Search Results

Search found 15860 results on 635 pages for 'document oriented databas'.

Page 32/635 | < Previous Page | 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39  | Next Page >

• Does OO, TDD, and Refactoring to Smaller Functions affect Speed of Code?

  - by Dennis

  In Computer Science field, I have noticed a notable shift in thinking when it comes to programming. The advice as it stands now is write smaller, more testable code refactor existing code into smaller and smaller chunks of code until most of your methods/functions are just a few lines long write functions that only do one thing (which makes them smaller again) This is a change compared to the "old" or "bad" code practices where you have methods spanning 2500 lines, and big classes doing everything. My question is this: when it call comes down to machine code, to 1s and 0s, to assembly instructions, should I be at all concerned that my class-separated code with variety of small-to-tiny functions generates too much extra overhead? While I am not exactly familiar with how OO code and function calls are handled in ASM in the end, I do have some idea. I assume that each extra function call, object call, or include call (in some languages), generate an extra set of instructions, thereby increasing code's volume and adding various overhead, without adding actual "useful" code. I also imagine that good optimizations can be done to ASM before it is actually ran on the hardware, but that optimization can only do so much too. Hence, my question -- how much overhead (in space and speed) does well-separated code (split up across hundreds of files, classes, and methods) actually introduce compared to having "one big method that contains everything", due to this overhead? UPDATE for clarity: I am assuming that adding more and more functions and more and more objects and classes in a code will result in more and more parameter passing between smaller code pieces. It was said somewhere (quote TBD) that up to 70% of all code is made up of ASM's MOV instruction - loading CPU registers with proper variables, not the actual computation being done. In my case, you load up CPU's time with PUSH/POP instructions to provide linkage and parameter passing between various pieces of code. The smaller you make your pieces of code, the more overhead "linkage" is required. I am concerned that this linkage adds to software bloat and slow-down and I am wondering if I should be concerned about this, and how much, if any at all, because current and future generations of programmers who are building software for the next century, will have to live with and consume software built using these practices. UPDATE: Multiple files I am writing new code now that is slowly replacing old code. In particular I've noted that one of the old classes was a ~3000 line file (as mentioned earlier). Now it is becoming a set of 15-20 files located across various directories, including test files and not including PHP framework I am using to bind some things together. More files are coming as well. When it comes to disk I/O, loading multiple files is slower than loading one large file. Of course not all files are loaded, they are loaded as needed, and disk caching and memory caching options exist, and yet still I believe that loading multiple files takes more processing than loading a single file into memory. I am adding that to my concern.

  Read the article

• Java desktop programmer starting to learn Android development: how different is it?

  - by Prog

  I'm a Java programmer. All of my experience is on desktop applications, using Swing for the GUI. I spend a lot of time studying OOP, I have decent understanding of OO concepts and I design and program by the OO approach. I'm thinking of starting to learn Android development soon, and I'm wondering how different it is from desktop development. Obviously the GUI libraries will be different (not Swing), but other than that, I want to know if there are significant differences. I will divide this question to two parts: Apart from the GUI libraries, am I still going to use the standard Java libarary I'm used to? Aka same data structues, same utility classes, etc.? If not, what are the main differences between the libraries I'm used to and the libraries I'll be using? How different is Android development in regard to OO design? Are all of the familiar principles, design patterns, techniques and best pratices just as valid and used? Or is OOP and OOD in Android development significantly different than OO in desktop development? To summarize: apart from GUI design, how different is Java Android development than Java desktop development?

  Read the article

• Passing class names or objects?

  - by nischayn22

  I have a switch statement switch ( $id ) { case 'abc': return 'Animal'; case 'xyz': return 'Human'; //many more } I am returning class names,and use them to call some of their static functions using call_user_func(). Instead I can also create a object of that class, return that and then call the static function from that object as $object::method($param) switch ( $id ) { case 'abc': return new Animal; case 'xyz': return new Human; //many more } Which way is efficient? To make this question broader : I have classes that have mostly all static methods right now, putting them into classes is kind of a grouping idea here (for example the DB table structure of Animal is given by class Animal and so for Human class). I need to access many functions from these classes so the switch needs to give me access to the class

  Read the article

• Best practice to collect information from child objects

  - by Markus

  I'm regularly seeing the following pattern: public abstract class BaseItem { BaseItem[] children; // ... public void DoSomethingWithStuff() { StuffCollection collection = new StuffCollection(); foreach(child c : children) c.AddRequiredStuff(collection); // do something with the collection ... } public abstract void AddRequiredStuff(StuffCollection collection); } public class ConcreteItem : BaseItem { // ... public override void AddRequiredStuff(StuffCollection collection) { Stuff stuff; // ... collection.Add(stuff); } } Where I would use something like this, for better information hiding: public abstract class BaseItem { BaseItem[] children; // ... public void DoSomethingWithStuff() { StuffCollection collection = new StuffCollection(); foreach(child c : children) collection.AddRange(c.RequiredStuff()); // do something with the collection ... } public abstract StuffCollection RequiredStuff(); } public class ConcreteItem : BaseItem { // ... public override StuffCollection RequiredStuff() { StuffCollection stuffCollection; Stuff stuff; // ... stuffCollection.Add(stuff); return stuffCollection; } } What are pros and cons of each solution? For me, giving the implementation access to parent's information is some how disconcerting. On the other hand, initializing a new list, just to collect the items is a useless overhead ... What is the better design? How would it change, if DoSomethingWithStuff wouldn't be part of BaseItem but a third class? PS: there might be missing semicolons, or typos; sorry for that! The above code is not meant to be executed, but just for illustration.

  Read the article

• best practice for initializing class members in php

  - by rgvcorley

  I have lots of code like this in my constructors:- function __construct($params) { $this->property = isset($params['property']) ? $params['property'] : default_val; } Is it better to do this rather than specify the default value in the property definition? i.e. public $property = default_val? Sometimes there is logic for the default value, and some default values are taken from other properties, which was why I was doing this in the constructor. Should I be using setters so all the logic for default values is separated?

  Read the article

• Proper library for enums

  - by Bobson

  I'm trying to refactor some code such that the display is separate from the implementation, and I'm not sure where to put the existing enums. My project is currently structured as follows: Utilities RemoteData (Depends on: Utilities) LocalData (Depends on: RemoteData, Utilities) RemoteWeb (Depends on: RemoteData, Utilities) LocalWeb (Depends on: RemoteData, LocalData, Utilities) I'm now trying to add "ViewLibrary (Depends on: Utilities)" to this list, and then adding it as a new dependency to both RemoteWeb and LocalWeb. It will contain a set of interfaces which the other two projects will implement, use to populate the view, and then consume the result. There's an enum which is currently used in all the projects except Utilities. It thus lives in the RemoteData project, because everything else depends on it. But this new ViewLibrary won't depend on either data project. So how will it know about this enum? Some options I see: Create a new project just for shared enum values. Add it to Utilities, even though it is related to data. Define it a second time in ViewLibrary, and require both RemoteWeb and LocalWeb to convert the one type into the other when they access the shared views. Add a dependency on RemoteData to the ViewLibrary, even though it's supposed to be independent of data-source. Are there any better options? Is this structure flawed to begin with?

  Read the article

• Architecture Question

  - by katie77

  I am writing a rules/eligibility Module. I have 2 sets of data, one is the customer data and the other is the customer products data. Customer data to Customer products data is one to many. Now I have to go through a set of Eligibility rules for each of this Customer product data. For each customer products data, I can say the customer is eligible for that product or decline the eligibility and should move on to the next product record. So in all the rules, I need to have access to customer and customer product data(the particular record that the rules are being executed against). Since all the rules can either approve a product or decline a product, I created an interface with those 2 methods and is implementing the this interface for all the rules. I am passing the Customer data and one product data for all the rules (because rules should be executed on each row of customer product data). An Ideal situation would be having the customer and customer product data available for the rule instead of passing them to each rule. What is the best way of doing this in-terms of architecture?

  Read the article

• Get and set accessors do they protect different instances of a variable?

  - by Chris Halcrow

  The standard method of implementing get and set accessors in C# and VB.NET is to use a public property to set and retrieve the value of a corresponding private variable. Am I right in saying that this has no effect of different instances of a variable? By this I mean, if there are different instantiations of an object, then those instances and their properties are completely independent right? So I think my understanding is correct that setting a private variable is just a construct to be able to implement the get and set pattern? Never been 100% sure about this.

  Read the article

• How to implement isValid correctly?

  - by Songo

  I'm trying to provide a mechanism for validating my object like this: class SomeObject { private $_inputString; private $_errors=array(); public function __construct($inputString) { $this->_inputString = $inputString; } public function getErrors() { return $this->_errors; } public function isValid() { $isValid = preg_match("/Some regular expression here/", $this->_inputString); if($isValid==0){ $this->_errors[]= 'Error was found in the input'; } return $isValid==1; } } Then when I'm testing my code I'm doing it like this: $obj = new SomeObject('an INVALID input string'); $isValid = $obj->isValid(); $errors=$obj->getErrors(); $this->assertFalse($isValid); $this->assertNotEmpty($errors); Now the test passes correctly, but I noticed a design problem here. What if the user called $obj->getErrors() before calling $obj->isValid()? The test will fail because the user has to validate the object first before checking the error resulting from validation. I think this way the user depends on a sequence of action to work properly which I think is a bad thing because it exposes the internal behaviour of the class. How do I solve this problem? Should I tell the user explicitly to validate first? Where do I mention that? Should I change the way I validate? Is there a better solution for this? UPDATE: I'm still developing the class so changes are easy and renaming functions and refactoring them is possible.

  Read the article

• what's a good approach to working with multiple databases?

  - by Riz

  I'm working on a project that has its own database call it InternalDb, but also it queries two other databases, call them ExternalDb1 and ExternalDb2. Both ExternalDb1 and ExternalDb2 are actually required by a few other projects. I'm wondering what the best approach for dealing with this is? Currently, I've just created a project for each of these external databases and then generated Edmx and entities using the entity-framework approach. My thought was that I could then include these projects in any of my solutions that require access to these databases. Also, I don't have any separate business layers. I just have a solution like below: Project.Domain ExternalDb1Project.Domain ExternalDb2Project.Domain Project.Web So my Domain projects contain the data access as well as the POCOs generated by Entity Framework and any business logic. But I'm not sure if this is a good approach. For example if I want to do Validation in my Project.Domain on the entities in the InternalDb, it's fine. But if I want to do Validation for entities from either of the ExternalDbs, then I wonder where it should go? To be more specific, I retrieve Employees from ExternalDb1Project.Domain. However, I want to make sure they are Active. Where should this Validation go? How to architect a project like this at a high level? Also, I want to make sure that I use IoC for my data contexts so I can create Fakes when writing tests. I wonder where the interfaces for these various data contexts would reside?

  Read the article

• Object desing problem for simple school application

  - by Aragornx

  I want to create simple school application that provides grades,notes,presence,etc. for students,teachers and parents. I'm trying to design objects for this problem and I'm little bit confused - because I'm not very experienced in class designing. Some of my present objects are : class PersonalData() { private String name; private String surename; private Calendar dateOfBirth; [...] } class Person { private PersonalData personalData; } class User extends Person { private String login; private char[] password; } class Student extends Person { private ArrayList<Counselor> counselors = new ArrayList<>(); } class Counselor extends Person { private ArrayList<Student> children = new ArrayList<>(); } class Teacher extends Person { private ArrayList<ChoolClass> schoolClasses = new ArrayList<>(); private ArrayList<Subject> subjects = new ArrayList<>(); } This is of course a general idea. But I'm sure it's not the best way. For example I want that one person could be a Teacher and also a Parent(Counselor) and present approach makes me to have two Person objects. I want that user after successful logging in get all roles that it has (Student or Teacher or (Teacher & Parent) ). I think I should make and use some interfaces but I'm not sure how to do this right. Maybe like this: interface Role { } interface TeacherRole implements Role { void addGrade( Student student, Grade grade, [...] ); } class Teacher implements TeacherRole { private Person person; [...] } class User extends Person{ ArrayList<Role> roles = new ArrayList<>(); } Please if anyone could help me to make this right or maybe just point me to some literature/article that covers practical objects design.

  Read the article

• Too complex/too many objects?

  - by Mike Fairhurst

  I know that this will be a difficult question to answer without context, but hopefully there are at least some good guidelines to share on this. The questions are at the bottom if you want to skip the details. Most are about OOP in general. Begin context. I am a jr dev on a PHP application, and in general the devs I work with consider themselves to use many more OO concepts than most PHP devs. Still, in my research on clean code I have read about so many ways of using OO features to make code flexible, powerful, expressive, testable, etc. that is just plain not in use here. The current strongly OO API that I've proposed is being called too complex, even though it is trivial to implement. The problem I'm solving is that our permission checks are done via a message object (my API, they wanted to use arrays of constants) and the message object does not hold the validation object accountable for checking all provided data. Metaphorically, if your perm containing 'allowable' and 'rare but disallowed' is sent into a validator, the validator may not know to look for 'rare but disallowed', but approve 'allowable', which will actually approve the whole perm check. We have like 11 validators, too many to easily track at such minute detail. So I proposed an AtomicPermission class. To fix the previous example, the perm would instead contain two atomic permissions, one wrapping 'allowable' and the other wrapping 'rare but disallowed'. Where previously the validator would say 'the check is OK because it contains allowable,' now it would instead say '"allowable" is ok', at which point the check ends...and the check fails, because 'rare but disallowed' was not specifically okay-ed. The implementation is just 4 trivial objects, and rewriting a 10 line function into a 15 line function. abstract class PermissionAtom { public function allow(); // maybe deny() as well public function wasAllowed(); } class PermissionField extends PermissionAtom { public function getName(); public function getValue(); } class PermissionIdentifier extends PermissionAtom { public function getIdentifier(); } class PermissionAction extends PermissionAtom { public function getType(); } They say that this is 'not going to get us anything important' and it is 'too complex' and 'will be difficult for new developers to pick up.' I respectfully disagree, and there I end my context to begin the broader questions. So the question is about my OOP, are there any guidelines I should know: is this too complicated/too much OOP? Not that I expect to get more than 'it depends, I'd have to see if...' when is OO abstraction too much? when is OO abstraction too little? how can I determine when I am overthinking a problem vs fixing one? how can I determine when I am adding bad code to a bad project? how can I pitch these APIs? I feel the other devs would just rather say 'its too complicated' than ask 'can you explain it?' whenever I suggest a new class.

  Read the article

• PHP I am pulling my hair out trying to find the best! [closed]

  - by darga33

  PULLING MY HAIR OUT I have heard of Martin Fowler's book PoEAA and the other book Head First OOA OOD but those are not in PHP. I DESPERATELY WANT TO READ THEM, but ONLY in PHP utilizing SOLID principles! Does anyone know of the absolute best, most recent PHP book that utilizes the SOLID principles and GRASP, and all the other best practices? I want to learn from the best possible source! Not beginner books! I already understand OOP. This seems like an almost impossible question to find the answer to and so I thought, hey, might as well post on stackexchange!! Surely someone out there must know!!!!!!!!!! Or if noone knows Maybe they know of an open source application that utilizes these principles that is relatively small that is not a framework. Something that I can go through every single class, and spend time understanding the insides and outs of how the program was developed. Thanks so much in advance! I really really really really appreciate it!

  Read the article

• Should I always encapsulate an internal data structure entirely?

  - by Prog

  Please consider this class: class ClassA{ private Thing[] things; // stores data // stuff omitted public Thing[] getThings(){ return things; } } This class exposes the array it uses to store data, to any client code interested. I did this in an app I'm working on. I had a ChordProgression class that stores a sequence of Chords (and does some other things). It had a Chord[] getChords() method that returned the array of chords. When the data structure had to change (from an array to an ArrayList), all client code broke. This made me think - maybe the following approach is better: class ClassA{ private Thing[] things; // stores data // stuff omitted public Thing[] getThing(int index){ return things[index]; } public int getDataSize(){ return things.length; } public void setThing(int index, Thing thing){ things[index] = thing; } } Instead of exposing the data structure itself, all of the operations offered by the data structure are now offered directly by the class enclosing it, using public methods that delegate to the data structure. When the data structure changes, only these methods have to change - but after they do, all client code still works. Note that collections more complex than arrays might require the enclosing class to implement even more than three methods just to access the internal data structure. Is this approach common? What do you think of this? What downsides does it have other? Is it reasonable to have the enclosing class implement at least three public methods just to delegate to the inner data structure?

  Read the article

• How to model an address type in DDD?

  - by Songo

  I have an User entity that has a Set of Address where Address is a value object: class User{ ... private Set<Address> addresses; ... public setAddresses(Set<Address> addresses){ //set all addresses as a batch } ... } A User can have a home address and a work address, so I should have something that acts as a look up in the database: tbl_address_type ------------------------------------------------ | address_type_id | address_type | ------------------------------------------------ | 1 | work | ------------------------------------------------ | 2 | home | ------------------------------------------------ and correspondingly tbl_address ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | address_id | address_description |address_type_id| user_id | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | 1 | 123 main street | 1 | 100 | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | 2 | 456 another street | 1 | 100 | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | 3 | 789 long street | 2 | 200 | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | 4 | 023 short street | 2 | 200 | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Should the address type be modeled as an Entity or Value type? and Why? Is it OK for the Address Value object to hold a reference to the Entity AdressType (in case it was modeled as an entity)? Is this something feasible using Hibernate/NHibernate? If a user can change his home address, should I expose a User.updateHomeAddress(Address homeAddress) function on the User entity itself? How can I enforce that the client passes a Home address and not a work address in this case? (a sample implementation is most welcomed) If I want to get the User's home address via User.getHomeAddress() function, must I load the whole addresses array then loop it and check each for its type till I found the correct type then return it? Is there a more efficient way than this?

  Read the article

• Override methods should call base method?

  - by Trevor Pilley

  I'm just running NDepend against some code that I have written and one of the warnings is Overrides of Method() should call base.Method(). The places this occurs are where I have a base class which has virtual properties and methods with default behaviour but which can be overridden by a class which inherits from the base class and doesn't call the overridden method. For example, in the base class I have a property defined like this: protected virtual char CloseQuote { get { return '"'; } } And then in an inheriting class which uses a different close quote: protected override char CloseQuote { get { return ']'; } } Not all classes which inherit from the base class use different quote characters hence my initial design. The alternatives I thought of were have get/set properties in the base class with the defaults set in the constructor: protected BaseClass() { this.CloseQuote = '"'; } protected char CloseQuote { get; set; } public InheritingClass() { this.CloseQuote = ']'; } Or make the base class require the values as constructor args: protected BaseClass(char closeQuote, ...) { this.CloseQuote = '"'; } protected char CloseQuote { get; private set; } public InheritingClass() base (closeQuote: ']', ...) { } Should I use virtual in a scenario where the base implementation may be replaced instead of extended or should I opt for one of the alternatives I thought of? If so, which would be preferable and why?

  Read the article

• REST API wrapper - class design for 'lite' object responses

  - by sasfrog

  I am writing a class library to serve as a managed .NET wrapper over a REST API. I'm very new to OOP, and this task is an ideal opportunity for me to learn some OOP concepts in a real-life situation that makes sense to me. Some of the key resources/objects that the API returns are returned with different levels of detail depending on whether the request is for a single instance, a list, or part of a "search all resources" response. This is obviously a good design for the REST API itself, so that full objects aren't returned (thus increasing the size of the response and therefore the time taken to respond) unless they're needed. So, to be clear: .../car/1234.json returns the full Car object for 1234, all its properties like colour, make, model, year, engine_size, etc. Let's call this full. .../cars.json returns a list of Car objects, but only with a subset of the properties returned by .../car/1234.json. Let's call this lite. ...search.json returns, among other things, a list of car objects, but with minimal properties (only ID, make and model). Let's call this lite-lite. I want to know what the pros and cons of each of the following possible designs are, and whether there is a better design that I haven't covered: Create a Car class that models the lite-lite properties, and then have each of the more detailed responses inherit and extend this class. Create separate CarFull, CarLite and CarLiteLite classes corresponding to each of the responses. Create a single Car class that contains (nullable?) properties for the full response, and create constructors for each of the responses which populate it to the extent possible (and maybe include a property that returns the response type from which the instance was created). I expect among other things there will be use cases for consumers of the wrapper where they will want to iterate through lists of Cars, regardless of which response type they were created from, such that the three response types can contribute to the same list. Happy to be pointed to good resources on this sort of thing, and/or even told the name of the concept I'm describing so I can better target my research.

  Read the article

• Help with design structure choice: Using classes or library of functions

  - by roverred

  So I have GUI Class that will call another class called ImageProcessor that contains a bunch functions that will perform image processing algorithms like edgeDetection, gaussianblur, contourfinding, contour map generations, etc. The GUI passes an image to ImageProcessor, which performs one of those algorithm on it and it returns the image back to the GUI to display. So essentially ImageProcessor is a library of independent image processing functions right now. It is called in the GUI like so Image image = ImageProcessor.EdgeDetection(oldImage); Some of the algorithms procedures require many functions, and some can be done in a single function or even one line. All these functions for the algorithms jam packed into ImageProcessor can be pretty messy, and ImageProcessor doesn't sound it should be a library. So I was thinking about making every algorithm be a class with a shared interface say IAlgorithm. Then I pass the IAlgorithm interface from the GUI to the ImageProcessor. public interface IAlgorithm{ public Image Process(); } public class ImageProcessor{ public Image Process(IAlgorithm TheAlgorithm){ return IAlgorithm.Process(); } } Calling in the GUI like so Image image = ImageProcessor.Process(new EdgeDetection(oldImage)); I think it makes sense in an object point of view, but the problem is I'll end up with some classes that are just one function. What do you think is a better design, or are they both crap and you have a much better idea? Thanks!

  Read the article

• What is the correct way to implement Auth/ACL in MVC?

  - by WiseStrawberry

  I am looking into making a correctly laid out MVC Auth/ACL system. I think I want the authentication of a user (and the session handling) to be separate from the ACL system. (I don't know why but this seems a good idea from the things I've read.) What does MVC have to do with this question you ask? Because I wish for the application to be well integrated with my ACL. An example of a controller (CodeIgniter): <?php class forums extends MX_Controller { $allowed = array('users', 'admin'); $need_login = true; function __construct() { //example of checking if logged in. if($this->auth->logged_in() && $this->auth->is_admin()) { echo "you're logged in!"; } } public function add_topic() { if($this->auth->allowed('add_topic') { //some add topic things. } else { echo 'not allowed to add topic'; } } } ?> My thoughts $this->auth would be autoloaded in the system. I would like to check the $allowed array against the user currently (not) logged in and react accordingly. Is this a good way of doing things? I haven't seen much literature on MVC integration and Auth. I want to make things as easy as possible.

  Read the article

• Combinatorial explosion of interfaces: How many is too many?

  - by mga

  I'm a relative newcomer to OOP, and I'm having a bit of trouble creating good designs when it comes to interfaces. Consider a class A with N public methods. There are a number of other classes, B, C, ..., each of which interacts with A in a different way, that is, accesses some subset (<= N) of A's methods. The maximum degree of encapsulation is achieved by implementing an interface of A for each other class, i.e. AInterfaceForB, AInterfaceForC, etc. However, if B, C, ... etc. also interact with A and with each other, then there will be a combinatorial explosion of interfaces (a maximum of n(n-1), to be precise), and the benefit of encapsulation becomes outweighed by a code-bloat. What is the best practice in this scenario? Is the whole idea of restricting access to a class's public functions in different ways for other different classes just silly altogether? One could imagine a language that explicitly allows for this sort of encapsulation (e.g. instead of declaring a function public, one could specify exactly which classes it is visible to); Since this is not a feature of C++, maybe it's misguided to try to do it through the back door with interaces?

  Read the article

• Placing advice on any parameter of a given type in AspectJ

  - by user12558

  Hi, Im doing a POC using Aspectj. class BaseInfo{..} class UserInfo extends BaseInfo{..} class UserService { public void getUser(UserInfo userInfo){..} public void deleteUser(String userId){..} } I've defined an advice, that gets invoked when I pass an UserInfo instance.But when i try to pass the BaseInfo, the advice is not getting invoked. Below block executes the afterMethod as expected for getUser. &ltaop:pointcut id="aopafterMethod" expression="execution(* UserService.*(..,UserInfo,..))" / &gtaop:after pointcut-ref="aopafterMethod" method="afterMethod" / But when i try to give BaseInfo instead of UserInfo, the aspect is not getting triggered. Am i missing something? Kindly help me on this issue.

  Read the article

• DB Object passing between classes singleton, static or other?

  - by Stephen

  So I'm designing a reporting system at work it's my first project written OOP and I'm stuck on the design choice for the DB class. Obviously I only want to create one instance of the DB class per-session/user and then pass it to each of the classes that need it. What I don't know it what's best practice for implementing this. Currently I have code like the following:- class db { private $user = 'USER'; private $pass = 'PASS'; private $tables = array( 'user','report', 'etc...'); function __construct(){ //SET UP CONNECTION AND TABLES } }; class report{ function __construct ($params = array(), $db, $user) { //Error checking/handling trimed //$db is the database object we created $this->db = $db; //$this->user is the user object for the logged in user $this->user = $user; $this->reportCreate(); } public function setPermission($permissionId = 1) { //Note the $this->db is this the best practise solution? $this->db->permission->find($permissionId) //Note the $this->user is this the best practise solution? $this->user->checkPermission(1) $data=array(); $this->db->reportpermission->insert($data) } };//end report I've been reading about using static classes and have just come across Singletons (though these appear to be passé already?) so what's current best practice for doing this?

  Read the article

• Should interface only be used for behavior and not to show logical data grouped together?

  - by jags

  Should an interface only be used to specify certain behavior? Would it be wrong to use interface to group logically related data? To me it looks like we should not use interface to group logically related data as structure seems a better fit. A class may be used but class name should indicate something like DTO so that user gets the impression that class does not have any behavior. Please let me know if my assumption is correct. Also, are there any exceptions where interface can be used to group logically related data?

  Read the article

• Implenting ActiveRecord with inheritance?

  - by King

  I recently converted an old application that was using XML files as the data store to use SQL instead. To avoid a lot of changes I basically created ActiveRecord style classes that inherited from the original business objects. For example SomeClassRecord :SomeClass //ID Property //Save method I then used this new class in place of the other one, because of polymorphism I didn't need to change any methods that took SomeClass as a parameter. Would this be considered 'Bad'? What would be a better alternative?

  Read the article

• Is there an alternative to the term "calling object"?

  - by ybakos

  Let's suppose you've got a class defined (in pseudocode): class Puppy { // ... string sound = "Rawr!"; void bark() { print(sound); } } And say, given a Puppy instance, you call it's bark() method: Puppy p; p.bark(); Notice how bark() uses the member variable sound. In many contexts, I've seen folks describe sound as the member variable of the "calling object." My question is, what's a better term to use than "calling object?" To me, the object is not doing any calling. We know that member functions are in a way just functions with an implicit this or self parameter. I've come up with "receiving object," or "message recipient," which makes sense if you're down with the "messaging" paradigm. Do any of you happy hackers have a term that you like to use? I feel it should mean "the object upon which a method is called" and TOUWAMIC just doesn't cut it.

  Read the article

< Previous Page | 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39  | Next Page >