Search Results

Search found 30780 results on 1232 pages for 'object oriented modeling'.

Page 28/1232 | < Previous Page | 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35  | Next Page >

  • Android - Saving an object in onSaveInstanceState?

    - by Donal Rafferty
    I have created a small XML parsing application for Android that displays information in a listview and then allows a user to click on the list view and a dialog with further info will pop up. The problem is that when the screen orientation is changed when a dialog screen is open I get a null pointer error. The null pointer occurs on the following line: if(setting.getAddForPublicUserNames() == 1){ This line is part of my dialogPrepare method: @Override public void onPrepareDialog(int id, Dialog dialog) { switch(id) { case (SETTINGS_DIALOG) : afpunText = ""; if(setting.getAddForPublicUserNames() == 1){ afpunText = "Yes"; } else{ afpunText = "No"; } String Text = "Login Settings: " + "\n" + "Password: " + setting.getPassword() + "\n" + "Server: " + setting.getServerAddress() + "\n" + "Register: " + setting.getRegistrarAddress() + "\n" + "Realm: " + setting.getRealm() + "\n" + "Public UserNames: " + afpunText + "\n" + "Preference Settings: " + "\n" + "Request VDN: " + setting.getRequestVDN() + "\n" + "Handover Settings: " + "\n" + "Enable Handover: " + setting.getEnableHandover() + "\n" + "Hand Over Number: " + setting.getHandoverNum() + "\n"; AlertDialog settingsDialog = (AlertDialog)dialog; settingsDialog.setTitle("Auth ID: " + setting.getUserName()); tv = (TextView)settingsDialog.findViewById(R.id.detailsTextView); if (tv != null) tv.setText(Text); break; } } So the error is that my variable setting is null after the screen orientation changes. I have tried to use the onSaveInstance state methods to fix that as follows: @Override public void onSaveInstanceState(Bundle savedInstanceState) { for(int i = 0; i < settings.size(); i++){ savedInstanceState.putString("Username"+i, settings.get(i).getUserName()); savedInstanceState.putString("Password"+i, settings.get(i).getPassword()); savedInstanceState.putString("Server"+i, settings.get(i).getServerAddress()); savedInstanceState.putString("Registrar"+i, settings.get(i).getRegistrarAddress()); savedInstanceState.putString("Realm"+i, settings.get(i).getRealm()); savedInstanceState.putInt("PUserNames"+i, settings.get(i).getAddForPublicUserNames()); savedInstanceState.putString("RequestVDN"+i, settings.get(i).getRequestVDN()); savedInstanceState.putString("EnableHandOver"+i, settings.get(i).getEnableHandover()); savedInstanceState.putString("HandOverNum"+i, settings.get(i).getHandoverNum()); } super.onSaveInstanceState(savedInstanceState); } and @Override public void onRestoreInstanceState(Bundle savedInstanceState) { super.onRestoreInstanceState(savedInstanceState); //Check to see if this is required // Restore UI state from the savedInstanceState. // This bundle has also been passed to onCreate. for(int i = 0; i<settings.size(); i++){ settings.get(i).setUserName(savedInstanceState.getString("Username"+i)); settings.get(i).setPassword(savedInstanceState.getString("Password"+i)) ; settings.get(i).setServerAddress(savedInstanceState.getString("Server"+i)); settings.get(i).setRegistrarAddress(savedInstanceState.getString("Registrar"+i)); settings.get(i).setRealm(savedInstanceState.getString("Realm"+i)); settings.get(i).setAddForPublicUserNames(savedInstanceState.getInt("PUserNames"+i)); settings.get(i).setRequestVDN(savedInstanceState.getString("RequestVDN"+i)); settings.get(i).setEnableHandover(savedInstanceState.getString("EnableHandOver"+i)); settings.get(i).setHandoverNum(savedInstanceState.getString("HandOverNum"+i)); } } However the error still remains, I think I have to save the selected setting from what was selected from the ListView? But how do I save a setting object in onSavedInstance?

    Read the article

  • AutoMapper How To Map Object A To Object B Differently Depending On Context

    - by IanT8
    Calling all AutoMapper gurus! I'd like to be able to map object A to object B differently depending on context at runtime. In particular, I'd like to ignore certain properties in one mapping case, and have all properties mapped in another case. What I'm experiencing is that Mapper.CreateMap can be called successfully in the different mapping cases however, once CreateMap is called, the map for a particular pair of types is set and is not subsequently changed by succeeding CreateMap calls which might describe the mapping differently. I found a blog post which advocates Mapper.Reset() to get round the problem, however, the static nature of the Mapper class means that it is only a matter of time before a collision and crash occur. Is there a way to do this? What I think I need is to call Mapper.CreateMap once per appdomain, and later, be able to call Mapper.Map with hints about which properties should be included / excluded. Right now, I'm thinking about changing the source code by writing a non-static mapping class that holds the mapping config instance based. Poor performance, but thread safe. What are my options. What can be done? Automapper seems so promising.

    Read the article

  • Disposing underlying object from finalizer in an immutable object

    - by Juan Luis Soldi
    I'm trying to wrap around Awesomium and make it look to the rest of my code as close as possible to NET's WebBrowser since this is for an existing application that already uses the WebBrowser. In this library, there is a class called JSObject which represents a javascript object. You can get one of this, for instance, by calling the ExecuteJavascriptWithResult method of the WebView class. If you'd call it like myWebView.ExecuteJavascriptWithResult("document", string.Empty).ToObject(), then you'd get a JSObject that represents the document. I'm writing an immutable class (it's only field is a readonly JSObject object) called JSObjectWrap that wraps around JSObject which I want to use as base class for other classes that would emulate .NET classes such as HtmlElement and HtmlDocument. Now, these classes don't implement Dispose, but JSObject does. What I first thought was to call the underlying JSObject's Dispose method in my JSObjectWrap's finalizer (instead of having JSObjectWrap implement Dispose) so that the rest of my code can stay the way it is (instead of having to add using's everywhere and make sure every JSObjectWrap is being properly disposed). But I just realized if more than two JSObjectWrap's have the same underlying JSObject and one of them gets finalized this will mess up the other JSObjectWrap. So now I'm thinking maybe I should keep a static Dictionary of JSObjects and keep count of how many of each of them are being referenced by a JSObjectWrap but this sounds messy and I think could cause major performance issues. Since this sounds to me like a common pattern I wonder if anyone else has a better idea.

    Read the article

  • Calling Object Methods in Code

    - by Mister R2
    I'm a bit new to PHP, and I'm more experienced with strongly-typed languages such as JAVA, C# or C++.I'm currently writing a web tool in PHP, and I am having an issue trying to do what I want. The simple idea of what I want to do in code is run through some emails I used PHP-IMAP to get. I then create email objects (a class I defined), and put them in an array. Later on the code, however, I cycle through those emails to display them. However, as you might have guessed I'd have an issue with, I try to use an Email Class object method in that later loop -- and I'm pretty sure PHP doesn't know that the variables in the array happen to be Email Class objects! I wrote a toString method, and I want to call it in the loop. While I don't need to do this for the final version of this tool, I would like to find out what I'm missing. This is the class and the loop where I'm calling the method: include 'imap_email_interface.php'; class ImapEmail implements imap_email_interface { // Email data var $msgno; var $to; var $from; var $subject; var $body; var $attachment; // Email behavior /* PHP 4 ~ legacy constructor */ public function ImapEmail($message_number) { $this->__construct(); $this->msgno = $message_number; } /* PHP 5 Constructor */ public function __construct($message_number) { $this->msgno = $message_number; } public function send($send_to) { // Not Yet Needed! Seriously! } public function setHeaderDirectly($TO, $FROM, $SUBJECT) { $this->to = $TO; $this->from = $FROM; $this->subject = $SUBJECT; } public function setHeaderIndirectly($HEADER) { if (isset($HEADER->to[0]->personal)) $this->to = '"'.$HEADER->to[0]->personal.'", '.$HEADER->to[0]->mailbox.'@'.$HEADER->to[0]->host; else $this->to = $HEADER->to[0]->mailbox.'@'.$HEADER->to[0]->host; $this->from = '"'.$HEADER->from[0]->personal.'", '.$HEADER->from[0]->mailbox.'@'.$HEADER->from[0]->host; $this->subject = $HEADER->subject; } public function setBody($BODY) { $this->body = $BODY; } public function setAttachment($ATTCH) { $this->attachment = $ATTCH; } public function toString() { $str = '[TO]: ' . $this->to . '<br />' . '[FROM]: ' . $this->from . '<br />' . '[SUBJECT]: ' . $this->subject . '<br />'; $str .= '[Attachment]: '.$this->attachment.'<br />'; return $str; } } ?> The Loop: foreach ($orderFileEmails as $x) { $x->toString(); echo '<br /><br />'; } Any ideas?

    Read the article

  • jQuery/Javascript Cookies and variable returning with value [object Object]

    - by user1706661
    I am attempting to set a cookie to a site using jQuery, ONLY if the user came from a specific site. In this case, lets use -http://referrersite.com- as the site they must come from for the cookie to be created as an example. The cookie value is being stored in a variable and everything up to this point is working fine. There is a conditional statement checking whether the user came from the referred site, if the cookie exists already and if the cookie doesn't exist and the user did not come from the referred site. If the user came from the referred site the cookie is created and stored in a variable. If the cookie already exists, it is then stored in a variable. If the cookie does not exist and the user did not come from the referred site I am assigning the variable a static string of characters - this is where the issue lies. When the variable is alerted from the non referred site and no existing cookie, it returns: [object Object], not the static string of characters. The code I am using is below: $(document).ready(function() { var referrer = document.referrer; if(referrer == "http://referrersite.com") { $.cookie("code","123456", { expires: 90, path: '/' }); cookieContainer = $.cookie("code"); alert(cookieContainer); } else if($.cookie("code")) { cookieContainer = $.cookie("code"); alert(cookieContainer); } else if($.cookie("code") == null && referrer != "http://referrersite.com") { cookieContainer = "67890"; alert(cookieContainer); } }); Please let me know if there is something I am missing as the code to me looks like it should work. Thanks!

    Read the article

  • How to design a scalable notification system?

    - by Trent
    I need to write a notification system manager. Here is my requirements: I need to be able to send a Notification on different platforms, which may be totally different (for exemple, I need to be able to send either an SMS or an E-mail). Sometimes the notification may be the same for all recipients for a given platform, but sometimes it may be a notification per recipients (or several) per platform. Each notification can contain platform specific payload (for exemple an MMS can contains a sound or an image). The system need to be scalable, I need to be able to send a very large amount of notification without crashing either the application or the server. It is a two step process, first a customer may type a message and choose a platform to send to, and the notification(s) should be created to be processed either real-time either later. Then the system needs to send the notification to the platform provider. For now, I end up with some though but I don't know how scalable it will be or if it is a good design. I've though of the following objects (in a pseudo language): a generic Notification object: class Notification { String $message; Payload $payload; Collection<Recipient> $recipients; } The problem with the following objects is what if I've 1.000.000 recipients ? Even if the Recipient object is very small, it'll take too much memory. I could also create one Notification per recipient, but some platform providers requires me to send it in batch, meaning I need to define one Notification with several Recipients. Each created notification could be stored in a persistent storage like a DB or Redis. Would it be a good it to aggregate this later to make sure it is scalable? On the second step, I need to process this notification. But how could I distinguish the notification to the right platform provider? Should I use an object like MMSNotification extending an abstract Notification? or something like Notification.setType('MMS')? To allow to process a lot of notification at the same time, I think a messaging queue system like RabbitMQ may be the right tool. Is it? It would allow me to queue a lot of notification and have several worker to pop notification and process them. But what if I need to batch the recipients as seen above? Then I imagine a NotificationProcessor object for which I could I add NotificationHandler each NotificationHandler would be in charge to connect the platform provider and perform notification. I can also use an EventManager to allow pluggable behavior. Any feedbacks or ideas? Thanks for giving your time. Note: I'm used to work in PHP and it is likely the language of my choice.

    Read the article

  • Stop a rotating object at a specified angle?

    - by Krummelz
    I'm working in JavaScript with HTML5 and the canvas. I have an object which is rotating at a certain speed, and I need the object's rotation to slow down gradually and the front of the object to stop at a specified angle. (I'm using radians, not degrees.) I have a variable to keep track of the angle which the object is facing, as it rotates. How would I go about getting the object to come to rest, facing the direction I want it to?

    Read the article

  • What is Agile Modeling and why do I need it?

    What is Agile Modeling and why do I need it? Agile Modeling is an add-on to existing agile methodologies like Extreme programming (XP) and Rational Unified Process (RUP). Agile Modeling enables developers to develop a customized software development process that actually meets their current development needs and is flexible enough to adjust in the future. According to Scott Ambler, Agile Modeling consists of five core values that enable this methodology to be effective and light weight Agile Modeling Core Values: Communication Simplicity Feedback Courage Humility Communication is a key component to any successful project. Open communication between stakeholder and the development team is essential when developing new applications or maintaining legacy systems. Agile models promote communication amongst software development teams and stakeholders. Furthermore, Agile Models provide a common understanding of an application for members of a software development team allowing them to have a universal common point of reference. The use of simplicity in Agile Models enables the exploration of new ideas and concepts through the use of basic diagrams instead of investing the time in writing tens or hundreds of lines of code. Feedback in regards to application development is essential. Feedback allows a development team to confirm that the development path is on track. Agile Models allow for quick feedback from shareholders because minimal to no technical expertise is required to understand basic models. Courage is important because you need to make important decisions and be able to change direction by either discarding or refactoring your work when some of your decisions prove inadequate, according to Scott Ambler. As a member of a development team, we must admit that we do not know everything even though some of us think we do. This is where humility comes in to play. Everyone is a knowledge expert in their own specific domain. If you need help with your finances then you would consult an accountant. If you have a problem or are in need of help with a topic why would someone not consult with a subject expert? An effective approach is to assume that everyone involved with your project has equal value and therefore should be treated with respect. Agile Model Characteristics: Purposeful Understandable Sufficiently Accurate Sufficiently Consistent Sufficiently Detailed Provide Positive Value Simple as Possible Just Fulfill Basic Requirements According to Scott Ambler, Agile models are the most effective possible because the time that is invested in the model is just enough effort to complete the job. Furthermore, if a model isn’t good enough yet then additional effort can be invested to get more value out of the model. However if a model is good enough, for the current needs, or surpass the current needs, then any additional work done on the model would be a waste. It is important to remember that good enough is in the eye of the beholder, so this can be tough. In order for Agile Models to work effectively Active Stakeholder need to participation in the modeling process. Finally it is also very important to model with others, this allows for additionally input ensuring that all the shareholders needs are reflected in the models. How can Agile Models be incorporated in to our projects? Agile Models can be incorporated in to our project during the requirement gathering and design phases. As requirements are gathered the models should be updated to incorporate the new project details as they are defined and updated. Additionally, the Agile Models created during the requirement phase can be the bases for the models created during the design phase.  It is important to only add to the model when the changes fit within the agile model characteristics and they do not over complicate the design.

    Read the article

  • What are the disadvantages of self-encapsulation?

    - by Dave Jarvis
    Background Tony Hoare's billion dollar mistake was the invention of null. Subsequently, a lot of code has become riddled with null pointer exceptions (segfaults) when software developers try to use (dereference) uninitialized variables. In 1989, Wirfs-Brock and Wikerson wrote: Direct references to variables severely limit the ability of programmers to re?ne existing classes. The programming conventions described here structure the use of variables to promote reusable designs. We encourage users of all object-oriented languages to follow these conventions. Additionally, we strongly urge designers of object-oriented languages to consider the effects of unrestricted variable references on reusability. Problem A lot of software, especially in Java, but likely in C# and C++, often uses the following pattern: public class SomeClass { private String someAttribute; public SomeClass() { this.someAttribute = "Some Value"; } public void someMethod() { if( this.someAttribute.equals( "Some Value" ) ) { // do something... } } public void setAttribute( String s ) { this.someAttribute = s; } public String getAttribute() { return this.someAttribute; } } Sometimes a band-aid solution is used by checking for null throughout the code base: public void someMethod() { assert this.someAttribute != null; if( this.someAttribute.equals( "Some Value" ) ) { // do something... } } public void anotherMethod() { assert this.someAttribute != null; if( this.someAttribute.equals( "Some Default Value" ) ) { // do something... } } The band-aid does not always avoid the null pointer problem: a race condition exists. The race condition is mitigated using: public void anotherMethod() { String someAttribute = this.someAttribute; assert someAttribute != null; if( someAttribute.equals( "Some Default Value" ) ) { // do something... } } Yet that requires two statements (assignment to local copy and check for null) every time a class-scoped variable is used to ensure it is valid. Self-Encapsulation Ken Auer's Reusability Through Self-Encapsulation (Pattern Languages of Program Design, Addison Wesley, New York, pp. 505-516, 1994) advocated self-encapsulation combined with lazy initialization. The result, in Java, would resemble: public class SomeClass { private String someAttribute; public SomeClass() { setAttribute( "Some Value" ); } public void someMethod() { if( getAttribute().equals( "Some Value" ) ) { // do something... } } public void setAttribute( String s ) { this.someAttribute = s; } public String getAttribute() { String someAttribute = this.someAttribute; if( someAttribute == null ) { setAttribute( createDefaultValue() ); } return someAttribute; } protected String createDefaultValue() { return "Some Default Value"; } } All duplicate checks for null are superfluous: getAttribute() ensures the value is never null at a single location within the containing class. Efficiency arguments should be fairly moot -- modern compilers and virtual machines can inline the code when possible. As long as variables are never referenced directly, this also allows for proper application of the Open-Closed Principle. Question What are the disadvantages of self-encapsulation, if any? (Ideally, I would like to see references to studies that contrast the robustness of similarly complex systems that use and don't use self-encapsulation, as this strikes me as a fairly straightforward testable hypothesis.)

    Read the article

  • Odd "Object reference not set to an instance of an object" involving xWinForms

    - by Kyle
    Hey, I've been trying to get the xWinForms 3.0 library (a library with forms support in xna) working with my C# XNA Game project but I keep getting the same problem. I add the reference to my project, put in the using statement, declare a formCollection variable and then I try to initialize it. whenever I run the project I get stopped on this line: formCollection = new FormCollection(this.Window, Services, ref graphics); it gives me the error: " System.NullReferenceException was unhandled Message="Object reference not set to an instance of an object." Source="Microsoft.Xna.Framework" StackTrace: at Microsoft.Xna.Framework.Graphics.VertexShader..ctor(GraphicsDevice graphicsDevice, Byte[] shaderCode) at Microsoft.Xna.Framework.Graphics.SpriteBatch.ConstructPlatformData() at Microsoft.Xna.Framework.Graphics.SpriteBatch..ctor(GraphicsDevice graphicsDevice) at xWinFormsLib.FormCollection..ctor(GameWindow window, IServiceProvider services, GraphicsDeviceManager& graphics) at GameSolution.Game2.LoadContent() in C:\Users\Owner\Documents\School\Year 3\Winter\Soen 390\TeamWTF_3\SourceCode\GameSolution\GameSolution\Game2.cs:line 45 at Microsoft.Xna.Framework.Game.Initialize() at GameSolution.Game2.Initialize() in C:\Users\Owner\Documents\School\Year 3\Winter\Soen 390\TeamWTF_3\SourceCode\GameSolution\GameSolution\Game2.cs:line 37 at Microsoft.Xna.Framework.Game.Run() at GameSolution.Program.Main(String[] args) in C:\Users\Owner\Documents\School\Year 3\Winter\Soen 390\TeamWTF_3\SourceCode\GameSolution\GameSolution\Program.cs:line 14 InnerException: " In a project I downloaded that used the xWinForms, I put the following code in and it compiled and ran no error. but when I put it in my project I get the error. Am I making some stupid mistake about including dlls or something? I've been at this for hours and I can't seem to find anything that would cause this. using System; using System.Collections.Generic; using System.Linq; using System.Text; using Microsoft.Xna.Framework; using Microsoft.Xna.Framework.Audio; using Microsoft.Xna.Framework.Content; using Microsoft.Xna.Framework.GamerServices; using Microsoft.Xna.Framework.Graphics; using Microsoft.Xna.Framework.Input; using Microsoft.Xna.Framework.Media; using Microsoft.Xna.Framework.Net; using Microsoft.Xna.Framework.Storage; using xWinFormsLib; namespace GameSolution { public class Game2 : Microsoft.Xna.Framework.Game { GraphicsDeviceManager graphics; SpriteBatch spriteBatch; FormCollection formCollection; public Game2() { graphics = new GraphicsDeviceManager(this); Content.RootDirectory = "Content"; } protected override void Initialize() { // TODO: Add your initialization logic here base.Initialize(); } protected override void LoadContent() { // Create a new SpriteBatch, which can be used to draw textures. spriteBatch = new SpriteBatch(GraphicsDevice); formCollection = new FormCollection(this.Window, Services, ref graphics); } protected override void Update(GameTime gameTime) { base.Update(gameTime); } protected override void Draw(GameTime gameTime) { base.Draw(gameTime); } } } Any help would be greatly appreciated ._.

    Read the article

  • Need to cast to an object without knowing what type the object is

    - by jle
    I am trying to dynamically load my authentication server type based on a setting. I am hung up on how to cast to a type when I don't know the type. Type t = Type.GetType(WebConfigurationManager.AppSettings.Get("AuthenticationSvcImpl")); IAuthenticationService authCli = Activator.CreateInstance(t); return authCli.AuthenticateUser(login); I know there is Convert.ChangeType(), but that just converts to an object...

    Read the article

  • Javascript: how to access anonymous object within object?

    - by Caballero
    I have a string generated by php's json_encode() that looks like this: [ { "key1":"value1", "key2":"value2", "key3":"value3" }, { "key1":"value1", "key2":"value2", "key3":"value3" } ] I use Javascript function to convert the string to Javascript object: var jsonObj=JSON.parse(string); How do I access the data inside since the inner objects have no names? I tried something like: alert(jsonObj.firstChild.key1); It gives me "undefined". Why is that so?

    Read the article

  • Should a domain expert make class diagrams?

    - by Matthieu
    The domain expert in our team uses UML class diagrams to model the domain model. As a result, the class diagrams are more of technical models rather than domain models (it serves of some sort of technical specifications for developpers because they don't have to do any conception, they just have to implement the model). In the end, the domain expert ends up doing the job of the architect/technical expert right? Is it normal for a domain expert (not a developer or technical profile) to do class diagrams? If not, what kind of modeling should he be using?

    Read the article

  • Use Case Diagrams - should I create a diagram just for a view business rule?

    - by Periback
    I'm modeling a UCD where I have two actors ( a content producer and a developer).. the content producer is going to create and specify details of a storyboard functionality, and the other actor (developer) will only be able to view this storyboard ( he'll log in the application and read the storyboard to start developing what it says, outside the application..) I'm working on the specification of this storyboard functionality and I'd like to know it would be like a best-practice if I describe something like " actor- developer", "UCD - read scenes of storyboard" . This is the specification of an application I developed for my thesis and they asked me to add some specification...

    Read the article

  • Write a network simulator for fun

    - by Jono
    I want to write my own network simulator, for fun and for personal challenge. I hope to learn both new programming techniques, and a little bit more about networking. Previous object-oriented attempts ended very quickly, but I've recently downloaded and played with Microsoft's Axum (a new version was released today) and their Concurrency and Co-ordination Runtime. As I come from a very OO dominant background, I had never heard of Actor-oriented programming before; now it seems I've had my head in the sand until Scala and F# brought the paradigm to me. My questions are: a) is actor-oriented programming a better choice than object-oriented programming for this task, and if so b) where is a good place to start learning actor-oriented design?

    Read the article

  • Understanding UML composition better

    - by Prog
    The technical difference between Composition and Aggregation in UML (and sometimes in programming too) is that with Composition, the lifetime of the objects composing the composite (e.g. an engine and a steering wheel in a car) is dependent on the composite object. While with Aggregation, the lifetime of the objects making up the composite is independent of the composite. However I'm not sure about something related to composition in UML. Say ClassA is composed of an object of ClassB: class ClassA{ ClassB bInstance; public ClassA(){ bInstance = new ClassB(); } } This is an example of composition, because bInstance is dependent on the lifetime of it's enclosing object. However, regarding UML notation - I'm not sure if I would notate the relationship between ClassA and ClassB with a filled diamond (composition) or a white diamond (aggregation). This is because while the lifetime of some ClassB instances is dependent of ClassA instances - there could be ClassB instances anywhere else in the program - not only within ClassA instances. The question is: if ClassA objects are composed of ClassB objects - but other ClassB objects are free to be used anywhere else in the program: Should the relationship between ClassA and ClassB be notated as aggregation or as composition?

    Read the article

  • null pointers vs. Null Object Pattern

    - by GlenH7
    Attribution: This grew out of a related P.SE question My background is in C / C++, but I have worked a fair amount in Java and am currently coding C#. Because of my C background, checking passed and returned pointers is second-hand, but I acknowledge it biases my point of view. I recently saw mention of the Null Object Pattern where the idea is than an object is always returned. Normal case returns the expected, populated object and the error case returns empty object instead of a null pointer. The premise being that the calling function will always have some sort of object to access and therefore avoid null access memory violations. So what are the pros / cons of a null check versus using the Null Object Pattern? I can see cleaner calling code with the NOP, but I can also see where it would create hidden failures that don't otherwise get raised. I would rather have my application fail hard (aka an exception) while I'm developing it than have a silent mistake escape into the wild. Can't the Null Object Pattern have similar problems as not performing a null check? Many of the objects I have worked with hold objects or containers of their own. It seems like I would have to have a special case to guarantee all of the main object's containers had empty objects of their own. Seems like this could get ugly with multiple layers of nesting.

    Read the article

  • Formal definition for term "pure OO language"?

    - by Yauhen Yakimovich
    I can't think of a better place among SO siblings to pose such a question. Originally I wanted to ask "Is python a pure OO language?" but considering troubles and some sort of discomfort people experience while trying to define the term I decided to start with obtaining a clear definition for the term itself. It would be rather fair to start with correspondence by Dr. Alan Kay, who has coined the term (note the inspiration in biological analogy to cells or other living objects). There are following ways to approach the task: Give a comparative analysis by listing programming languages that exhibits certain properties unique and sufficient to define the term (although Smalltalk and Java are passing examples but IMO this way seems neither really complete or nor fruitful) Give a formal definition (or close to it, e.g. in more academic or mathematical style). Give a philosophical definition that would totally rely on semantical context of concrete language or a priori programming experience (there must be some chance of successful explanation by the community). My current version: "If a certain programing (formal) language that can (grammatically) differentiate between operations and operands as well as infer about the type of each operand whether this type is an object (in sense of OOP) or not then we call such a language an OO-language as long as there is at least one type in this language which is an object. Finally, if all types of the language are also objects we define such language to be pure OO-language." Would appreciate any possible improvement of it. As you can see I just made the definition dependent on the term "object" (often fully referenced as class of objects).

    Read the article

  • About shared (static) Members and its behavior

    - by Allende
    I just realized that I can access shared members from instances of classes (probably this is not correct, but compile and run), and also learn/discover that, I can modify shared members, then create a new instance and access the new value of the shared member. My question is, what happens to the shared members, when it comes back to the "default" value (class declaration), how dangerous is it do this ? is it totally bad ? is it valid in some cases ?. If you want to test my point here is the code (console project vb.net) that I used to test shared members, as you can see/compile/run, the shared member "x" of the class "Hello" has default value string "Default", but at runtime it changes it, and after creating a new object of that class, this object has the new value of the shared member. Module Module1 Public Class hello Public Shared x As String = "Default" Public Sub New() End Sub End Class Sub Main() Console.WriteLine("hello.x=" & hello.x) Dim obj As New hello() Console.WriteLine("obj.x=" & obj.x) obj.x = "Default shared memeber, modified in object" Console.WriteLine("obj.x=" & obj.x) hello.x = "Defaul shared member, modified in class" Console.WriteLine("hello.x=" & hello.x) Dim obj2 As New hello() Console.WriteLine("obj2.x=" & obj2.x) Console.ReadLine() End Sub End Module UPDATE: First at all, thanks to everyone, each answer give feedback, I suppose, by respect I should choose one as "the answer", I don't want to be offensive to anyone, so please don't take it so bad if I didn't choose you answer.

    Read the article

  • Empty interface to combine multiple interfaces

    - by user1109519
    Suppose you have two interfaces: interface Readable { public void read(); } interface Writable { public void write(); } In some cases the implementing objects can only support one of these but in a lot of cases the implementations will support both interfaces. The people who use the interfaces will have to do something like: // can't write to it without explicit casting Readable myObject = new MyObject(); // can't read from it without explicit casting Writable myObject = new MyObject(); // tight coupling to actual implementation MyObject myObject = new MyObject(); None of these options is terribly convenient, even more so when considering that you want this as a method parameter. One solution would be to declare a wrapping interface: interface TheWholeShabam extends Readable, Writable {} But this has one specific problem: all implementations that support both Readable and Writable have to implement TheWholeShabam if they want to be compatible with people using the interface. Even though it offers nothing apart from the guaranteed presence of both interfaces. Is there a clean solution to this problem or should I go for the wrapper interface? UPDATE It is in fact often necessary to have an object that is both readable and writable so simply seperating the concerns in the arguments is not always a clean solution. UPDATE2 (extracted as answer so it's easier to comment on) UPDATE3 Please beware that the primary usecase for this is not streams (although they too must be supported). Streams make a very specific distinction between input and output and there is a clear separation of responsibilities. Rather, think of something like a bytebuffer where you need one object you can write to and read from, one object that has a very specific state attached to it. These objects exist because they are very useful for some things like asynchronous I/O, encodings,...

    Read the article

  • Functional programming compared to OOP with classes

    - by luckysmack
    I have been interested in some of the concepts of functional programming lately. I have used OOP for some time now. I can see how I would build a fairly complex app in OOP. Each object would know how to do things that object does. Or anything it's parents class does as well. So I can simply tell Person().speak() to make the person talk. But how do I do similar things in functional programming? I see how functions are first class items. But that function only does one specific thing. Would I simply have a say() method floating around and call it with an equivalent of Person() argument so I know what kind of thing is saying something? So I can see the simple things, just how would I do the comparable of OOP and objects in functional programming, so I can modularize and organize my code base? For reference, my primary experience with OOP is Python, PHP, and some C#. The languages that I am looking at that have functional features are Scala and Haskell. Though I am leaning towards Scala. Basic Example (Python): Animal(object): def say(self, what): print(what) Dog(Animal): def say(self, what): super().say('dog barks: {0}'.format(what)) Cat(Animal): def say(self, what): super().say('cat meows: {0}'.format(what)) dog = Dog() cat = Cat() dog.say('ruff') cat.say('purr')

    Read the article

  • A few questions about how JavaScript works

    - by KayoticSully
    I originally posted on Stack Overflow and was told I might get some better answers here. I have been looking deeply into JavaScript lately to fully understand the language and have a few nagging questions that I can not seem to find answers to (Specifically dealing with Object Oriented programming. I know JavaScript is meant to be used in an OOP manner I just want to understand it for the sake of completeness). Assuming the following code: function TestObject() { this.fA = function() { // do stuff } this.fB = testB; function testB() { // do stuff } } TestObject.prototype = { fC : function { // do stuff } } What is the difference between functions fA and fB? Do they behave exactly the same in scope and potential ability? Is it just convention or is one way technically better or proper? If there is only ever going to be one instance of an object at any given time, would adding a function to the prototype such as fC even be worthwhile? Is there any benefit to doing so? Is the prototype only really useful when dealing with many instances of an object or inheritance? And what is technically the "proper" way to add methods to the prototype the way I have above or calling TestObject.prototype.functionName = function(){} every time? I am looking to keep my JavaScript code as clean and readable as possible but am also very interested in what the proper conventions for Objects are in the language. I come from a Java and PHP background and am trying to not make any assumptions about how JavaScript works since I know it is very different being prototype based. Also are there any definitive JavaScript style guides or documentation about how JavaScript operates at a low level? Thanks!

    Read the article

  • Object.Watch with disabled attribute

    - by Benjamin Fleming
    <html> <head> <script type="text/javascript"> window.onload = function() { var btn = document.getElementById("button"); var tog = document.getElementById("toggle"); tog.onclick = function() { if(btn.disabled) { btn.disabled = false; } else { btn.disabled = true; } }; //btn.watch("disabled", function(prop, val, newval) { }); }; </script> </head> <body> <input type="button" value="Button" id="button" /> <input type="button" value="Toggle" id="toggle" /> </body> </html> If you test this code, the Toggle button will successfully enable and disable the other button. However, un-commenting the btn.watch() line will somehow always set the disabled tag to true. Any ideas?

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35  | Next Page >