Search Results

Search found 12287 results on 492 pages for 'column oriented'.

Page 3/492 | < Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >

• How to structure classes in the filesystem?

  - by da_b0uncer

  I have a few (view) classes. Table, Tree, PagingColumn, SelectionColumn, SparkLineColumn, TimeColumn. currently they're flat under app/view like this: app/view/Table app/view/Tree app/view/PagingColumn ... I thought about restructuring it, because the Trees and Tables use the columns, but there are some columns, which only work in a tree, some who work in trees and tables and in the future there are probably some who only work in tables, I don't know. My first idea was like this: app/view/Table app/view/Tree app/view/column/PagingColumn app/view/column/SelectionColumn app/view/column/SparkLineColumn app/view/column/TimeColumn But since the SelectionColumn is explicitly for trees, I have the fear that future developers could get the idea of missuse them. But how to restructure it probably? Like this: app/view/table/panel/Table app/view/tree/panel/Tree app/view/tree/column/PagingColumn app/view/tree/column/SelectionColumn app/view/column/SparkLineColumn app/view/column/TimeColumn Or like this: app/view/Table app/view/Tree app/view/column/SparkLineColumn app/view/column/TimeColumn app/view/column/tree/PagingColumn app/view/column/tree/SelectionColumn

  Read the article

• Do unit tests sometimes break encapsulation?

  - by user1288851

  I very often hear the following: "If you want to test private methods, you'd better put that in another class and expose it." While sometimes that's the case and we have a hiding concept inside our class, other times you end up with classes that have the same attributes (or, worst, every attribute of one class become a argument on a method in the other class) and exposes functionality that is, in fact, implementation detail. Specially on TDD, when you refactor a class with public methods out of a previous tested class, that class is now part of your interface, but has no tests to it (since you refactored it, and is a implementation detail). Now, I may be not finding an obvious better answer, but if my answer is the "correct", that means that sometimes writting unit tests can break encapsulation, and divide the same responsibility into different classes. A simple example would be testing a setter method when a getter is not actually needed for anything in the real code. Please when aswering don't provide simple answers to specific cases I may have written. Rather, try to explain more of the generic case and theoretical approach. And this is neither language specific. Thanks in advance. EDIT: The answer given by Matthew Flynn was really insightful, but didn't quite answer the question. Altough he made the fair point that you either don't test private methods or extract them because they really are other concern and responsibility (or at least that was what I could understand from his answer), I think there are situations where unit testing private methods is useful. My primary example is when you have a class that has one responsibility but the output (or input) that it gives (takes) is just to complex. For example, a hashing function. There's no good way to break a hashing function apart and mantain cohesion and encapsulation. However, testing a hashing function can be really tough, since you would need to calculate by hand (you can't use code calculation to test code calculation!) the hashing, and test multiple cases where the hash changes. In that way (and this may be a question worth of its own topic) I think private method testing is the best way to handle it. Now, I'm not sure if I should ask another question, or ask it here, but are there any better way to test such complex output (input)? OBS: Please, if you think I should ask another question on that topic, leave a comment. :)

  Read the article

• Duplication in parallel inheritance hierarchies

  - by flamingpenguin

  Using an OO language with static typing (like Java), what are good ways to represent the following model invariant without large amounts of duplication. I have two (actually multiple) flavours of the same structure. Each flavour requires its own (unique to that flavour data) on each of the objects within that structure as well as some shared data. But within each instance of the aggregation only objects of one (the same) flavour are allowed. FooContainer can contain FooSources and FooDestinations and associations between the "Foo" objects BarContainer can contain BarSources and BarDestinations and associations between the "Bar" objects interface Container() { List<? extends Source> sources(); List<? extends Destination> destinations(); List<? extends Associations> associations(); } interface FooContainer() extends Container { List<? extends FooSource> sources(); List<? extends FooDestination> destinations(); List<? extends FooAssociations> associations(); } interface BarContainer() extends Container { List<? extends BarSource> sources(); List<? extends BarDestination> destinations(); List<? extends BarAssociations> associations(); } interface Source { String getSourceDetail1(); } interface FooSource extends Source { String getSourceDetail2(); } interface BarSource extends Source { String getSourceDetail3(); } interface Destination { String getDestinationDetail1(); } interface FooDestination extends Destination { String getDestinationDetail2(); } interface BarDestination extends Destination { String getDestinationDetail3(); } interface Association { Source getSource(); Destination getDestination(); } interface FooAssociation extends Association { FooSource getSource(); FooDestination getDestination(); String getFooAssociationDetail(); } interface BarAssociation extends Association { BarSource getSource(); BarDestination getDestination(); String getBarAssociationDetail(); }

  Read the article

• Is this proper OO design for C++?

  - by user121917

  I recently took a software processes course and this is my first time attempting OO design on my own. I am trying to follow OO design principles and C++ conventions. I attempted and gave up on MVC for this application, but I am trying to "decouple" my classes such that they can be easily unit-tested and so that I can easily change the GUI library used and/or the target OS. At this time, I have finished designing classes but have not yet started implementing methods. The function of the software is to log all packets sent and received, and display them on the screen (like WireShark, but for one local process only). The software accomplishes this by hooking the send() and recv() functions in winsock32.dll, or some other pair of analogous functions depending on what the intended Target is. The hooks add packets to SendPacketList/RecvPacketList. The GuiLogic class starts a thread which checks for new packets. When new packets are found, it utilizes the PacketFilter class to determine the formatting for the new packet, and then sends it to MainWindow, a native win32 window (with intent to later port to Qt).1 Full size image of UML class diagram Here are my classes in skeleton/header form (this is my actual code): class PacketModel { protected: std::vector<byte> data; int id; public: PacketModel(); PacketModel(byte* data, unsigned int size); PacketModel(int id, byte* data, unsigned int size); int GetLen(); bool IsValid(); //len >= sizeof(opcode_t) opcode_t GetOpcode(); byte* GetData(); //returns &(data[0]) bool GetData(byte* outdata, int maxlen); void SetData(byte* pdata, int len); int GetId(); void SetId(int id); bool ParseData(char* instr); bool StringRepr(char* outstr); byte& operator[] (const int index); }; class SendPacket : public PacketModel { protected: byte* returnAddy; public: byte* GetReturnAddy(); void SetReturnAddy(byte* addy); }; class RecvPacket : public PacketModel { protected: byte* callAddy; public: byte* GetCallAddy(); void SetCallAddy(byte* addy); }; //problem: packets may be added to list at any time by any number of threads //solution: critical section associated with each packet list class Synch { public: void Enter(); void Leave(); }; template<class PacketType> class PacketList { private: static const int MAX_STORED_PACKETS = 1000; public: static const int DEFAULT_SHOWN_PACKETS = 100; private: vector<PacketType> list; Synch synch; //wrapper for critical section public: void AddPacket(PacketType* packet); PacketType* GetPacket(int id); int TotalPackets(); }; class SendPacketList : PacketList<SendPacket> { }; class RecvPacketList : PacketList<RecvPacket> { }; class Target //one socket { bool Send(SendPacket* packet); bool Inject(RecvPacket* packet); bool InitSendHook(SendPacketList* sendList); bool InitRecvHook(RecvPacketList* recvList); }; class FilterModel { private: opcode_t opcode; int colorID; bool bFilter; char name[41]; }; class FilterFile { private: FilterModel filter; public: void Save(); void Load(); FilterModel* GetFilter(opcode_t opcode); }; class PacketFilter { private: FilterFile filters; public: bool IsFiltered(opcode_t opcode); bool GetName(opcode_t opcode, char* namestr); //return false if name does not exist COLORREF GetColor(opcode_t opcode); //return default color if no custom color }; class GuiLogic { private: SendPacketList sendList; RecvPacketList recvList; PacketFilter packetFilter; void GetPacketRepr(PacketModel* packet); void ReadNew(); void AddToWindow(); public: void Refresh(); //called from thread void GetPacketInfo(int id); //called from MainWindow }; I'm looking for a general review of my OO design, use of UML, and use of C++ features. I especially just want to know if I'm doing anything considerably wrong. From what I've read, design review is on-topic for this site (and off-topic for the Code Review site). Any sort of feedback is greatly appreciated. Thanks for reading this.

  Read the article

• Should these concerns be separated into separate objects?

  - by Lewis Bassett

  I have objects which implement the interface BroadcastInterface, which represents a message that is to be broadcast to all users of a particular group. It has a setter and getter method for the Subject and Body properties, and an addRecipientRole() method, which takes a given role and finds the contact token (e.g., an email address) for each user in the role and stores it. It then has a getContactTokens() method. BroadcastInterface objects are passed to an object that implements BroadcasterInterface. These objects are responsible for broadcasting a passed BroadcastInterface object. For example, an EmailBroadcaster implementation of the BroadcasterInterface will take EmailBroadcast objects and use the mailer services to email them out. Now, depending on what BroadcasterInterface implementation is used to broadcast, a different implementation of BroadcastInterface is used by client code. The Single Responsibility Principle seems to suggest that I should have a separate BroadcastFactory object, for creating BroadcastInterface objects, depending on what BroadcasterInterface implementation is used, as creating the BroadcastInterface object is a different responsibility to broadcasting them. But the class used for creating BroadcastInterface objects depends on what implementation of BroadcasterInterface is used to broadcast them. I think, because the knowledge of what method is used to send the broadcasts should only be configured once, the BroadcasterInterface object should be responsible for providing new BroadcastInterface objects. Does the responsibility of “creating and broadcasting objects that implement the BroadcastInterface interface” violate the Single Responsibility Principle? (Because the contact token for sending the broadcast out to the users will differ depending on the way it is broadcasted, I need different broadcast classes—though client code will not be able to tell the difference.)

  Read the article

• When modeling a virtual circuit board, what is the best design pattern to check for cycles?

  - by Wallace Brown

  To make it simple assume you have only AND and OR gates. Each has two inputs and one output. The output of two inputs can be used as an input for the next gate For example: A AND B - E C AND D - F E OR F - G Assuming an arbitrary number of gates, we want to check if the circuit ever connects back into itself at an earlier state? For example: E AND F - A This should be illegal since it creates an endless cycle. What design pattern would best be able to check for these cycles?

  Read the article

• Requesting feedback on my OO design

  - by Prog

  I'm working on an application that creates music by itself. I'm seeking feedback for my OO design so far. This question will focus on one part of the program. The application produces Tune objects, that are the final musical products. Tune is an abstract class with an abstract method play. It has two subclasses: SimpleTune and StructuredTune. SimpleTune owns a Melody and a Progression (chord sequence). It's play implementation plays these two objects simultaneously. StructuredTune owns two Tune instances. It's own play plays the two Tunes one after the other according to a pattern (currently only ABAB). Melody is an abstract class with an abstract play method. It has two subclasses: SimpleMelody and StructuredMelody. SimpleMelody is composed of an array of notes. Invoking play on it plays these notes one after the other. StructuredMelody is composed of an array of Melody objects. Invoking play on it plays these Melodyies one after the other. I think you're starting to see the pattern. Progression is also an abstract class with a play method and two subclasses: SimpleProgression and StructuredProgression, each composed differently and played differently. SimpleProgression owns an array of chords and plays them sequentially. StructuredProgression owns an array of Progressions and it's play implementation plays them sequentially. Every class has a corresponding Generator class. Tune, Melody and Progression are matched with corresponding abstract TuneGenerator, MelodyGenerator and ProgressionGenerator classes, each with an abstract generate method. For example MelodyGenerator defines an abstract Melody generate method. Each of the generators has two subclasses, Simple and Structured. So for example MelodyGenerator has a subclasses SimpleMelodyGenerator, with an implementation of generate that returns a SimpleMelody. (It's important to note that the generate methods encapsulate complex algorithms. They are more than mere factory method. For example SimpleProgressionGenerator.generate() implements an algorithm to compose a series of Chord objects, which are used to instantiate the returned SimpleProgression). Every Structured generator uses another generator internally. It is a Simple generator be default, but in special cases may be a Structured generator. Parts of this design are meant to allow the end-user through the GUI to choose what kind of music is to be created. For example the user can choose between a "simple tune" (SimpleTuneGenerator) and a "full tune" (StructuredTuneGenerator). Other parts of the system aren't subject to direct user-control. What do you think of this design from an OOD perspective? What potential problems do you see with this design? Please share with me your criticism, I'm here to learn. Apart from this, a more specific question: the "every class has a corresponding Generator class" part feels very wrong. However I'm not sure how I could design this differently and achieve the same flexibility. Any ideas?

  Read the article

• Books, resources and so on about GUI architecture [on hold]

  - by Moses

  I'm making first steps in GUI programming. Earlier I've had little experience with GUI and I remember that it was kind of pain. Code was either coupled or to verbose with tons of "Listeners". It seems to me that problem in me and not in a library that I used(Swing). So, could you recommend me some books, tutorials or resources where I can find how to design gui programms? Emphasize that I'm interested in architecture and not in how to use components of some framework(which about 90% of tutorials that I've ever seen).

  Read the article

• Object behaviour or separate class?

  - by Andrew Stephens

  When it comes to OO database access you see two common approaches - the first is to provide a class (say "Customer") with methods such as Retrieve(), Update(), Delete(), etc. The other is to keep the Customer class fairly lightweight (essentially just properties) and perform the database access elsewhere, e.g. using a repository. This choice of approaches doesn't just apply to database access, it can crop up in many different OOD scenarios. So I was wondering if one way is preferable over the other (although I suspect the answer will be "it depends")! Another dev on our team argues that to be truly OO the class should be "self-contained", i.e. providing all the methods necessary to manipulate and interact with that object. I personally prefer the repository approach - I don't like bloating the Customer class with all that functionality, and I feel it results in cleaner code having it elsewhere, but I can't help thinking I'm seriously violating core OO concepts! And what about memory implications? If I retrieve thousands of Customer objects I'm assuming those with the data access methods will take up a lot more memory than the property-only objects?

  Read the article

• Switch vs Polymorphism when dealing with model and view

  - by Raphael Oliveira

  I can't figure out a better solution to my problem. I have a view controller that presents a list of elements. Those elements are models that can be an instance of B, C, D, etc and inherit from A. So in that view controller, each item should go to a different screen of the application and pass some data when the user select one of them. The two alternatives that comes to my mind are (please ignore the syntax, it is not a specific language) 1) switch (I know that sucks) //inside the view controller void onClickItem(int index) { A a = items.get(index); switch(a.type) { case b: B b = (B)a; go to screen X; x.v1 = b.v1; // fill X with b data x.v2 = b.v2; case c: go to screen Y; etc... } } 2) polymorphism //inside the view controller void onClickItem(int index) { A a = items.get(index); Screen s = new (a.getDestinationScreen()); //ignore the syntax s.v1 = a.v1; // fill s with information about A s.v2 = a.v2; show(s); } //inside B Class getDestinationScreen(void) { return Class(X); } //inside C Class getDestinationScreen(void) { return Class(Y); } My problem with solution 2 is that since B, C, D, etc are models, they shouldn't know about view related stuff. Or should they in that case?

  Read the article

• OOD: All classes at bottom of hierarchy contain the same field

  - by My Head Hurts

  I am creating a class diagram for what I thought was a fairly simple problem. However, when I get to the bottom of the hierarchy, all of the classes only contain one field and it is the same one. This to me looks very wrong, but this field does not belong in any of the parent classes. I was wondering if there are any suggested design patterns in a situation like this? A simplified version of the class diagram can be found below. Note, fields named differently cannot belong to any other class +------------------+ | ObjectA | |------------------| | String one | | String two | | | +---------+--------+ | +---------------+----------------+ | | +--------|--------+ +--------|--------+ | ObjectAA | | ObjectAB | |-----------------| |-----------------| | String three | | String four | | | | | +--------+--------+ +--------+--------+ | | | | +--------|--------+ +--------|--------+ | ObjectAAA | | ObjectABA | |-----------------| |-----------------| | String five | | String five | | | | | +-----------------+ +-----------------+ ASCII tables drawn using http://www.asciiflow.com/

  Read the article

• Domain Models (PHP)

  - by Calum Bulmer

  I have been programming in PHP for several years and have, in the past, adopted methods of my own to handle data within my applications. I have built my own MVC, in the past, and have a reasonable understanding of OOP within php but I know my implementation needs some serious work. In the past I have used an is-a relationship between a model and a database table. I now know after doing some research that this is not really the best way forward. As far as I understand it I should create models that don't really care about the underlying database (or whatever storage mechanism is to be used) but only care about their actions and their data. From this I have established that I can create models of lets say for example a Person an this person object could have some Children (human children) that are also Person objects held in an array (with addPerson and removePerson methods, accepting a Person object). I could then create a PersonMapper that I could use to get a Person with a specific 'id', or to save a Person. This could then lookup the relationship data in a lookup table and create the associated child objects for the Person that has been requested (if there are any) and likewise save the data in the lookup table on the save command. This is now pushing the limits to my knowledge..... What if I wanted to model a building with different levels and different rooms within those levels? What if I wanted to place some items in those rooms? Would I create a class for building, level, room and item with the following structure. building can have 1 or many level objects held in an array level can have 1 or many room objects held in an array room can have 1 or many item objects held in an array and mappers for each class with higher level mappers using the child mappers to populate the arrays (either on request of the top level object or lazy load on request) This seems to tightly couple the different objects albeit in one direction (ie. a floor does not need to be in a building but a building can have levels) Is this the correct way to go about things? Within the view I am wanting to show a building with an option to select a level and then show the level with an option to select a room etc.. but I may also want to show a tree like structure of items in the building and what level and room they are in. I hope this makes sense. I am just struggling with the concept of nesting objects within each other when the general concept of oop seems to be to separate things. If someone can help it would be really useful. Many thanks

  Read the article

• Liskov substitution and abstract classes / strategy pattern

  - by Kolyunya

  I'm trying to follow LSP in practical programming. And I wonder if different constructors of subclasses violate it. It would be great to hear an explanation instead of just yes/no. Thanks much! P.S. If the answer is no, how do I make different strategies with different input without violating LSP? class IStrategy { public: virtual void use() = 0; }; class FooStrategy : public IStrategy { public: FooStrategy(A a, B b) { c = /* some operations with a, b */ } virtual void use() { std::cout << c; } private: C c; }; class BarStrategy : public IStrategy { public: BarStrategy(D d, E e) { f = /* some operations with d, e */ } virtual void use() { std::cout << f; } private: F f; };

  Read the article

• How do I handle priority and propagation in an event system?

  - by Peeter

  Lets say I have a simple event system with the following syntax: object = new Object(); object.bind("my_trigger", function() { print "hello"; }); object.bind("my_trigger", function() { print "hello2"; }); object.trigger("my_trigger"); How could I make sure hello2 is printed out first (I do not want my code to depend on which order the events are binded). Ontop of that, how would I prevent my events from propagating (e.g. I want to stop every other event from being executed)

  Read the article

• Help migrating from VB style programming to OO programming [closed]

  - by Agent47DarkSoul

  Being a hobbyist Java developer, I quickly took on with OO programming and understood its advantages over procedural code from C, that I did in college. But I couldn't grasp VB event based code (weird, right?). Bottom-line is OOP came natural to me. Curently I work in a small development firm developing C# applications. My peers here are a bit attached to VB style programming. Most of the C# code written is VB6 event handling code in C#'s skin. I tried explaining to them OOP with its advantages but it wasn't clear to them, maybe because I have never been much of a VB programmer. So can anybody provide any resources: books, web articles on how to migrate from VB style to OO style programming ?

  Read the article

• When would you want two references to the same object?

  - by HCBPshenanigans

  In Java specifically, but likely in other languages as well; When would it be useful to have two references to the same object? Example: Dog a = new Dog(); Dob b = a; Is there a situation where this would be useful? Why would this be a preferred solution to using a whenever you want to interact with the object represented by a? Edit: Can I just say that all of your dog related examples are Delightful!

  Read the article

• Confused about implementing Single Responsibility Principle

  - by HichemSeeSharp

  Please bear with me if the question looks not well structured. To put you in the context of my issue: I am building an application that invoices vehicles stay duration in a parking. In addition to the stay service there are some other services. Each service has its own calculation logic. Here is an illustration (please correct me if the design is wrong): public abstract class Service { public int Id { get; set; } public bool IsActivated { get; set; } public string Name { get; set } public decimal Price { get; set; } } public class VehicleService : Service { //MTM : many to many public virtual ICollection<MTMVehicleService> Vehicles { get; set; } } public class StayService : VehicleService { } public class Vehicle { public int Id { get; set; } public string ChassisNumber { get; set; } public DateTime? EntryDate { get; set; } public DateTime? DeliveryDate { get; set; } //... public virtual ICollection<MTMVehicleService> Services{ get; set; } } Now, I am focusing on the stay service as an example: I would like to know at invoicing time which class(es) would be responsible for generating the invoice item for the service and for each vehicle? This should calculate the duration cost knowing that the duration could be invoiced partially so the like is as follows: not yet invoiced stay days * stay price per day. At this moment I have InvoiceItemsGenerator do everything but I am aware that there is a better design.

  Read the article

• How to safely copy an object?

  - by Prog

  This question is going to be a little long. Please bear with me. Something that happened in a project of mine made me think about how to safely copy objects. I'll present the situation I had and then ask a question. There was a class SomeClass: class SomeClass{ Thing[] things; public SomeClass(Thing[] things){ this.things = things; } // irrelevant stuff omitted public SomeClass copy(){ return new SomeClass(things); } } There was another class Processor that takes SomeClass objects, copies them (via someClassInstance.copy()), manipulates the copy's state, and returns the copy. Here it is: class Processor{ public SomeClass processObject(SomeClass object){ SomeClass copy = object.copy(); manipulateTheCopy(copy); return copy; } // irrelevant stuff omitted } I ran this, and it had bugs. I looked into these bugs, and it turned out that the manipulations Processor does on copy actually affect not only the copy, but also the original SomeClass object that was passed into processObject. I found out that it was because the original and the copy shared state - because the original passed it's field things into the copy when creating it. This made me realize that copying objects is harder than simply instantiating them with the same fields as the original. For the two objects to be completely disconnected, without any shared state, each of the fields passed to the copy also has to be copied. And if that object contains other objects - they have to be copied too. And so on. So basically, in order to be able to actually copy an object, each class in the system must have a copy() method, that also invokes copy() on all of it's fields, and so on. So for example, for copy() in SomeClass to work, it needs to look like this: public SomeClass copy(){ Thing[] copyThings = new Thing[things.length]; for(int i=0; i<things.length; i++) copyThings[i] = things[i].copy(); return new SomeClass(copyThings); } And if Thing has object fields of it's own, than it's own copy() method must be appropriate: class Thing{ Apple apple; Pencil pencil; int number; public Thing(Apple apple, Pencil pencil, int number){ this.apple = apple; this.pencil = pencil; this.number = number; } public Thing copy(){ // 'number' is a primitve. return new Thing(apple.getCopy(), pencil.getCopy(), number); } } And so on. Of course, instead of all classes having a copy() method, the copying mechanism can happen in all of the getters and the constructors of classes (unless places where it isn't suitable, for example when the field points to an external object, not to an object that 'is part' of this object). Still, that means that in order to be able to safely copy an object - most classes would have to have copying mechanisms in their getters. My question is divided into two parts: How frequently do you need to get a copy of an object? Is this a regular issue? Is the technique described common and/or reasonable? Or is there a better way to make safe copies of objects? Or is there an easier way to safely copy objects, without them sharing any state?

  Read the article

• would a composite design pattern be useful for group membership?

  - by changokun

  I'm trying to think about the best way to handle group memberships on a website. People sign up and select checkboxes in a list of interests. Every week we send out interest-themed emails to those members that indicated that interest. however i store the information in the database, while i am working with the lists and generating lists of email addresses or manipulating group memberships, the composite design pattern looked interesting. it would be easy to populate the group, then do some aggregating functions that say... generate the list of email addresses based on the interests. but i'm not sure i'm seeing any other advantages. i do need something scalable, and flexible. thoughts?

  Read the article

• Liskov substitution principle with abstract parent class

  - by Songo

  Does Liskov substitution principle apply to inheritance hierarchies where the parent is an abstract class the same way if the parent is a concrete class? The Wikipedia page list several conditions that have to be met before a hierarchy is deemed to be correct. However, I have read in a blog post that one way to make things easier to conform to LSP is to use abstract parent instead of a concrete class. How does the choice of the parent type (abstract vs concrete) impacts the LSP? Is it better to have an abstract base class whenever possible?

  Read the article

• What is a good design model for my new class?

  - by user66662

  I am a beginning programmer who, after trying to manage over 2000 lines of procedural php code, now has discovered the value of OOP. I have read a few books to get me up to speed on the beginning theory, but would like some advice on practical application. So,for example, let's say there are two types of content objects - an ad and a calendar event. what my application does is scan different websites (a predefined list), and, when it finds an ad or an event, it extracts the data and saves it to a database. All of my objects will share a $title and $description. However, the Ad object will have a $price and the Event object will have $startDate. Should I have two separate classes, one for each object? Should I have a 'superclass' with the $title and $description with two other Ad and Event classes with their own properties? The latter is at least the direction I am on now. My second question about this design is how to handle the logic that extracts the data for $title, $description, $price, and $date. For each website in my predefined list, there is a specific regex that returns the desired value for each property. Currently, I have an extremely large switch statement in my constructor which determines what website I am own, sets the regex variables accordingly, and continues on. Not only that, but now I have to repeat the logic to determine what site I am on in the constructor of each class. This doesn't feel right. Should I create another class Algorithms and store the logic there for each site? Should the functions of to handle that logic be in this class? or specific to the classes whos properties they set? I want to take into account in my design two things: 1) I will add different content objects in the future that share $title and $description, but will have their own properties, so, I want to be able to easily grow these as needed. 2) I will add more websites constantly (each with their own algorithms for data extraction) so I would like to plan efficienty managing and working with these now. I thought about extending the Ad or Event class with 'websiteX' class and store its functions there. But, this didn't feel right either as now I have to manage 100s of little website specific class files. Note, I didn't know if this was the correct site or stackoverflow was the better choice. If so, let me know and I'll post there.

  Read the article

• Should an object know its own ID?

  - by xenoterracide

  obj.id seems fairly common and also seems to fall within the range of something an object could know about itself. I find myself asking why should my object know its own id? It doesn't seem to have a reason to have it? One of the main reason for it existing is retrieve it, and so my repositories need to know it, and thus use it for database interaction. I also once encountered a problem where I wanted to serialize an object to JSON for a RESTful API where the id did not seem to fit in the payload, but only the URI and including it in the object made that more difficult. Should an object know it's own id? why or why not?

  Read the article

• How to change the state of a singleton in runtime

  - by user34401

  Consider I am going to write a simple file based logger AppLogger to be used in my apps, ideally it should be a singleton so I can call it via public class AppLogger { public static String file = ".."; public void logToFile() { // Write to file } public static log(String s) { AppLogger.getInstance().logToFile(s); } } And to use it AppLogger::log("This is a log statement"); The problem is, what is the best time I should provide the value of file since it is a just a singleton? Or how to refactor the above code (or skip using singleton) so I can customize the log file path? (Assume I don't need to write to multiple at the same time) p.s. I know I can use library e.g. log4j, but consider it is just a design question, how to refactor the code above?

  Read the article

• Passing functions into other functions as parameters, bad practice?

  - by BlueHat

  We've been in the process of changing how our AS3 application talks to our back end and we're in the process of implementing a REST system to replace our old one. Sadly the developer who started the work is now on long term sick leave and it's been handed over to me. I've been working with it for the past week or so now and I understand the system, but there's one thing that's been worrying me. There seems to be a lot of passing of functions into functions. For example our class that makes the call to our servers takes in a function that it will then call and pass an object to when the process is complete and errors have been handled etc. It's giving me that "bad feeling" where I feel like it's horrible practice and I can think of some reasons why but I want some confirmation before I propose a re-work to system. I was wondering if anyone had any experience with this possible problem?

  Read the article

• Interfaces on an abstract class

  - by insta

  My coworker and I have different opinions on the relationship between base classes and interfaces. I'm of the belief that a class should not implement an interface unless that class can be used when an implementation of the interface is required. In other words, I like to see code like this: interface IFooWorker { void Work(); } abstract class BaseWorker { ... base class behaviors ... public abstract void Work() { } protected string CleanData(string data) { ... } } class DbWorker : BaseWorker, IFooWorker { public void Work() { Repository.AddCleanData(base.CleanData(UI.GetDirtyData())); } } The DbWorker is what gets the IFooWorker interface, because it is an instantiatable implementation of the interface. It completely fulfills the contract. My coworker prefers the nearly identical: interface IFooWorker { void Work(); } abstract class BaseWorker : IFooWorker { ... base class behaviors ... public abstract void Work() { } protected string CleanData(string data) { ... } } class DbWorker : BaseWorker { public void Work() { Repository.AddCleanData(base.CleanData(UI.GetDirtyData())); } } Where the base class gets the interface, and by virtue of this all inheritors of the base class are of that interface as well. This bugs me but I can't come up with concrete reasons why, outside of "the base class cannot stand on its own as an implementation of the interface". What are the pros & cons of his method vs. mine, and why should one be used over another?

  Read the article

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