Search Results

Search found 266 results on 11 pages for 'encapsulation'.

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

  • working with a csv with odd encapsulation // php

    - by Patrick
    I have a CSV file that im working with, and all the fields are comma separated. But some of the fields themselves, contain commas. In the raw csv file, the fields that contain commas, are encapsulated with quotes, as seen here; "Doctor Such and Such, Medical Center","555 Scruff McGruff, Suite 103, Chicago IL 60652",(555) 555-5555,,,,something else the code im using is below <?PHP $file_handle = fopen("file.csv", "r"); $i=0; while (!feof($file_handle) ) { $line = fgetcsv($file_handle, 1024); $c=0; foreach($line AS $key=>$value){ if($i != 0){ if($c == 0){ echo "[ROW $i][COL $c] - $value"; //First field in row, show row # }else{ echo "[COL $c] - $value"; // Remaining fields in row } } $c++; } echo "<br>"; // Line Break to next line $i++; } fclose($file_handle); ?> The problem is im getting the fields with the comma's split into two fields, which messes up the number of columns im supposed to have. Is there any way i could search for comma's within quotes and convert them, or another way to deal with this?

    Read the article

  • JavaScript Prototype and Encapsulation

    - by Adam Davies
    Sorry I'm probably being a realy noob here...but: I have the following javascript object: jeeni.TextField = (function(){ var tagId; privateMethod = function(){ console.log("IN: privateMethod"); } publicMethod = function(){ console.log("IN: publicMethod: " + this.tagId); } jeeni.TextField = function(id){ console.log("Constructor"); this.tagId = id; } jeeni.TextField.prototype = { constructor: jeeni.TextField, foo: publicMethod }; return jeeni.TextField; }()); Now when I run the following code I get the corresponding result: var textField1 = new jeeni.TextField(21); // Outputs: Constructor textField1.foo(); // Outputs: IN: publicMethod: 21 console.log(textField1.tagId); // Outputs: 21 console.log(textField1.privateMethod); // Outputs: undefined So my question is why is privateMethod hidden and tagId is not. I want them both to be private scope. Please help a noob. Thanks

    Read the article

  • Is it proper to get and especially set Perl module's global variables directly?

    - by DVK
    I was wondering what the best practice in Perl is regarding getting - or, more importantly, setting - a global variable of some module by directly accessing $Module::varName in case the module didn't provide getter/setter method for it. The reason it smells bad to me is the fact that it sort of circumvents encapsulation. Just because I can do it in Perl, I'm not entirely certain I should (assuming there actually is an alternative such as adding a getter/setter to the module). I'm asking this because I'm about to request an addition of a getter/setter for a global variable in one of the core Perl modules, and I would like to avoid it soundly and unanimously rejected on the grounds of "Why the heck do you need one when you can access the variable in the package directly?" - in case doing the latter is actually considered perfectly OK by the community.

    Read the article

  • Idiomatic ruby for temporary variables within a method

    - by Andrew Grimm
    Within a method, I am using i and j as temporary variables while calculating other variables. What is an idiomatic way of getting rid of i and j once they are no longer needed? Should I use blocks for this purpose? i = positions.first while nucleotide_at_position(i-1) == nucleotide_at_position(i) raise "Assumption violated" if i == 1 i -= 1 end first_nucleotide_position = i j = positions.last while nucleotide_at_position(j+1) == nucleotide_at_position(j) raise "Assumption violated" if j == sequence.length j += 1 end last_nucleotide_position = j Background: I'd like to get rid of i and j once they are no longer needed so that they aren't used by any other code in the method. Gives my code less opportunity to be wrong. I don't know the name of the concept - is it "encapsulation"? The closest concepts I can think of are (warning: links to TV Tropes - do not visit while working) Chekhov'sGun or YouHaveOutlivedYourUsefulness. Another alternative would be to put the code into their own methods, but that may detract from readability.

    Read the article

  • How to not encapsulate Coffeescript

    - by JellicleCat
    I don't know whether all coffeescript compilers wrap their scripts in anonymous functions, but that's what I see Rails doing. How can I disable this encapsulation? I want to put several initializing functions in a single coffeescript file, then call one of them from an on-page <script> tag (so that each page calls a different initializer). This can't be if the initializing functions are encapsulated. Coffeescript initializer functions: initializerA = -> console.log 'foo' initializerB = -> console.log 'bar' On-page code: <script>$(document).ready(initializerA)</script> Sys: coffee-rails 3.2.1, Rails 3.2.3, Ruby 1.9.3

    Read the article

  • "public" or "private" attribute in Python ? What is the best way ?

    - by SeyZ
    Hi ! In Python, I have the following example class : class Foo: self._attr = 0 @property def attr(self): return self._attr @attr.setter def attr(self, value): self._attr = value @attr.deleter def attr(self): del self._attr As you can see, I have a simple "private" attribute "_attr" and a property to access it. There is a lot of codes to declare a simple private attribute and I think that it's not respecting the "KISS" philosophy to declare all attributes like that. So, why not declare all my attributes as public attributes if I don't need a particular getter/setter/deleter ? My answer will be : Because the principle of encapsulation (OOP) says otherwise! What is the best way ? Thanks !

    Read the article

  • Unit testing opaque structure based C API

    - by Nicolas Goy
    I have a library I wrote with API based on opaque structures. Using opaque structures has a lot of benefits and I am very happy with it. Now that my API are stable in term of specifications, I'd like to write a complete battery of unit test to ensure a solid base before releasing it. My concern is simple, how do you unit test API based on opaque structures where the main goal is to hide the internal logic? For example, let's take a very simple object, an array with a very simple test: WSArray a = WSArrayCreate(); int foo = 5; WSArrayAppendValue(a, &foo); int *bar = WSArrayGetValueAtIndex(a, 0); if(&foo != bar) printf("Eroneous value returned\n"); else printf("Good value returned\n"); WSRelease(a); Of course, this tests some facts, like the array actually acts as wanted with 1 value, but when I write unit tests, at least in C, I usualy compare the memory footprint of my datastructures with a known state. In my example, I don't know if some internal state of the array is broken. How would you handle that? I'd really like to avoid adding codes in the implementation files only for unit testings, I really emphasis loose coupling of modules, and injecting unit tests into the implementation would seem rather invasive to me. My first thought was to include the implementation file into my unit test, linking my unit test statically to my library. For example: #include <WS/WS.h> #include <WS/Collection/Array.c> static void TestArray(void) { WSArray a = WSArrayCreate(); /* Structure members are available because we included Array.c */ printf("%d\n", a->count); } Is that a good idea? Of course, the unit tests won't benefit from encapsulation, but they are here to ensure it's actually working.

    Read the article

  • Access-specifiers are not foolproof?

    - by Nawaz
    If I've a class like this, class Sample { private: int X; }; Then we cannot access X from outside, so this is illegal, Sample s; s.X = 10; // error - private access But we can make it accessible without editing the class! All we need to do is this, #define private public //note this define! class Sample { private: int X; }; //outside code Sample s; s.X = 10; //no error! Working code at ideone : http://www.ideone.com/FaGpZ That means, we can change the access-specifiers by defining such macros just before the class definition, or before #include <headerfile.h>, #define public private //make public private //or #define protected private //make protected private //or #define so on Isn't it a problem with C++ (Macros/access-specifiers/whatever)? Anyway, the point of this topic is: Using macros, we can easily violate encapsulation. Access-specifiers are not foolproof! Am I right?

    Read the article

  • Break a class in twain, or impose an interface for restricted access?

    - by bedwyr
    What's the best way of partitioning a class when its functionality needs to be externally accessed in different ways by different classes? Hopefully the following example will make the question clear :) I have a Java class which accesses a single location in a directory allowing external classes to perform read/write operations to it. Read operations return usage stats on the directory (e.g. available disk space, number of writes, etc.); write operations, obviously, allow external classes to write data to the disk. These methods always work on the same location, and receive their configuration (e.g. which directory to use, min disk space, etc.) from an external source (passed to the constructor). This class looks something like this: public class DiskHandler { public DiskHandler(String dir, int minSpace) { ... } public void writeToDisk(String contents, String filename) { int space = getAvailableSpace(); ... } public void getAvailableSpace() { ... } } There's quite a bit more going on, but this will do to suffice. This class needs to be accessed differently by two external classes. One class needs access to the read operations; the other needs access to both read and write operations. public class DiskWriter { DiskHandler diskHandler; public DiskWriter() { diskHandler = new DiskHandler(...); } public void doSomething() { diskHandler.writeToDisk(...); } } public class DiskReader { DiskHandler diskHandler; public DiskReader() { diskHandler = new DiskHandler(...); } public void doSomething() { int space = diskHandler.getAvailableSpace(...); } } At this point, both classes share the same class, but the class which should only read has access to the write methods. Solution 1 I could break this class into two. One class would handle read operations, and the other would handle writes: // NEW "UTILITY" CLASSES public class WriterUtil { private ReaderUtil diskReader; public WriterUtil(String dir, int minSpace) { ... diskReader = new ReaderUtil(dir, minSpace); } public void writeToDisk(String contents, String filename) { int = diskReader.getAvailableSpace(); ... } } public class ReaderUtil { public ReaderUtil(String dir, int minSpace) { ... } public void getAvailableSpace() { ... } } // MODIFIED EXTERNALLY-ACCESSING CLASSES public class DiskWriter { WriterUtil diskWriter; public DiskWriter() { diskWriter = new WriterUtil(...); } public void doSomething() { diskWriter.writeToDisk(...); } } public class DiskReader { ReaderUtil diskReader; public DiskReader() { diskReader = new ReaderUtil(...); } public void doSomething() { int space = diskReader.getAvailableSpace(...); } } This solution prevents classes from having access to methods they should not, but it also breaks encapsulation. The original DiskHandler class was completely self-contained and only needed config parameters via a single constructor. By breaking apart the functionality into read/write classes, they both are concerned with the directory and both need to be instantiated with their respective values. In essence, I don't really care to duplicate the concerns. Solution 2 I could implement an interface which only provisions read operations, and use this when a class only needs access to those methods. The interface might look something like this: public interface Readable { int getAvailableSpace(); } The Reader class would instantiate the object like this: Readable diskReader; public DiskReader() { diskReader = new DiskHandler(...); } This solution seems brittle, and prone to confusion in the future. It doesn't guarantee developers will use the correct interface in the future. Any changes to the implementation of the DiskHandler could also need to update the interface as well as the accessing classes. I like it better than the previous solution, but not by much. Frankly, neither of these solutions seems perfect, but I'm not sure if one should be preferred over the other. I really don't want to break the original class up, but I also don't know if the interface buys me much in the long run. Are there other solutions I'm missing?

    Read the article

  • Difference between "Data Binding'","Data Hiding","Data Wraping" and "Encapsulation"?

    - by krishna Chandra
    I have been studying the conpects of Object oriented programming. Still I am not able to distinguish between the following concepts of object oriented programming.. a) Data Binding b) Data Hiding c) Data Wrapping d) encapsulation e) Data Abstraction I have gone through a lot of books ,and I also search the difference in google. but still I am not able to make the difference between these? Could anyone please help me ?

    Read the article

  • Protected and Private methods

    - by cabaret
    I'm reading through Beginning Ruby and I'm stuck at the part about private and protected methods. This is a newbie question, I know. I searched through SO for a bit but I couldn't manage to find a clear and newbie-friendly explanation of the difference between private and protected methods. The book gives two examples, the first one for private methods: class Person def initialize(name) set_name(name) end def name @first_name + ' ' + @last_name end private def set_name(name) first_name, last_name = name.split(/\s+/) set_first_name(first_name) set_last_name(last_name) end def set_first_name(name) @first_name = name end def set_last_name(name) @last_name = name end end In this case, if I try p = Person.new("Fred Bloggs") p.set_last_name("Smith") It will tell me that I can't use the set_last_name method, because it's private. All good till there. However, in the other example, they define an age method as protected and when I do fred = Person.new(34) chris = Person.new(25) puts chris.age_difference_with(fred) puts chris.age It gives an error: :20: protected method 'age' called for #<Person:0x1e5f28 @age=25> (NoMethodError) I honestly fail to see the difference between the private and protected methods, it sounds the same to me. Could someone provide me with a clear explanation so I'll never get confused about this again? I'll provide the code for the second example if necessary.

    Read the article

  • Encapsulate update method inside of object or have method which accepts an object to update

    - by Tom
    Hi, I actually have 2 questions related to each other: I have an object (class) called, say MyClass which holds data from my database. Currently I have a list of these objects ( List < MyClass ) that resides in a singleton in a "communal area". I feel it's easier to manage the data this way and I fail to see how passing a class around from object to object is beneficial over a singleton (I would be happy if someone can tell me why). Anyway, the data may change in the database from outside my program and so I have to update the data every so often. To update the list of the MyClass I have a method called say, Update, written in another class which accepts a list of MyClass. This updates all the instances of MyClass in the list. However would it be better instead to encapulate the Update() method inside the MyClass object, so instead I would say foreach(MyClass obj in MyClassList) { obj.update(); } What is a better implementation and why? The update method requires a XML reader. I have written an XML reader class which is basically a wrapper over the standard XML reader the language natively provides which provides application specific data collection. Should the XML reader class be in anyway in the "inheritance path" of the MyClass object - the MyClass objects inherits from the XML reader because it uses a few methods. I can't see why it should. I don't like the idea of declaring an instance of the XML Reader class inside of MyClass and an MyClass object is meant to be a simple "record" from the database and I feel giving it loads of methods, other object instances is a bit messy. Perhaps my XML reader class should be static but C#'s native XMLReader isn't static.? Any comments would be greatly appreciated Thanks Thomas

    Read the article

  • Encapsulating user input of data for a class (C++)

    - by Dr. Monkey
    For an assignment I've made a simple C++ program that uses a superclass (Student) and two subclasses (CourseStudent and ResearchStudent) to store a list of students and print out their details, with different details shown for the two different types of students (using overriding of the display() method from Student). My question is about how the program collects input from the user of things like the student name, ID number, unit and fee information (for a course student) and research information (for research students): My implementation has the prompting for user input and the collecting of that input handled within the classes themselves. The reasoning behind this was that each class knows what kind of input it needs, so it makes sense to me to have it know how to ask for it (given an ostream through which to ask and an istream to collect the input from). My lecturer says that the prompting and input should all be handled in the main program, which seems to me somewhat messier, and would make it trickier to extend the program to handle different types of students. I am considering, as a compromise, to make a helper class that handles the prompting and collection of user input for each type of Student, which could then be called on by the main program. The advantage of this would be that the student classes don't have as much in them (so they're cleaner), but also they can be bundled with the helper classes if the input functionality is required. This also means more classes of Student could be added without having to make major changes to the main program, as long as helper classes are provided for these new classes. Also the helper class could be swapped for an alternative language version without having to make any changes to the class itself. What are the major advantages and disadvantages of the three different options for user input (fully encapsulated, helper class or in the main program)?

    Read the article

  • method without access modifier

    - by Leroy Jenkins
    Ok this is bugging me.. I know Ive read it somewhere and google isnt helping. what is the accessibility level of a method that does not specify an access modifier? void Foo() { //code } I want to say its internal but Im not 100% sure.

    Read the article

  • How to encapsulate a third party complex object structure?

    - by tangens
    Motivation Currently I'm using the java parser japa to create an abstract syntax tree (AST) of a java file. With this AST I'm doing some code generation (e.g.: if there's an annotation on a method, create some other source files, ...) Problem When my code generation becomes more complex, I've to dive deeper into the structure of the AST (e.g. I have to use visitors to extract some type information of method parameters). But I'm not sure if I want to stay with japa or if I will change the parser library later. Because my code generator uses freemarker (which isn't good at automatic refactoring) I want the interface that it uses to access the AST information to be stable, even if I decide to change the java parser. Question What's the best way to encapsulate complex datastructures of third party libraries? I could create my own datatypes and copy the parts of the AST that I need into these. I could create lots of specialized access methods that work with the AST and create exactly the infos I need (e.g. the fully qualified return type of a method as one string, or the first template parameter of a class). I could create wrapper classes for the japa datastructures I currently need and embed the japa types inside, so that I can delegate requests to the japa types and transform the resulting japa types to my wrapper classes again. Which solution should I take? Are there other (better) solutions to this problem?

    Read the article

  • interface as a method parameter in Java

    - by PeterYu
    Hi all, I had an interview days ago and was thrown a question like this. Q: Reverse a linked list. Following code is given: public class ReverseList { interface NodeList { int getItem(); NodeList nextNode(); } void reverse(NodeList node) { } public static void main(String[] args) { } } I was confused because I did not know an interface object could be used as a method parameter. The interviewer explained a little bit but I am still not sure about this. Could somebody enlighten me?

    Read the article

  • Access of private field of another object in copy constructors - Really a problem?

    - by DR
    In my Java application I have some copy-constructors like this public MyClass(MyClass src) { this.field1 = src.field1; this.field2 = src.field2; this.field3 = src.field3; ... } Now Netbeans 6.9 warns about this and I wonder what is wrong with this code? My concerns: Using the getters might introduce unwanted side-effects. The new object might no longer be considered a copy of the original. If it is recommended using the getters, wouldn't it be more consistent if one would use setters for the new instance as well?

    Read the article

  • respond_to? and protected methods

    - by mlomnicki
    It may not be so obvious how respond_to? works in ruby. Consider that: class A def public_method end protected def protected_method end private def private_method end end obj = A.new obj.respond_to?(:public_method) # true - that's pretty obvious obj.respond_to?(:private_method) # false - as expected obj.respond_to?(:protected_method) # true - WTF? So if 'obj' responds to protected_method we should expect obj.protected_method not to raise an exception, shouldn't we? ...but it raises obviously Documentation points that calling respond_to? with 2nd argument set to true check private method as well obj.respond_to?(:private_method, true) # true And that's far more reasonable So the question is how to check if object responds to public method only? Is there a solution better than that? obj.methods.include?(:public_method) # true obj.methods.include?(:protected_method) # false

    Read the article

  • Exception throws: encapsulate them or not?

    - by Simon
    Hi there. Once I read an MSDN article that encouraged the following programming paradigm: public class MyClass { public void Method1() { NewCustomException(); } public void Method2() { NewCustomException(); } void NewCustomException() { throw new CustomException("Exception message"); } } Do you think this paradigm makes sense? Wouldn't it be enough to store the exception message in a static const field and then pass it to the exception's constructor, instead of encapsulating the whole exception throw?

    Read the article

  • Is it possible to cancel function override in parent class and use function from top level parent

    - by Anatoliy Gusarov
    class TopParent { protected function foo() { $this->bar(); } private function bar() { echo 'Bar'; } } class MidParent extends TopParent { protected function foo() { $this->midMethod(); parent::foo(); } public function midMethod() { echo 'Mid'; } public function generalMethod() { echo 'General'; } } Now the question is if I have a class, that extends MidParent because I need to call class Target extends MidParent { //How to override this method to return TopParent::foo(); ? protected function foo() { } } So I need to do this: $mid = new MidParent(); $mid->foo(); // MidBar $taget = new Target(); $target->generalMethod(); // General $target->foo(); // Bar UPDATE Top parent is ActiveRecord class, mid is my model object. I want to use model in yii ConsoleApplication. I use 'user' module in this model, and console app doesn't support this module. So I need to override method afterFind, where user module is called. So the Target class is the class that overrides some methods from model which uses some modules that console application doesn't support.

    Read the article

  • Writting a getter for a pointer to a function .

    - by nomemory
    I have the following problem: "list.c" struct nmlist_element_s { void *data; struct nmlist_element_s *next; }; struct nmlist_s { nmlist_element *head; nmlist_element *tail; unsigned int size; void (*destructor)(void *data); int (*match)(const void *e1, const void *e2); }; /*** Other code ***/ What will be the signature for a function that returns 'destructor' ?

    Read the article

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