Search Results

Search found 8962 results on 359 pages for 'abstract factory pattern'.

Page 3/359 | < Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >

• Observer pattern for unpredictable observation time

  - by JoJo

  I have a situation where objects are created at unpredictable times. Some of these objects are created before an important event, some after. If the event already happened, I make the object execute stuff right away. If the event is forthcoming, I make the object observe the event. When the event triggers, the object is notified and executes the same code. if (subject.eventAlreadyHappened()) { observer.executeStuff(); } else { subject.subscribe(observer); } Is there another design pattern to wrap or even replace this observer pattern? I think it looks a little dirty to me.

  Read the article

• Abstract Base Class or Class?

  - by Mohit Deshpande

  For my semester project, my team and I are supposed to make a .jar file (library, not runnable) that contains a game development framework and demonstrate the concepts of OOP. Its supposed to be a FRAMEWORK and another team is supposed to use our framework and vice-versa. So I want to know how we should start. We thought of several approaches: 1. Start with a plain class public class Enemy { public Enemy(int x, int y, int health, int attack, ...) { ... } ... } public class UserDefinedClass extends Enemy { ... } 2. Start with an abstract class that user-defined enemies have to inherit abstract members public abstract class Enemy { public Enemy(int x, int y, int health, int attack, ...) { ... } public abstract void draw(); public abstract void destroy(); ... } public class UserDefinedClass extends Enemy { ... public void draw() { ... } public void destroy() { ... } } 3. Create a super ABC (Abstract Base Class) that ALL inherit from public abstract class VectorEntity { ... } public abstract class Enemy extends VectorEntity { ... } public class Player extends VectorEntity { ... } public class UserDefinedClass extends Enemy { ... } Which should I use? Or is there a better way?

  Read the article

• Visual Studio: Design a UserControl class that derives from an abstract base class

  - by Marcel

  Hi All, I want to have an abstract base class for some of my custom UserControl's. The reason is obvious: they share some common properties and methods (a basic implementation of some elements of an interface actually), and I want to implement them only once. I have done this by defining my abstract base class: public abstract class ViewBase : UserControl, ISomeInterface Then I went to implement one of my views, as usual, with the designer: public partial class SpecialView : UserControl //all OK Up to here all is fine. Now I replace the derivation of my SpecialView class with the abstract base class: public partial class SpecialView : ViewBase //disrupts the designer Now, the designer in Visual Studio 2008 won't work anymore, stating: The designer must create an instance of type 'ViewBase' but it cannot because the type is declared as abstract. How can I circumvent this? I just do not want to have the same code copied for all those views. Info: there is a question question with virtual methods, instead of abstract classes, but there is no suitable solution for me.

  Read the article

• Implementing a configurable factory

  - by Decko

  I'm having difficulties finding out how to implement a 'configurable' behavior in a factory class in PHP. I've got at class, which takes another class as an argument in its constructor. The argument class could take a number of arguments in its constructor. An instance of my main class could look something like this $instance = new MyClass(new OtherClass(20, true)); $instance2 = new MyClass(new DifferentClass('test')); This is rather clumsy and has a number of problems and therefore I would like to move this into a factory class. The problem is that this factory somehow needs to know how to instantiate the argument class, as this class can have any number of arguments in the constructor. Preferably I would like to be able to do something like this $instance = Factory::build('OtherClass'); $instance2 = Factory::build('DifferentClass'); And let the factory retrieve the arguments from a configuration array or similar. Is there a proper solution to this problem?

  Read the article

• Problem deriving a user control from an abstract base class in website project

  - by Sprintstar

  In a Visual Studio website, I have created a user control. This control is derived from a class (in App_Code) that is itself derived from System.Web.UI.UserControl. This is an abstract class with an abstract method. I then try to implement that method in the user control, but I get the following errors from Visual Studio: Error 1 'WebUserControl.AbstractMethod()': no suitable method found to override C:\Users\User\Documents\Visual Studio 2010\WebSites\Delme\WebUserControl.ascx.cs 10 28 C:\...\Delme\ Error 2 'WebUserControl' does not implement inherited abstract member 'AbstractBaseClass.AbstractMethod()' c:\Users\User\AppData\Local\Temp\Temporary ASP.NET Files\delme\0eebaa86\f1a48678\App_Web_nrsbzxex.0.cs 14 Error 1 says that my override of the abstract method is invalid, it doesn't recognise the abstract method in the base class. Error 2 says that the partial class automatically built by asp.net doesn't implement the abstract method! Note that this works fine when the code is used in a Web Application project. Why is this happening?

  Read the article

• Figuring out what makes a C++ class abstract in VS2008

  - by suszterpatt

  I'm using VS2008 to build a plain old C++ program (not C++/CLI). I have an abstract base class and a non-abstract derived class, and building this: Base* obj; obj = new Derived(); fails with the error "'Derived': cannot instantiate abstract class". (It may be worth noting, however, that if I hover over Base with the cursor, VS will pop up a tooltip saying "class Base abstract", but hovering over Derived will only say "class Derived" (no "abstract")). The definitions of these classes are fairly large and I'd like to avoid manually checking if each method has been overridden. Can VS do this for me somehow? Any general tips on pinpointing the exact parts of the class' definition that make it abstract?

  Read the article

• How to generate a Program template by generating an abstract class

  - by Byron-Lim Timothy Steffan

  i have the following problem. The 1st step is to implement a program, which follows a specific protocol on startup. Therefore, functions as onInit, onConfigRequest, etc. will be necessary. (These are triggered e.g. by incoming message on a TCP Port) My goal is to generate a class for example abstract one, which has abstract functions as onInit(), etc. A programmer should just inherit from this base class and should merely override these abstract functions of the base class. The rest as of the protocol e.g. should be simply handled in the background (using the code of the base class) and should not need to appear in the programmers code. What is the correct design strategy for such tasks? and how do I deal with, that the static main method is not inheritable? What are the key-tags for this problem? (I have problem searching for a solution since I lack clear statements on this problem) Goal is to create some sort of library/class, which - included in ones code - results in executables following the protocol. EDIT (new explanation): Okay let me try to explain more detailled: In this case programs should be clients within a client server architecture. We have a client server connection via TCP/IP. Each program needs to follow a specific protocol upon program start: As soon as my program starts and gets connected to the server it will receive an Init Message (TcpClient), when this happens it should trigger the function onInit(). (Should this be implemented by an event system?) After onInit() a acknowledgement message should be sent to the server. Afterwards there are some other steps as e.g. a config message from the server which triggers an onConfig and so on. Let's concentrate on the onInit function. The idea is, that onInit (and onConfig and so on) should be the only functions the programmer should edit while the overall protocol messaging is hidden for him. Therefore, I thought using an abstract class with the abstract methods onInit(), onConfig() in it should be the right thing. The static Main class I would like to hide, since within it e.g. there will be some part which connects to the tcp port, which reacts on the Init Message and which will call the onInit function. 2 problems here: 1. the static main class cant be inherited, isn it? 2. I cannot call abstract functions from the main class in the abstract master class. Let me give an Pseudo-example for my ideas: public abstract class MasterClass { static void Main(string[] args){ 1. open TCP connection 2. waiting for Init Message from server 3. onInit(); 4. Send Acknowledgement, that Init Routine has ended successfully 5. waiting for Config message from server 6..... } public abstract void onInit(); public abstract void onConfig(); } I hope you get the idea now! The programmer should afterwards inherit from this masterclass and merely need to edit the functions onInit and so on. Is this way possible? How? What else do you recommend for solving this? EDIT: The strategy ideo provided below is a good one! Check out my comment on that.

  Read the article

• Why can't I create an abstract constructor on an abstract C# class?

  - by Anthony D

  I am creating an abstract class. I want each of my derived classes to be forced to implement a specific signature of constructor. As such, I did what I would have done has I wanted to force them to implement a method, I made an abstract one. public abstract class A { abstract A(int a, int b); } However I get a message saying the abstract modifier is invalid on this item. My goal was to force some code like this. public class B : A { public B(int a, int b) : base(a, b) { //Some other awesome code. } } This is all C# .NET code. Can anyone help me out? Update 1 I wanted to add some things. What I ended up with was this. private A() { } protected A(int a, int b) { //Code } That does what some folks are saying, default is private, and the class needs to implement a constructor. However that doesn't FORCE a constructor with the signature A(int a, int b). public abstract class A { protected abstract A(int a, int b) { } } Update 2 I should be clear, to work around this I made my default constructor private, and my other constructor protected. I am not really looking for a way to make my code work. I took care of that. I am looking to understand why C# does not let you do this.

  Read the article

• Make an abstract class or use a processor?

  - by Tim Murphy

  I'm developing a class to compare two directories and run an action when a directory/file in the source directory does not exist in destination directory. Here is a prototype of the class: public abstract class IdenticalDirectories { private DirectoryInfo _sourceDirectory; private DirectoryInfo _destinationDirectory; protected abstract void DirectoryExists(DirectoryInfo sourceDirectory, DirectoryInfo destinationDirectory); protected abstract void DirectoryDoesNotExist(DirectoryInfo sourceDirectory, DirectoryInfo destinationDirectory); protected abstract void FileExists(DirectoryInfo sourceDirectory, DirectoryInfo destinationDirectory); protected abstract void FileDoesNotExist(DirectoryInfo sourceDirectory, DirectoryInfo destinationDirectory); public IdenticalDirectories(DirectoryInfo sourceDirectory, DirectoryInfo destinationDirectory) { ... } public void Run() { foreach (DirectoryInfo sourceSubDirectory in _sourceDirectory.GetDirectories()) { DirectoryInfo destinationSubDirectory = this.GetDestinationDirectoryInfo(subDirectory); if (destinationSubDirectory.Exists()) { this.DirectoryExists(sourceSubDirectory, destinationSubDirectory); } else { this.DirectoryDoesNotExist(sourceSubDirectory, destinationSubDirectory); } foreach (FileInfo sourceFile in sourceSubDirectory.GetFiles()) { FileInfo destinationFile = this.GetDestinationFileInfo(sourceFile); if (destinationFile.Exists()) { this.FileExists(sourceFile, destinationFile); } else { this.FileDoesNotExist(sourceFile, destinationFile); } } } } } The above prototype is an abstract class. I'm wondering if it would be better to make the class non-abstract and have the Run method receiver a processor? eg. public void Run(IIdenticalDirectoriesProcessor processor) { foreach (DirectoryInfo sourceSubDirectory in _sourceDirectory.GetDirectories()) { DirectoryInfo destinationSubDirectory = this.GetDestinationDirectoryInfo(subDirectory); if (destinationSubDirectory.Exists()) { processor.DirectoryExists(sourceSubDirectory, destinationSubDirectory); } else { processor.DirectoryDoesNotExist(sourceSubDirectory, destinationSubDirectory); } foreach (FileInfo sourceFile in sourceSubDirectory.GetFiles()) { FileInfo destinationFile = this.GetDestinationFileInfo(sourceFile); if (destinationFile.Exists()) { processor.FileExists(sourceFile, destinationFile); } else { processor.FileDoesNotExist(sourceFile, destinationFile); } } } } What do you see as the pros and cons of each implementation?

  Read the article

• How to create a dynamic array of an Abstract class?

  - by outsyncof

  Lets say I have an abstract class Cat that has a few concrete subclasses Wildcat, Housecat, etc. I want my array to be able to store pointers to a type of cat without knowing which kind it really is. When I try to dynamically allocate an array of Cat, it doesn't seem to be working. Please help? Cat* catArray = new Cat[200];

  Read the article

• SSIS Design Pattern: Loading Variable-Length Rows

  - by andyleonard

  Introduction I encounter flat file sources with variable-length rows on occassion. Here, I supply one SSIS Design Pattern for loading them. What's a Variable-Length Row Flat File? Great question - let's start with a definition. A variable-length row flat file is a text source of some flavor - comma-separated values (CSV), tab-delimited file (TDF), or even fixed-length, positional-, or ordinal-based (where the location of the data on the row defines its field). The major difference between a "normal"...(read more)

  Read the article

• Ocaml Pattern Matching

  - by Atticus

  Hey guys, I'm pretty new to OCaml and pattern matching, so I was having a hard time trying to figure this out. Say that I have a list of tuples. What I want to do is match a parameter with one of the tuples based on the first element in the tuple, and upon doing so, I want to return the second element of the tuple. So for example, I want to do something like this: let list = [ "a", 1; "b", 2"; "c", 3; "d", 4 ] ;; let map_left_to_right e rules = match e with | first -> second | first -> second | first -> second If I use map_left_to_right "b" list, I want to get 2 in return. I therefore want to list out all first elements in the list of rules and match the parameter with one of these elements, but I am not sure how to do so. I was thinking that I need to use either List.iter or List.for_all to do something like this. Any help would be appreciated. Thanks!

  Read the article

• Question regarding factory pattern

  - by eriks

  I have a factory class to build objects of base class B. The object (D) that uses this factory received a list of strings representing the actual types. What is the correct implementation: the factory receives an Enum (and uses switch inside the Create function) and D is responsible to convert the string to Enum. the factory receives a string and checks for a match to a set of valid strings (using ifs') other implementation i didn't think of.

  Read the article

• Writing a factory for classes that have required arguments

  - by Kyle Adams

  I understand the concept of factory pattern such that you give it something it spits out something of the same template back so if I gave a factory class apple, I expect to get many apples back with out having to instantiate a new apple ever time. what if that apple has a required argument of seed, or multiple required arguments of seed, step and leaf? how do you use factory pattern here? that is how do I use factory pattern to instantiate this: $apple = new Apple($seed, $stem, $leaf);

  Read the article

• UIHint can not resolve template in abstract models

  - by Reza Owliaei

  Assume an abstract model like this: public abstract class MyClass : BaseEntity { [UIHint("File")] public long? DocumentFileId { get; set; } } The problem is Cannot resolve template 'File', while there is File.cshtml in View editor templates. The point is, if I don't define MyClass as an abstract class, error will be solved. My question is, why editor template can not resolve in abstract classes, and how can I handle it?

  Read the article

• Derive abstract class from non-abstract class

  - by Jehof

  Is it OK to derive an abstract class from a non-abstract class or is there something wrong with this approach? Here´s a little example: public class Task { // Some Members } public abstract class PeriodicalTask : Task { // Represents a base class for task that has to be done periodicaly. // Some additional Members } public class DailyTask : PeriodicalTask { // Represents a Task that has to be done daily. // Some additional Members } public class WeeklyTask : PeriodicalTask { // Represents a Task that has to be done weekly. // Some additional Members } In the example above i do not want to make the class Task abstract, because i want to instantiate it directly. PeriodicalTask should inherit the functionality from Task and add some additional members but i do not want to instantiate it directly. Only derived class of PeriodicalTask should be instantiated.

  Read the article

• Design Patterns - Factory vs Abstract Factory

  - by JMSA

  What is the basic difference between Factory and Abstract Factory Patterns?

  Read the article

• abstract class NumberFormat - very confuse about getInstance()

  - by Alex

  Hi, I'm new to Java and I have a beginner question: NumberFormat is an abstract class and so I assume I can't make an instance of it. But there is a public static (factory?) method getInstance() that allow me to do NumberFormat nf = NumberFormat.getInstance(); I'm quite confuse. I'll be glad if someone could give me hints on: 1) If there is a public method to get an instance of this abstract class, why don't we have also a constructor? 2) This is an abstract class ; how can we have this static method giving us an instance of the class? 3) Why choosing such a design? If I assume it's possible to have an instance of an abstract class (???), I don't get why this class should be abstract at all. Thank you.

  Read the article

• abstract class NumberFormat - very confused about getInstance()

  - by Alex

  Hi, I'm new to Java and I have a beginner question: NumberFormat is an abstract class and so I assume I can't make an instance of it. But there is a public static (factory?) method getInstance() that allow me to do NumberFormat nf = NumberFormat.getInstance(); I'm quite confuse. I'll be glad if someone could give me hints on: 1) If there is a public method to get an instance of this abstract class, why don't we have also a constructor? 2) This is an abstract class ; how can we have this static method giving us an instance of the class? 3) Why choosing such a design? If I assume it's possible to have an instance of an abstract class (???), I don't get why this class should be abstract at all. Thank you.

  Read the article

• augment the factory pattern in java

  - by TP

  I am trying to use a factory pattern to create a QuestionTypeFactory where the instantiated classes will be like MultipleChoice, TrueFalseQuestion etc. The factory code looks something like this class QuestionFactory { public enum QuestionType { TrueFalse, MultipleChoice, Essay } public static Question createQuestion(QuestionType quesType) { switch (quesType) { case TrueFalse: return new TrueFalseQuestion(); case MultipleChoice: return new MultipleChoiceQuestion(); case Essay: return new EssayQuestion(); } throw new IllegalArgumentException("Not recognized."); } } This works ok for now. If I want to add another question type I will need to modify the factory class and I do not want to do that. How can I set it up so that each question class registers itself with the Factory so that when I add a new question type, I do not have to change the code for the factory? I am a bit new to java and am not sure how to do this.

  Read the article

• Question About Abstract Classes?

  - by IbrarMumtaz

  URL: Link (1) According to this wesbite .. you cannot implement Abstract classes but derive from them. This makes sense and I have read this many times. Like an interface, you cannot implement an instance of an abstract class, however you can implement methods, fields, and properties in the abstract class that can be used by the child class. But on MSDN URL: TextWriter CLass on MSDN TextWriter is an abstract class but it has two constructors defined ... and according to the MS 70-536 book, the following statement is valid: TextWriter tw = new File.CreateText("myFile.Txt") The static file class and it's CreateText method is fine by me as I have studied it on MSDN but can somebody explain this little contradiction I have found? Surely I am not the first? Why is instantaion of base abstract classes possible????

  Read the article

• How to write a cctor and op= for a factory class with ptr to abstract member field?

  - by Kache4

  I'm extracting files from zip and rar archives into raw buffers. I created the following to wrap minizip and unrarlib: Archive.hpp #include "ArchiveBase.hpp" #include "ArchiveDerived.hpp" class Archive { public: Archive(string path) { /* logic here to determine type */ switch(type) { case RAR: archive_ = new ArchiveRar(path); break; case ZIP: archive_ = new ArchiveZip(path); break; case UNKNOWN_ARCHIVE: throw; break; } } Archive(Archive& other) { archive_ = // how do I copy an abstract class? } ~Archive() { delete archive_; } void passThrough(ArchiveBase::Data& data) { archive_->passThrough(data); } Archive& operator = (Archive& other) { if (this == &other) return *this; ArchiveBase* newArchive = // can't instantiate.... delete archive_; archive_ = newArchive; return *this; } private: ArchiveBase* archive_; } ArchiveBase.hpp class ArchiveBase { public: // Is there any way to put this struct in Archive instead, // so that outside classes instantiating one could use // Archive::Data instead of ArchiveBase::Data? struct Data { int field; }; virtual void passThrough(Data& data) = 0; /* more methods */ } ArchiveDerived.hpp "Derived" being "Zip" or "Rar" #include "ArchiveBase.hpp" class ArchiveDerived : public ArchiveBase { public: ArchiveDerived(string path); void passThrough(ArchiveBase::Data& data); private: /* fields needed by minizip/unrarlib */ // example zip: unzFile zipFile_; // example rar: RARHANDLE rarFile_; } ArchiveDerived.cpp #include "ArchiveDerived.hpp" ArchiveDerived::ArchiveDerived(string path) { //implement } ArchiveDerived::passThrough(ArchiveBase::Data& data) { //implement } Somebody had suggested I use this design so that I could do: Archive archiveFile(pathToZipOrRar); archiveFile.passThrough(extractParams); // yay polymorphism! How do I write a cctor for Archive? What about op= for Archive? What can I do about "renaming" ArchiveBase::Data to Archive::Data? (Both minizip and unrarlib use such structs for input and output. Data is generic for Zip & Rar and later is used to create the respective library's struct.)

  Read the article

• Is there a design pattern for chained observers?

  - by sharakan

  Several times, I've found myself in a situation where I want to add functionality to an existing Observer-Observable relationship. For example, let's say I have an Observable class called PriceFeed, instances of which are created by a variety of PriceSources. Observers on this are notified whenever the underlying PriceSource updates the PriceFeed with a new price. Now I want to add a feature that allows a (temporary) override to be set on the PriceFeed. The PriceSource should still update prices on the PriceFeed, but for as long as the override is set, whenever a consumer asks PriceFeed for it's current value, it should get the override. The way I did this was to introduce a new OverrideablePriceFeed that is itself both an Observer and an Observable, and that decorates the actual PriceFeed. It's implementation of .getPrice() is straight from Chain of Responsibility, but how about the handling of Observable events? When an override is set or cleared, it should issue it's own event to Observers, as well as forwarding events from the underlying PriceFeed. I think of this as some kind of a chained observer, and was curious if there's a more definitive description of a similar pattern.

  Read the article

• Implementing a Version check between an Abstract class and it's implementation

  - by Michael Stum

  I have this abstract class and concrete implementation (they are in different assemblies): public abstract class MyAbstractClass { private static readonly int MyAbstractClassVersion = 1; public abstract int ImplementedVersion { get; } protected MyAbstractClass() { CheckVersion(); } private void CheckVersion() { var message = string.Format( "MyAbstractClass implements Version {0}, concrete is Version {1}", RepositoryVersion, ImplementedVersion); if (!MyAbstractClassVersion.Equals(ImplementedVersion)) throw new InvalidOperationException(message); } } public class ConcreteClass : MyAbstractClass { public ConcreteClass() : base() { // ConcreteClass is guaranteed to have // a constructor that calls the base constructor // I just simplified the example } public override int ImplementedVersion { get { return 2; } } } As you see, I call CheckVersion() from the abstract constructor, to get rid of the "virtual member call in base constructor" message, but I am not sure if that's really the way to do it. Sure, it works, but that doesn't mean it will always work, will it? Also, I wonder if I can get the name of the Concrete Type from the CheckVersion() function? I know that adding new abstract members will force an error anyway (System.TypeLoadException) and I'm not sure if I want this type of strict Versioning, but I'm just curious how it would be done properly given only the abstract class and an implementation (I know I could do it by using interfaces and/or a Factory pattern).

  Read the article

• How to write the Visitor Pattern for Abstract Syntax Tree in Python?

  - by bodacydo

  My collegue suggested me to write a visitor pattern to navigate the AST. Can anyone tell me more how would I start writing it? As far as I understand, each Node in AST would have visit() method (?) that would somehow get called (from where?). That about concludes my understanding. To simplify everything, suppose I have nodes Root, Expression, Number, Op and the tree looks like this: Root | Op(+) / \ / \ Number(5) \ Op(*) / \ / \ / \ Number(2) Number(444) Can anyone think of how the visitor pattern would visit this tree to produce output: 5 + 2 * 444 Thanks, Boda Cydo.

  Read the article

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