Search Results

Search found 14034 results on 562 pages for 'interface inheritance'.

Page 30/562 | < Previous Page | 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37  | Next Page >

  • Does C++ have a static polymorphism implementation of interface that does not use vtable?

    - by gilbertc
    Does C++ have a proper implementation of interface that does not use vtable? for example class BaseInterface{ public: virtual void func() const = 0; } class BaseInterfaceImpl:public BaseInterface{ public: void func(){ std::cout<<"called."<<endl; } } BaseInterface* obj = new BaseInterfaceImpl(); obj->func(); the call to func at the last line goes to vtable to find the func ptr of BaseInterfaceImpl::func, but is there any C++ way to do that directly as the BaseInterfaceImpl is not subclassed from any other class besides the pure interface class BaseInterface? Thanks. Gil.

    Read the article

  • Does C++ have a proper implementation of interface that does not use vtable?

    - by gilbertc
    Does C++ have a proper implementation of interface that does not use vtable? for example class BaseInterface{ public: virtual void func() const = 0; } class BaseInterfaceImpl:public BaseInterface{ public: void func(){ std::cout<<"called."<<endl; } } BaseInterface* obj = new BaseInterfaceImpl(); obj->func(); the call to func at the last line goes to vtable to find the func ptr of BaseInterfaceImpl::func, but is there any C++ way to do that directly as the BaseInterfaceImpl is not subclassed from any other class besides the pure interface class BaseInterface? Thanks. Gil.

    Read the article

  • Casting as Interface? Awesome.

    - by cam
    I was just experimenting around with one of my programs, trying to make it looks prettier and I found something interesting. I have an interface that 4 classes inherit from. I found that if I pass the Class as an object to a method like so: ClassTest classtest = new ClassTest(); DoOperation(classtest); private void DoOperation(object o) { ((InterfaceClass)o).DoThis(); } So I can pass any type of class that inherits from InterfaceClass, and it will preform the proper interface operation? This is the coolest thing I've ever found from OOP (something I've never really studied) I really thought interfaces were created for the sole purpose of organization for developers. Are there more uses for interfaces than this?

    Read the article

  • Inheritance Mapping Strategies with Entity Framework Code First CTP5: Part 3 – Table per Concrete Type (TPC) and Choosing Strategy Guidelines

    - by mortezam
    This is the third (and last) post in a series that explains different approaches to map an inheritance hierarchy with EF Code First. I've described these strategies in previous posts: Part 1 – Table per Hierarchy (TPH) Part 2 – Table per Type (TPT)In today’s blog post I am going to discuss Table per Concrete Type (TPC) which completes the inheritance mapping strategies supported by EF Code First. At the end of this post I will provide some guidelines to choose an inheritance strategy mainly based on what we've learned in this series. TPC and Entity Framework in the Past Table per Concrete type is somehow the simplest approach suggested, yet using TPC with EF is one of those concepts that has not been covered very well so far and I've seen in some resources that it was even discouraged. The reason for that is just because Entity Data Model Designer in VS2010 doesn't support TPC (even though the EF runtime does). That basically means if you are following EF's Database-First or Model-First approaches then configuring TPC requires manually writing XML in the EDMX file which is not considered to be a fun practice. Well, no more. You'll see that with Code First, creating TPC is perfectly possible with fluent API just like other strategies and you don't need to avoid TPC due to the lack of designer support as you would probably do in other EF approaches. Table per Concrete Type (TPC)In Table per Concrete type (aka Table per Concrete class) we use exactly one table for each (nonabstract) class. All properties of a class, including inherited properties, can be mapped to columns of this table, as shown in the following figure: As you can see, the SQL schema is not aware of the inheritance; effectively, we’ve mapped two unrelated tables to a more expressive class structure. If the base class was concrete, then an additional table would be needed to hold instances of that class. I have to emphasize that there is no relationship between the database tables, except for the fact that they share some similar columns. TPC Implementation in Code First Just like the TPT implementation, we need to specify a separate table for each of the subclasses. We also need to tell Code First that we want all of the inherited properties to be mapped as part of this table. In CTP5, there is a new helper method on EntityMappingConfiguration class called MapInheritedProperties that exactly does this for us. Here is the complete object model as well as the fluent API to create a TPC mapping: public abstract class BillingDetail {     public int BillingDetailId { get; set; }     public string Owner { get; set; }     public string Number { get; set; } }          public class BankAccount : BillingDetail {     public string BankName { get; set; }     public string Swift { get; set; } }          public class CreditCard : BillingDetail {     public int CardType { get; set; }     public string ExpiryMonth { get; set; }     public string ExpiryYear { get; set; } }      public class InheritanceMappingContext : DbContext {     public DbSet<BillingDetail> BillingDetails { get; set; }              protected override void OnModelCreating(ModelBuilder modelBuilder)     {         modelBuilder.Entity<BankAccount>().Map(m =>         {             m.MapInheritedProperties();             m.ToTable("BankAccounts");         });         modelBuilder.Entity<CreditCard>().Map(m =>         {             m.MapInheritedProperties();             m.ToTable("CreditCards");         });                 } } The Importance of EntityMappingConfiguration ClassAs a side note, it worth mentioning that EntityMappingConfiguration class turns out to be a key type for inheritance mapping in Code First. Here is an snapshot of this class: namespace System.Data.Entity.ModelConfiguration.Configuration.Mapping {     public class EntityMappingConfiguration<TEntityType> where TEntityType : class     {         public ValueConditionConfiguration Requires(string discriminator);         public void ToTable(string tableName);         public void MapInheritedProperties();     } } As you have seen so far, we used its Requires method to customize TPH. We also used its ToTable method to create a TPT and now we are using its MapInheritedProperties along with ToTable method to create our TPC mapping. TPC Configuration is Not Done Yet!We are not quite done with our TPC configuration and there is more into this story even though the fluent API we saw perfectly created a TPC mapping for us in the database. To see why, let's start working with our object model. For example, the following code creates two new objects of BankAccount and CreditCard types and tries to add them to the database: using (var context = new InheritanceMappingContext()) {     BankAccount bankAccount = new BankAccount();     CreditCard creditCard = new CreditCard() { CardType = 1 };                      context.BillingDetails.Add(bankAccount);     context.BillingDetails.Add(creditCard);     context.SaveChanges(); } Running this code throws an InvalidOperationException with this message: The changes to the database were committed successfully, but an error occurred while updating the object context. The ObjectContext might be in an inconsistent state. Inner exception message: AcceptChanges cannot continue because the object's key values conflict with another object in the ObjectStateManager. Make sure that the key values are unique before calling AcceptChanges. The reason we got this exception is because DbContext.SaveChanges() internally invokes SaveChanges method of its internal ObjectContext. ObjectContext's SaveChanges method on its turn by default calls AcceptAllChanges after it has performed the database modifications. AcceptAllChanges method merely iterates over all entries in ObjectStateManager and invokes AcceptChanges on each of them. Since the entities are in Added state, AcceptChanges method replaces their temporary EntityKey with a regular EntityKey based on the primary key values (i.e. BillingDetailId) that come back from the database and that's where the problem occurs since both the entities have been assigned the same value for their primary key by the database (i.e. on both BillingDetailId = 1) and the problem is that ObjectStateManager cannot track objects of the same type (i.e. BillingDetail) with the same EntityKey value hence it throws. If you take a closer look at the TPC's SQL schema above, you'll see why the database generated the same values for the primary keys: the BillingDetailId column in both BankAccounts and CreditCards table has been marked as identity. How to Solve The Identity Problem in TPC As you saw, using SQL Server’s int identity columns doesn't work very well together with TPC since there will be duplicate entity keys when inserting in subclasses tables with all having the same identity seed. Therefore, to solve this, either a spread seed (where each table has its own initial seed value) will be needed, or a mechanism other than SQL Server’s int identity should be used. Some other RDBMSes have other mechanisms allowing a sequence (identity) to be shared by multiple tables, and something similar can be achieved with GUID keys in SQL Server. While using GUID keys, or int identity keys with different starting seeds will solve the problem but yet another solution would be to completely switch off identity on the primary key property. As a result, we need to take the responsibility of providing unique keys when inserting records to the database. We will go with this solution since it works regardless of which database engine is used. Switching Off Identity in Code First We can switch off identity simply by placing DatabaseGenerated attribute on the primary key property and pass DatabaseGenerationOption.None to its constructor. DatabaseGenerated attribute is a new data annotation which has been added to System.ComponentModel.DataAnnotations namespace in CTP5: public abstract class BillingDetail {     [DatabaseGenerated(DatabaseGenerationOption.None)]     public int BillingDetailId { get; set; }     public string Owner { get; set; }     public string Number { get; set; } } As always, we can achieve the same result by using fluent API, if you prefer that: modelBuilder.Entity<BillingDetail>()             .Property(p => p.BillingDetailId)             .HasDatabaseGenerationOption(DatabaseGenerationOption.None); Working With The Object Model Our TPC mapping is ready and we can try adding new records to the database. But, like I said, now we need to take care of providing unique keys when creating new objects: using (var context = new InheritanceMappingContext()) {     BankAccount bankAccount = new BankAccount()      {          BillingDetailId = 1                          };     CreditCard creditCard = new CreditCard()      {          BillingDetailId = 2,         CardType = 1     };                      context.BillingDetails.Add(bankAccount);     context.BillingDetails.Add(creditCard);     context.SaveChanges(); } Polymorphic Associations with TPC is Problematic The main problem with this approach is that it doesn’t support Polymorphic Associations very well. After all, in the database, associations are represented as foreign key relationships and in TPC, the subclasses are all mapped to different tables so a polymorphic association to their base class (abstract BillingDetail in our example) cannot be represented as a simple foreign key relationship. For example, consider the the domain model we introduced here where User has a polymorphic association with BillingDetail. This would be problematic in our TPC Schema, because if User has a many-to-one relationship with BillingDetail, the Users table would need a single foreign key column, which would have to refer both concrete subclass tables. This isn’t possible with regular foreign key constraints. Schema Evolution with TPC is Complex A further conceptual problem with this mapping strategy is that several different columns, of different tables, share exactly the same semantics. This makes schema evolution more complex. For example, a change to a base class property results in changes to multiple columns. It also makes it much more difficult to implement database integrity constraints that apply to all subclasses. Generated SQLLet's examine SQL output for polymorphic queries in TPC mapping. For example, consider this polymorphic query for all BillingDetails and the resulting SQL statements that being executed in the database: var query = from b in context.BillingDetails select b; Just like the SQL query generated by TPT mapping, the CASE statements that you see in the beginning of the query is merely to ensure columns that are irrelevant for a particular row have NULL values in the returning flattened table. (e.g. BankName for a row that represents a CreditCard type). TPC's SQL Queries are Union Based As you can see in the above screenshot, the first SELECT uses a FROM-clause subquery (which is selected with a red rectangle) to retrieve all instances of BillingDetails from all concrete class tables. The tables are combined with a UNION operator, and a literal (in this case, 0 and 1) is inserted into the intermediate result; (look at the lines highlighted in yellow.) EF reads this to instantiate the correct class given the data from a particular row. A union requires that the queries that are combined, project over the same columns; hence, EF has to pad and fill up nonexistent columns with NULL. This query will really perform well since here we can let the database optimizer find the best execution plan to combine rows from several tables. There is also no Joins involved so it has a better performance than the SQL queries generated by TPT where a Join is required between the base and subclasses tables. Choosing Strategy GuidelinesBefore we get into this discussion, I want to emphasize that there is no one single "best strategy fits all scenarios" exists. As you saw, each of the approaches have their own advantages and drawbacks. Here are some rules of thumb to identify the best strategy in a particular scenario: If you don’t require polymorphic associations or queries, lean toward TPC—in other words, if you never or rarely query for BillingDetails and you have no class that has an association to BillingDetail base class. I recommend TPC (only) for the top level of your class hierarchy, where polymorphism isn’t usually required, and when modification of the base class in the future is unlikely. If you do require polymorphic associations or queries, and subclasses declare relatively few properties (particularly if the main difference between subclasses is in their behavior), lean toward TPH. Your goal is to minimize the number of nullable columns and to convince yourself (and your DBA) that a denormalized schema won’t create problems in the long run. If you do require polymorphic associations or queries, and subclasses declare many properties (subclasses differ mainly by the data they hold), lean toward TPT. Or, depending on the width and depth of your inheritance hierarchy and the possible cost of joins versus unions, use TPC. By default, choose TPH only for simple problems. For more complex cases (or when you’re overruled by a data modeler insisting on the importance of nullability constraints and normalization), you should consider the TPT strategy. But at that point, ask yourself whether it may not be better to remodel inheritance as delegation in the object model (delegation is a way of making composition as powerful for reuse as inheritance). Complex inheritance is often best avoided for all sorts of reasons unrelated to persistence or ORM. EF acts as a buffer between the domain and relational models, but that doesn’t mean you can ignore persistence concerns when designing your classes. SummaryIn this series, we focused on one of the main structural aspect of the object/relational paradigm mismatch which is inheritance and discussed how EF solve this problem as an ORM solution. We learned about the three well-known inheritance mapping strategies and their implementations in EF Code First. Hopefully it gives you a better insight about the mapping of inheritance hierarchies as well as choosing the best strategy for your particular scenario. Happy New Year and Happy Code-Firsting! References ADO.NET team blog Java Persistence with Hibernate book a { color: #5A99FF; } a:visited { color: #5A99FF; } .title { padding-bottom: 5px; font-family: Segoe UI; font-size: 11pt; font-weight: bold; padding-top: 15px; } .code, .typeName { font-family: consolas; } .typeName { color: #2b91af; } .padTop5 { padding-top: 5px; } .padTop10 { padding-top: 10px; } .exception { background-color: #f0f0f0; font-style: italic; padding-bottom: 5px; padding-left: 5px; padding-top: 5px; padding-right: 5px; }

    Read the article

  • OOP concept: is it possible to update the class of an instantiated object?

    - by Federico
    I am trying to write a simple program that should allow a user to save and display sets of heterogeneous, but somehow related data. For clarity sake, I will use a representative example of vehicles. The program flow is like this: The program creates a Garage object, which is basically a class that can contain a list of vehicles objects Then the users creates Vehicles objects, these Vehicles each have a property, lets say License Plate Nr. Once created, the Vehicle object get added to a list within the Garage object --Later on--, the user can specify that a given Vehicle object is in fact a Car object or a Truck object (thus giving access to some specific attributes such as Number of seats for the Car, or Cargo weight for the truck) At first sight, this might look like an OOP textbook question involving a base class and inheritance, but the problem is more subtle because at the object creation time (and until the user decides to give more info), the computer doesn't know the exact Vehicle type. Hence my question: how would you proceed to implement this program flow? Is OOP the way to go? Just to give an initial answer, here is what I've came up until now. There is only one Vehicle class and the various properties/values are handled by the main program (not the class) through a dictionary. However, I'm pretty sure that there must be a more elegant solution (I'm developing using VB.net): Public Class Garage Public GarageAdress As String Private _ListGarageVehicles As New List(Of Vehicles) Public Sub AddVehicle(Vehicle As Vehicles) _ListGarageVehicles.Add(Vehicle) End Sub End Class Public Class Vehicles Public LicensePlateNumber As String Public Enum VehicleTypes Generic = 0 Car = 1 Truck = 2 End Enum Public VehicleType As VehicleTypes Public DictVehicleProperties As New Dictionary(Of String, String) End Class NOTE that in the example above the public/private modifiers do not necessarily reflect the original code

    Read the article

  • What OO Design to use ( is there a Design Pattern )?

    - by Blundell
    I have two objects that represent a 'Bar/Club' ( a place where you drink/socialise). In one scenario I need the bar name, address, distance, slogon In another scenario I need the bar name, address, website url, logo So I've got two objects representing the same thing but with different fields. I like to use immutable objects, so all the fields are set from the constructor. One option is to have two constructors and null the other fields i.e: class Bar { private final String name; private final Distance distance; private final Url url; public Bar(String name, Distance distance){ this.name = name; this.distance = distance; this.url = null; } public Bar(String name, Url url){ this.name = name; this.distance = null; this.url = url; } // getters } I don't like this as you would have to null check when you use the getters In my real example the first scenario has 3 fields and the second scenario has about 10, so it would be a real pain having two constructors, the amount of fields I would have to declare null and then when the object are in use you wouldn't know which Bar you where using and so what fields would be null and what wouldn't. What other options do I have? Two classes called BarPreview and Bar? Some type of inheritance / interface? Something else that is awesome?

    Read the article

  • What's is the point of PImpl pattern while we can use interface for same purpose in C++?

    - by ZijingWu
    I see a lot of source code which using PIMPL idiom in C++. I assume Its purposes are hidden the private data/type/implementation, so it can resolve dependence, and then reduce compile time and header include issue. But interface class in C++ also have this capability, it can also used to hidden data/type and implementation. And to hidden let the caller just see the interface when create object, we can add an factory method in it declaration in interface header. The comparison is: Cost: The interface way cost is lower, because you doesn't even need to repeat the public wrapper function implementation void Bar::doWork() { return m_impl->doWork(); }, you just need to define the signature in the interface. Well understand: The interface technology is more well understand by every C++ developer. Performance: Interface way performance not worse than PIMPL idiom, both an extra memory access. I assume the performance is same. Following is the pseudocode code to illustrate my question: // Forward declaration can help you avoid include BarImpl header, and those included in BarImpl header. class BarImpl; class Bar { public: // public functions void doWork(); private: // You doesn't need to compile Bar.cpp after change the implementation in BarImpl.cpp BarImpl* m_impl; }; The same purpose can be implement using interface: // Bar.h class IBar { public: virtual ~IBar(){} // public functions virtual void doWork() = 0; }; // to only expose the interface instead of class name to caller IBar* createObject(); So what's the point of PIMPL?

    Read the article

  • How to maintain encapsulation with composition in C++?

    - by iFreilicht
    I am designing a class Master that is composed from multiple other classes, A, Base, C and D. These four classes have absolutely no use outside of Master and are meant to split up its functionality into manageable and logically divided packages. They also provide extensible functionality as in the case of Base, which can be inherited from by clients. But, how do I maintain encapsulation of Master with this design? So far, I've got two approaches, which are both far from perfect: 1. Replicate all accessors: Just write accessor-methods for all accessor-methods of all classes that Master is composed of. This leads to perfect encapsulation, because no implementation detail of Master is visible, but is extremely tedious and makes the class definition monstrous, which is exactly what the composition should prevent. Also, adding functionality to one of the composees (is that even a word?) would require to re-write all those methods in Master. An additional problem is that inheritors of Base could only alter, but not add functionality. 2. Use non-assignable, non-copyable member-accessors: Having a class accessor<T> that can not be copied, moved or assigned to, but overrides the operator-> to access an underlying shared_ptr, so that calls like Master->A()->niceFunction(); are made possible. My problem with this is that it kind of breaks encapsulation as I would now be unable to change my implementation of Master to use a different class for the functionality of niceFunction(). Still, it is the closest I've gotten without using the ugly first approach. It also fixes the inheritance issue quite nicely. A small side question would be if such a class already existed in std or boost. EDIT: Wall of code I will now post the code of the header files of the classes discussed. It may be a bit hard to understand, but I'll give my best in explaining all of it. 1. GameTree.h The foundation of it all. This basically is a doubly-linked tree, holding GameObject-instances, which we'll later get to. It also has it's own custom iterator GTIterator, but I left that out for brevity. WResult is an enum with the values SUCCESS and FAILED, but it's not really important. class GameTree { public: //Static methods for the root. Only one root is allowed to exist at a time! static void ConstructRoot(seed_type seed, unsigned int depth); inline static bool rootExists(){ return static_cast<bool>(rootObject_); } inline static weak_ptr<GameTree> root(){ return rootObject_; } //delta is in ms, this is used for velocity, collision and such void tick(unsigned int delta); //Interaction with the tree inline weak_ptr<GameTree> parent() const { return parent_; } inline unsigned int numChildren() const{ return static_cast<unsigned int>(children_.size()); } weak_ptr<GameTree> getChild(unsigned int index) const; template<typename GOType> weak_ptr<GameTree> addChild(seed_type seed, unsigned int depth = 9001){ GOType object{ new GOType(seed) }; return addChildObject(unique_ptr<GameTree>(new GameTree(std::move(object), depth))); } WResult moveTo(weak_ptr<GameTree> newParent); WResult erase(); //Iterators for for( : ) loop GTIterator& begin(){ return *(beginIter_ = std::move(make_unique<GTIterator>(children_.begin()))); } GTIterator& end(){ return *(endIter_ = std::move(make_unique<GTIterator>(children_.end()))); } //unloading should be used when objects are far away WResult unloadChildren(unsigned int newDepth = 0); WResult loadChildren(unsigned int newDepth = 1); inline const RenderObject& renderObject() const{ return gameObject_->renderObject(); } //Getter for the underlying GameObject (I have not tested the template version) weak_ptr<GameObject> gameObject(){ return gameObject_; } template<typename GOType> weak_ptr<GOType> gameObject(){ return dynamic_cast<weak_ptr<GOType>>(gameObject_); } weak_ptr<PhysicsObject> physicsObject() { return gameObject_->physicsObject(); } private: GameTree(const GameTree&); //copying is only allowed internally GameTree(shared_ptr<GameObject> object, unsigned int depth = 9001); //pointer to root static shared_ptr<GameTree> rootObject_; //internal management of a child weak_ptr<GameTree> addChildObject(shared_ptr<GameTree>); WResult removeChild(unsigned int index); //private members shared_ptr<GameObject> gameObject_; shared_ptr<GTIterator> beginIter_; shared_ptr<GTIterator> endIter_; //tree stuff vector<shared_ptr<GameTree>> children_; weak_ptr<GameTree> parent_; unsigned int selfIndex_; //used for deletion, this isn't necessary void initChildren(unsigned int depth); //constructs children }; 2. GameObject.h This is a bit hard to grasp, but GameObject basically works like this: When constructing a GameObject, you construct its basic attributes and a CResult-instance, which contains a vector<unique_ptr<Construction>>. The Construction-struct contains all information that is needed to construct a GameObject, which is a seed and a function-object that is applied at construction by a factory. This enables dynamic loading and unloading of GameObjects as done by GameTree. It also means that you have to define that factory if you inherit GameObject. This inheritance is also the reason why GameTree has a template-function gameObject<GOType>. GameObject can contain a RenderObject and a PhysicsObject, which we'll later get to. Anyway, here's the code. class GameObject; typedef unsigned long seed_type; //this declaration magic means that all GameObjectFactorys inherit from GameObjectFactory<GameObject> template<typename GOType> struct GameObjectFactory; template<> struct GameObjectFactory<GameObject>{ virtual unique_ptr<GameObject> construct(seed_type seed) const = 0; }; template<typename GOType> struct GameObjectFactory : GameObjectFactory<GameObject>{ GameObjectFactory() : GameObjectFactory<GameObject>(){} unique_ptr<GameObject> construct(seed_type seed) const{ return unique_ptr<GOType>(new GOType(seed)); } }; //same as with the factories. this is important for storing them in vectors template<typename GOType> struct Construction; template<> struct Construction<GameObject>{ virtual unique_ptr<GameObject> construct() const = 0; }; template<typename GOType> struct Construction : Construction<GameObject>{ Construction(seed_type seed, function<void(GOType*)> func = [](GOType* null){}) : Construction<GameObject>(), seed_(seed), func_(func) {} unique_ptr<GameObject> construct() const{ unique_ptr<GameObject> gameObject{ GOType::factory.construct(seed_) }; func_(dynamic_cast<GOType*>(gameObject.get())); return std::move(gameObject); } seed_type seed_; function<void(GOType*)> func_; }; typedef struct CResult { CResult() : constructions{} {} CResult(CResult && o) : constructions(std::move(o.constructions)) {} CResult& operator= (CResult& other){ if (this != &other){ for (unique_ptr<Construction<GameObject>>& child : other.constructions){ constructions.push_back(std::move(child)); } } return *this; } template<typename GOType> void push_back(seed_type seed, function<void(GOType*)> func = [](GOType* null){}){ constructions.push_back(make_unique<Construction<GOType>>(seed, func)); } vector<unique_ptr<Construction<GameObject>>> constructions; } CResult; //finally, the GameObject class GameObject { public: GameObject(seed_type seed); GameObject(const GameObject&); virtual void tick(unsigned int delta); inline Matrix4f trafoMatrix(){ return physicsObject_->transformationMatrix(); } //getter inline seed_type seed() const{ return seed_; } inline CResult& properties(){ return properties_; } inline const RenderObject& renderObject() const{ return *renderObject_; } inline weak_ptr<PhysicsObject> physicsObject() { return physicsObject_; } protected: virtual CResult construct_(seed_type seed) = 0; CResult properties_; shared_ptr<RenderObject> renderObject_; shared_ptr<PhysicsObject> physicsObject_; seed_type seed_; }; 3. PhysicsObject That's a bit easier. It is responsible for position, velocity and acceleration. It will also handle collisions in the future. It contains three Transformation objects, two of which are optional. I'm not going to include the accessors on the PhysicsObject class because I tried my first approach on it and it's just pure madness (way over 30 functions). Also missing: the named constructors that construct PhysicsObjects with different behaviour. class Transformation{ Vector3f translation_; Vector3f rotation_; Vector3f scaling_; public: Transformation() : translation_{ 0, 0, 0 }, rotation_{ 0, 0, 0 }, scaling_{ 1, 1, 1 } {}; Transformation(Vector3f translation, Vector3f rotation, Vector3f scaling); inline Vector3f translation(){ return translation_; } inline void translation(float x, float y, float z){ translation(Vector3f(x, y, z)); } inline void translation(Vector3f newTranslation){ translation_ = newTranslation; } inline void translate(float x, float y, float z){ translate(Vector3f(x, y, z)); } inline void translate(Vector3f summand){ translation_ += summand; } inline Vector3f rotation(){ return rotation_; } inline void rotation(float pitch, float yaw, float roll){ rotation(Vector3f(pitch, yaw, roll)); } inline void rotation(Vector3f newRotation){ rotation_ = newRotation; } inline void rotate(float pitch, float yaw, float roll){ rotate(Vector3f(pitch, yaw, roll)); } inline void rotate(Vector3f summand){ rotation_ += summand; } inline Vector3f scaling(){ return scaling_; } inline void scaling(float x, float y, float z){ scaling(Vector3f(x, y, z)); } inline void scaling(Vector3f newScaling){ scaling_ = newScaling; } inline void scale(float x, float y, float z){ scale(Vector3f(x, y, z)); } void scale(Vector3f factor){ scaling_(0) *= factor(0); scaling_(1) *= factor(1); scaling_(2) *= factor(2); } Matrix4f matrix(){ return WMatrix::Translation(translation_) * WMatrix::Rotation(rotation_) * WMatrix::Scale(scaling_); } }; class PhysicsObject; typedef void tickFunction(PhysicsObject& self, unsigned int delta); class PhysicsObject{ PhysicsObject(const Transformation& trafo) : transformation_(trafo), transformationVelocity_(nullptr), transformationAcceleration_(nullptr), tick_(nullptr) {} PhysicsObject(PhysicsObject&& other) : transformation_(other.transformation_), transformationVelocity_(std::move(other.transformationVelocity_)), transformationAcceleration_(std::move(other.transformationAcceleration_)), tick_(other.tick_) {} Transformation transformation_; unique_ptr<Transformation> transformationVelocity_; unique_ptr<Transformation> transformationAcceleration_; tickFunction* tick_; public: void tick(unsigned int delta){ tick_ ? tick_(*this, delta) : 0; } inline Matrix4f transformationMatrix(){ return transformation_.matrix(); } } 4. RenderObject RenderObject is a base class for different types of things that could be rendered, i.e. Meshes, Light Sources or Sprites. DISCLAIMER: I did not write this code, I'm working on this project with someone else. class RenderObject { public: RenderObject(float renderDistance); virtual ~RenderObject(); float renderDistance() const { return renderDistance_; } void setRenderDistance(float rD) { renderDistance_ = rD; } protected: float renderDistance_; }; struct NullRenderObject : public RenderObject{ NullRenderObject() : RenderObject(0.f){}; }; class Light : public RenderObject{ public: Light() : RenderObject(30.f){}; }; class Mesh : public RenderObject{ public: Mesh(unsigned int seed) : RenderObject(20.f) { meshID_ = 0; textureID_ = 0; if (seed == 1) meshID_ = Model::getMeshID("EM-208_heavy"); else meshID_ = Model::getMeshID("cube"); }; unsigned int getMeshID() const { return meshID_; } unsigned int getTextureID() const { return textureID_; } private: unsigned int meshID_; unsigned int textureID_; }; I guess this shows my issue quite nicely: You see a few accessors in GameObject which return weak_ptrs to access members of members, but that is not really what I want. Also please keep in mind that this is NOT, by any means, finished or production code! It is merely a prototype and there may be inconsistencies, unnecessary public parts of classes and such.

    Read the article

  • Singleton with inheritance, Derived class is not able to get instantiated in parent?

    - by yesraaj
    Below code instantiates a derived singleton object based on environment variable. The compiler errors saying error C2512: 'Dotted' : no appropriate default constructor. I don't understand what the compiler is complaining about. #include <stdlib.h> #include <iostream> #include <string> using namespace std; class Dotted; class Singleton{ public: static Singleton instant(){ if (!instance_) { char * style = getenv("STYLE"); if (!style){ if (strcmp(style,"dotted")==0) { instance_ = new Dotted(); return *instance_; } } else{ instance_ = new Singleton(); return *instance_; } } return *instance_; } void print(){cout<<"Singleton";} ~Singleton(){}; protected: Singleton(){}; private: static Singleton * instance_; Singleton(const Singleton & ); void operator=(const Singleton & ); }; class Dotted:public Singleton{ public: void print(){cout<<"Dotted";} protected: Dotted(); }; Dotted::Dotted():Singleton(){} int main(){ Singleton::instant().print(); cin.get(); }

    Read the article

  • Help with these warnings. [inheritance].

    - by sil3nt
    Hello there. I have a set of code, which mimics a basic library cataloging system. There is a base class named items, in which the the general id,title and year variables are defined and 3 other derived classes (DVD,Book and CD). Base [Items] Derived [DVD,Book,CD]. The programs runs, however I get the following warnings, I'm not sure how to fix these. "C:\Program Files\gcc\bin/g++" -Os -mconsole -g -Wall -Wshadow -fno-common mainA4.cpp -o mainA4.exe In file included from mainA4.cpp:5: a4.h: In constructor `DVD::DVD(int, std::string, int, std::string)': a4.h:28: warning: `DVD::director' will be initialized after a4.h:32: warning: base `Items' a4.h:32: warning: when initialized here a4.h: In constructor `Book::Book(int, std::string, int, std::string, int)': a4.h:48: warning: `Book::numPages' will be initialized after a4.h:52: warning: base `Items' a4.h:52: warning: when initialized here a4.h: In constructor `CD::CD(int, std::string, int, std::string, int)': a4.h:66: warning: `CD::numSongs' will be initialized after a4.h:70: warning: base `Items' a4.h:70: warning: when initialized here Exit code: 0

    Read the article

  • UML interface: URL iframe integration

    - by Bernd
    I have two applications, A and B, both with a web-based user interface. Both applications are integrated via an URL iframe mechanism. A user can click on a link in application A and then gets the UI of application B as am iframe in application A. Now, since both applications have an interface between each other (do they?): Who provides the interface and who requires the interface, in the UML sense? What is the main information flow on this interface?

    Read the article

  • Class inheritance in PHP 5.2: Overriding static variable in extension class?

    - by Christoffer
    Hi, I need to bea be able to use a static variable set in a class that extends a base class... from the base class. Consider this: class Animal { public static $color = 'black'; public static function get_color() { return self::$color; } } class Dog { public static $color = 'brown'; } echo Animal::get_color(); // prints 'black' echo Dog::get_color(); // also prints 'black' This works wonderfully in PHP 5.3.x (Dog::get_color() prints 'brown') since it has late static binding. But my production server runs PHP 5.2.11 and so I need to adapt my script. Is there a somewhat pretty workaround to solve this issue? Cheers! Christoffer

    Read the article

  • inheritance confusion. Adding a special class for making errors obvious on form validation

    - by aslum
    So I've got a form... The relevant CSS is (I think): .libform input { background-color:transparent; color:#000; border-left:0; border-right:0; border-top:0; border-bottom: 1px solid #555; margin: 0 5px 1px 5px; display:inline-block; } .libform input:focus { border:0; border-bottom: 1px dotted #000; color:#939; background-color:#fed; } .error { border-bottom: 1px solid red; } Form field: <? if ($name=="") {$nameerror="error";}?> <input name="name" type="text" class="<?php echo $nameerror;?>" value="<?echo $name;?>" id="name"> I'd like for when they've left the field blank the input button's underline to change from black to red. But it doesn't seem to inherit right. What am I doing wrong?

    Read the article

  • How is it possible the class inheritance in namespaces using Ruby on Rails 3?

    - by user502052
    In my RoR3 application I have a namespace called NS1 so that I have this filesystem structure: ROOT_RAILS/controllers/ ROOT_RAILS/controllers/application_controller.rb ROOT_RAILS/controllers/ns/ ROOT_RAILS/controllers/ns/ns_controller.rb ROOT_RAILS/controllers/ns/names_controller.rb ROOT_RAILS/controllers/ns/surnames_controller.rb I wuold like that 'ns_controller.rb' inherits from application controller, so in 'ns_controller.rb' file I have: class Ns::NsController < ApplicationController ... end Is this the right approach? Anyway if I have this situation... in 'application_controller.rb' class ApplicationController < ActionController::Base @profile = Profile.find(1) end in 'ns_controller.rb' class Ns::NsController < ApplicationController @name = @profile.name @surname = @profile.surname end ... '@name' and '@surname' variables are not set. Why?

    Read the article

  • Is there a mean to specify specialization-genralization (inheritance) of actors in UML?

    - by Ivan
    I am just starting to use UML and have came to the following question: Some actors clearly are specialized versions of a natural entity. For example I've got Administrator and User actors which are clearly nothing but different roles of a user, Authorizer and Dispatcher which are services (and are going to be implemented this way). Should I just ignore these facts while modelling actors and use cases or specify it some way? I think I could make good use of such a specification to facilitate code generation.

    Read the article

  • Correct CSS inheritance behavior for properties that aren't inherited?

    - by Chris
    So say we you have a CSS property that is not inherited by default. We'll call it "foo" and its default value is "black". Then we make the following html. <div id="div1" style="foo: red;"> <div id="div2"> <div id="div3" style="foo: inherit;"> </div> </div> </div> Since this property does not inherit by default, you'd think that in div2, "foo" must be "black" - the default value because it does not inherit by default. But ... in div3 should the value for "foo" inherit "black" from its parent that did not inherit foo, or should it inherit "red" from its grandparent because its parent did not specify foo? I need to know because I'm trying to implement something exactly to the spec.

    Read the article

  • Is it possible to use inheritance in this situation? (Java)

    - by they changed my name
    I have ClassA and ClassB, with ClassA being the superclass. ClassA uses NodeA, ClassB uses NodeB. First problem: method parameters. ClassB needs NodeB types, but I can't cast from the subclass to the superclass. That means I can't set properties which are unique to NodeB's. Second problem: When I need to add nodes toClassB, I have to instantiate a new NodeB. But, I can't do this in the superclass, so I'd have to rewrite the insertion to use NodeB. Is there a way around it or am I gonna have to rewrite the whole thing?

    Read the article

  • What's the proper way to setup different objects as delegates using Interface Builder?

    - by eagle
    Let's say I create a new project. I now add two text fields to the view controller in Interface Builder. I want to respond to delegate events that the text fields create, however, I don't want to have the main view controller to act as the delegate for both text fields. Ideally I want a separate file for each text field that acts as the delegate. Each of these objects also needs to be able to interact with the main view controller. My question is how I would set this up and link everything correctly? I tried creating a new class that inherits from NSObject and implements UITextFieldDelegate. I then added an instance variable called "viewController" of the same type of my view controller and marked it with IBOutlet (this required me to add #import "myViewcontroller.h"). I then went to Interface Builder and opened up my view controller which contains the two edit boxes. I added an NSObject to the form and changed it's type to be of the new class I created. I set its viewController property to the File's Owner, and set one of the textbox's delegate properties to point to this new object I created. Now when I run the program, it crashes when I touch the text box. It gives the error EXC_BAD_ACCESS. I'm guessing I didn't link stuff correctly in IB. Some things I'm not sure about which might be the problem: Does IB automatically know to create an instance of the class just by placing the NSObject in the ViewController? Can it properly assign the viewController property to an instance of itself even though it is creating itself at the same time?

    Read the article

  • When using Data Annotations with MVC, Pro and Cons of using an interface vs. a MetadataType

    - by SkippyFire
    If you read this article on Validation with the Data Annotation Validators, it shows that you can use the MetadataType attribute to add validation attributes to properties on partial classes. You use this when working with ORMs like LINQ to SQL, Entity Framework, or Subsonic. Then you can use the "automagic" client and server side validation. It plays very nicely with MVC. However, a colleague of mine used an interface to accomplish exactly the same result. it looks almost exactly the same, and functionally accomplishes the same thing. So instead of doing this: [MetadataType(typeof(MovieMetaData))] public partial class Movie { } public class MovieMetaData { [Required] public object Title { get; set; } [Required] [StringLength(5)] public object Director { get; set; } [DisplayName("Date Released")] [Required] public object DateReleased { get; set; } } He did this: public partial class Movie :IMovie { } public interface IMovie { [Required] object Title { get; set; } [Required] [StringLength(5)] object Director { get; set; } [DisplayName("Date Released")] [Required] object DateReleased { get; set; } } So my question is, when does this difference actually matter? My thoughts are that interfaces tend to be more "reusable", and that making one for just a single class doesn't make that much sense. You could also argue that you could design your classes and interfaces in a way that allows you to use interfaces on multiple objects, but I feel like that is trying to fit your models into something else, when they should really stand on their own. What do you think?

    Read the article

  • Is there anything like Unity for simple things that don't require an interface?

    - by Dave
    Perhaps I'm misapplying Unity, but here goes. I have a couple of applications, both of which load the same plugin assemblies. All assemblies require a library, and I want them to be able to access this library via Unity. However, in order to use Unity, or any other IoC framework, I'd have to write an interface for this library. I will probably do this, but since an interface isn't really needed for anything other than to support Unity, I am afraid that this means that I am 1) missing the point, or 2) misapplying the framework. If I avoid something that offers me DI, then I'd have to make the library class a singleton, and then pass it to all of the plugin constructors, or via a public property, and I don't want to do this. That said, and without actually implementing anything with Unity yet, I'm not getting one other detail -- although Unity will let me request the library via Resolve<, my plugins will still need to have a reference to the Unity instance that is created in the main applications. So is this a case where your only option is to pass the Unity reference to all of the plugins, but then it's convenient from that point on, merely because you can use Unity to get at all of the other dependencies?

    Read the article

  • make local only daemon listening on different interface (using iptables port forwarding)?

    - by UniIsland
    i have a daemon program which listens on 127.0.0.1:8000. i need to access it when i connect to my box with vpn. so i want it to listen on the ppp0 interface too. i've tried the "ssh -L" method. it works, but i don't think it's the right way to do that, having an extra ssh process running in the background. i tried the "netcat" method. it exits when the connection is closed. so not a valid way for "listening". i also tried several iptables rules. none of them worked. i'm not listing here all the rules i've used. iptables -A FORWARD -j ACCEPT iptables -t nat -A PREROUTING -i ppp+ -p tcp --dport 8000 -j DNAT --to-destination 127.0.0.1:8000 the above ruleset doesn't work. i have net.ipv4.ip_forward set to 1. anyone knows how to redirect traffic from ppp interface to lo? say, listen on "192.168.45.1:8000 (ppp0)" as well as "127.0.0.1:8000 (lo)" there's no need to alter the port. thanx

    Read the article

  • What would be the safest way to store objects of classes derived from a common interface in a common

    - by Svenstaro
    I'd like to manage a bunch of objects of classes derived from a shared interface class in a common container. To illustrate the problem, let's say I'm building a game which will contain different actors. Let's call the interface IActor and derive Enemy and Civilian from it. Now, the idea is to have my game main loop be able to do this: // somewhere during init std::vector<IActor> ActorList; Enemy EvilGuy; Civilian CoolGuy; ActorList.push_back(EvilGuy); ActorList.push_back(CoolGuy); and // main loop while(!done) { BOOST_FOREACH(IActor CurrentActor, ActorList) { CurrentActor.Update(); CurrentActor.Draw(); } } ... or something along those lines. This example obviously won't work but that is pretty much the reason I'm asking here. I'd like to know: What would be the best, safest, highest-level way to manage those objects in a common heterogeneous container? I know about a variety of approaches (Boost::Any, void*, handler class with boost::shared_ptr, Boost.Pointer Container, dynamic_cast) but I can't decide which would be the way to go here. Also I'd like to emphasize that I want to stay away as far as possible from manual memory management or nested pointers. Help much appreciated :).

    Read the article

  • How to Implement an Interface that Requires Duplicate Member Names?

    - by Will Marcouiller
    I often have to implement some interfaces such as IEnumerable<T> in my code. Each time, when implementing automatically, I encounter the following: public IEnumerator<T> GetEnumerator() { // Code here... } public IEnumerator GetEnumerator1() { // Code here... } Though I have to implement both GetEnumerator() methods, they impossibly can have the same name, even if we understand that they do the same, somehow. The compiler can't treat them as one being the overload of the other, because only the return type differs. When doing so, I manage to set the GetEnumerator1() accessor to private. This way, the compiler doesn't complaint about not implementing the interface member, and I simply throw a NotImplementedException within the method's body. However, I wonder whether it is a good practice, or if I shall proceed differently, as perhaps a method alias or something like so. What is the best approach while implementing an interface such as IEnumerable<T> that requires the implementation of two different methods with the same name? EDIT #1 Does VB.NET reacts differently from C# while implementing interfaces, since in VB.NET it is explicitly implemented, thus forcing the GetEnumerator1(). Here's the code: Public Function GetEnumerator() As System.Collections.Generic.IEnumerator(Of T) Implements System.Collections.Generic.IEnumerable(Of T).GetEnumerator // Code here... End Function Public Function GetEnumerator1() As System.Collections.Generic.IEnumerator Implements System.Collections.Generic.IEnumerable.GetEnumerator // Code here... End Function Both GetEnumerator() methods are explicitly implemented, and the compile will refuse them to have the same name. Why?

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37  | Next Page >