper alternative. Any ideas? Maybe I just don't know about a certain design pattern I should be using here? Edit - I think I need to elaborate a little. I'm not asking how to make the example code "better", but rather, "shorter". In its current state, all member names appear 3 times (declaration, initialization, constructor arguments), and it feels rather redundant. So I'm wondering if there is a pattern (or semantic sugar) to get (roughly) the same behavior, but with less bloat. I apologize for being unclear initially.

    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

  • An inaccessible class. VS2010.

    - by Mishgun_
    I realy dont know what the problem is with VS2010. I created a class, and when I'm trying create an exemplar of the class I get an error: "Error xxx is inaccessible due to its protection level. Example: public class Person { Person(string name, int age) { this.name = name; this.age = age; } public string name; public int age; } class Program { static void Main(string[] args) { Person ps = new Person("Jack", 19); } }

    Read the article

  • How to determine which inheriting class is using an abstract class's methods.

    - by Kin
    In my console application have an abstract Factory class "Listener" which contains code for listening and accepting connections, and spawning client classes. This class is inherited by two more classes (WorldListener, and MasterListener) that contain more protocol specific overrides and functions. I also have a helper class (ConsoleWrapper) which encapsulates and extends System.Console, containing methods for writing to console info on what is happening to instances of the WorldListener and MasterListener. I need a way to determine in the abstract ListenerClass which Inheriting class is calling its methods. Any help with this problem would be greatly appreciated! I am stumped :X Simplified example of what I am trying to do. abstract class Listener { public void DoSomething() { if(inheriting class == WorldListener) ConsoleWrapper.WorldWrite("Did something!"); if(inheriting class == MasterListener) ConsoleWrapper.MasterWrite("Did something!"); } } public static ConsoleWrapper { public void WorldWrite(string input) { System.Console.WriteLine("[World] {0}", input); } } public class WorldListener : Listener { public void DoSomethingSpecific() { ConsoleWrapper.WorldWrite("I did something specific!"); } } public void Main() { new WorldListener(); new MasterListener(); } Expected output [World] Did something! [World] I did something specific! [Master] Did something! [World] I did something specific!

    Read the article

  • How to set default values to all wrong or null parameters of method?

    - by Roman
    At the moment I have this code (and I don't like it): private RenderedImage private RenderedImage getChartImage (GanttChartModel model, String title, Integer width, Integer height, String xAxisLabel, String yAxisLabel, Boolean showLegend) { if (title == null) { title = ""; } if (xAxisLabel == null) { xAxisLabel = ""; } if (yAxisLabel == null) { yAxisLabel = ""; } if (showLegend == null) { showLegend = true; } if (width == null) { width = DEFAULT_WIDTH; } if (height == null) { height = DEFAULT_HEIGHT; } ... } How can I improve it? I have some thoughts about introducing an object which will contain all these parameters as fields and then, maybe, it'll be possible to apply builder pattern. But still don't have clear vision how to implement that and I'm not sure that it's worth to be done. Any other ideas?

    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

  • PHP - Concatenating objects and casting to string - bad idea?

    - by franko75
    Is it bad practice to concatenate objects when used in this context: $this->template->head .= new View('custom_javascript') This is the way i normally add extra css/js stuff to specific pages. I use an MVC structure where my basic html template has a $head variable which I set in my main Website_controller. I have used this approach for a while as it means I can just add bits and pieces of css/js stuff from whichever page/controller needs it. But having come across a problem in PHP 5.1.6 where the above code results in "Object ID #24", the result of toString() not being called i think, I am rethinking whether i should just fix this to work in PHP 5.1.6 or if i should rethink this approach in general. Any pointers appreciated!

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32  | Next Page >