Search Results

Search found 55521 results on 2221 pages for 'class design'.

Page 33/2221 | < Previous Page | 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40  | Next Page >

  • Python overriding class (not instance) special methods

    - by André
    How do I override a class special method? I want to be able to call the __str__() method of the class without creating an instance. Example: class Foo: def __str__(self): return 'Bar' class StaticFoo: @staticmethod def __str__(): return 'StaticBar' class ClassFoo: @classmethod def __str__(cls): return 'ClassBar' if __name__ == '__main__': print(Foo) print(Foo()) print(StaticFoo) print(StaticFoo()) print(ClassFoo) print(ClassFoo()) produces: <class '__main__.Foo'> Bar <class '__main__.StaticFoo'> StaticBar <class '__main__.ClassFoo'> ClassBar should be: Bar Bar StaticBar StaticBar ClassBar ClassBar Even if I use the @staticmethod or @classmethod the __str__ is still using the built in python definition for __str__. It's only working when it's Foo().__str__() instead of Foo.__str__().

    Read the article

  • Flash AS3 - Dispatching Events from Parent Class to Child Class

    - by John Russell
    I think this is a pretty simply problem but I do not seem to be able to pull it off. Basically I have a parent class A, and a child class B. Class A instantiates class B with addChild. There is a shared object which is being updated from a java server (red5) that has an event listener attached to it in class A. I have a function in class A which will pass certain, specific updates from this shared object to class B. The problem occurs is that when class B is instantiated, the event listener from class A doesn't work anymore. I have not removed the event listener from A. Any thoughts?

    Read the article

  • Documenting a policy based design

    - by academicRobot
    I'm re-working some prototype code into a policy based design in C++, and I'm wondering what the best practice is for documenting the design. My current plan is to document: Policy hierarchy Overview of each policy Description of each type/value/function in each policy I was thinking of putting this into a doxygen module, but this looks like it will be a bit awkward since formatting will have to be done by hand without code to base the doc on (that is, documenting the policies rather than the implementation of the policies). So my questions are: Are there other aspects of the design that should be documented? Are there any tricks to doing this efficiently in doxygen? Is there a tool other than doxygen thats better suited to this? What are some examples of well documented policy based design? This is my first serious attempt at policy based design. I think I have a working grasp of the principles, but whatever naivety I expose in this question is fair game for an answer too.

    Read the article

  • Override bits of a CSS class while inline?

    - by larryq
    I have an html img that is being styled by a CSS class. I would like to override the width and height values used in that class under some circumstances. I'm building this img tag using something called a TagBuilder class, provided by Microsoft for the .Net system, which allows developers to assign attributes to an html element. In this case a CSS class has been assigned to the img tag, and I can assign width and height attributes individually, but they're not taking precedence over the values set in the CSS class. My tag looks like this currently: <img alt="my link" class="static" height="240" id="StaticImage" src="http://imageserver.com/myImage.jpg" width="240"> The static CSS class has width and height values of 300 each, and as you can see I'm trying to override them with 240. It's not working in this instance but can I do it without a second CSS class?

    Read the article

  • python class attribute

    - by chnet
    Hi, i have a question about class attribute in python. class base : def __init__ (self): pass derived_val = 1 t1 = base() t2 = base () t2.derived_val +=1 t2.__class__.derived_val +=2 print t2.derived_val # its value is 2 print t2.__class__.derived_val # its value is 3 The results are different. I also use id() function to find t2.derived_val and t2.class.derived_val have different memory address. My problem is derived_val is class attribute. Why it is different in above example? Is it because the instance of class copy its own derived_val beside the class attribute?

    Read the article

  • Analysis and Design for Functional Programming

    - by edalorzo
    How do you deal with analysis and design phases when you plan to develop a system using a functional programming language like Haskell? My background is in imperative/object-oriented programming languages, and therefore, I am used to use case analysis and the use of UML to document the design of program. But the thing is that UML is inherently related to the object-oriented way of doing software. And I am intrigued about what would be the best way to develop documentation and define software designs for a system that is going to be developed using functional programming. Would you still use use case analysis or perhaps structured analysis and design instead? How do software architects define the high-level design of the system so that developers follow it? What do you show to you clients or to new developers when you are supposed to present a design of the solution? How do you document a picture of the whole thing without having first to write it all? Is there anything comparable to UML in the functional world?

    Read the article

  • Python Class inherit from all submodules

    - by Dhruv Govil
    I'm currently writing a wrapper in python for a lot of custom company tools. I'm basically going to break each tool into its own py file with a class containing the call to the tool as a method. These will all be contained in a package. Then there'll be a master class that will import all from the package, then inherit from each and every class, so as to appear as one cohesive class. masterClass.py pyPackage - __ init__.py - module1.py --class Module1 ---method tool1 - module2.py --class Module2 ---method tool2 etc Right now, I'm autogenerating the master class file to inherit from the packages modules, but I was wondering if there was a more elegant way to do it? ie from package import * class MasterClass(package.all): pass

    Read the article

  • Flow-Design Cheat Sheet &ndash; Part I, Notation

    - by Ralf Westphal
    You want to avoid the pitfalls of object oriented design? Then this is the right place to start. Use Flow-Oriented Analysis (FOA) and –Design (FOD or just FD for Flow-Design) to understand a problem domain and design a software solution. Flow-Orientation as described here is related to Flow-Based Programming, Event-Based Programming, Business Process Modelling, and even Event-Driven Architectures. But even though “thinking in flows” is not new, I found it helpful to deviate from those precursors for several reasons. Some aim at too big systems for the average programmer, some are concerned with only asynchronous processing, some are even not very much concerned with programming at all. What I was looking for was a design method to help in software projects of any size, be they large or tiny, involing synchronous or asynchronous processing, being local or distributed, running on the web or on the desktop or on a smartphone. That´s why I took ideas from all of the above sources and some additional and came up with Event-Based Components which later got repositioned and renamed to Flow-Design. In the meantime this has generated some discussion (in the German developer community) and several teams have started to work with Flow-Design. Also I´ve conducted quite some trainings using Flow-Orientation for design. The results are very promising. Developers find it much easier to design software using Flow-Orientation than OOAD-based object orientation. Since Flow-Orientation is moving fast and is not covered completely by a single source like a book, demand has increased for at least an overview of the current state of its notation. This page is trying to answer this demand by briefly introducing/describing every notational element as well as their translation into C# source code. Take this as a cheat sheet to put next to your whiteboard when designing software. However, please do not expect any explanation as to the reasons behind Flow-Design elements. Details on why Flow-Design at all and why in this specific way you´ll find in the literature covering the topic. Here´s a resource page on Flow-Design/Event-Based Components, if you´re able to read German. Notation Connected Functional Units The basic element of any FOD are functional units (FU): Think of FUs as some kind of software code block processing data. For the moment forget about classes, methods, “components”, assemblies or whatever. See a FU as an abstract piece of code. Software then consists of just collaborating FUs. I´m using circles/ellipses to draw FUs. But if you like, use rectangles. Whatever suites your whiteboard needs best.   The purpose of FUs is to process input and produce output. FUs are transformational. However, FUs are not called and do not call other FUs. There is no dependency between FUs. Data just flows into a FU (input) and out of it (output). From where and where to is of no concern to a FU.   This way FUs can be concatenated in arbitrary ways:   Each FU can accept input from many sources and produce output for many sinks:   Flows Connected FUs form a flow with a start and an end. Data is entering a flow at a source, and it´s leaving it through a sink. Think of sources and sinks as special FUs which conntect wires to the environment of a network of FUs.   Wiring Details Data is flowing into/out of FUs through wires. This is to allude to electrical engineering which since long has been working with composable parts. Wires are attached to FUs usings pins. They are the entry/exit points for the data flowing along the wires. Input-/output pins currently need not be drawn explicitly. This is to keep designing on a whiteboard simple and quick.   Data flowing is of some type, so wires have a type attached to them. And pins have names. If there is only one input pin and output pin on a FU, though, you don´t need to mention them. The default is Process for a single input pin, and Result for a single output pin. But you´re free to give even single pins different names.   There is a shortcut in use to address a certain pin on a destination FU:   The type of the wire is put in parantheses for two reasons. 1. This way a “no-type” wire can be easily denoted, 2. this is a natural way to describe tuples of data.   To describe how much data is flowing, a star can be put next to the wire type:   Nesting – Boards and Parts If more than 5 to 10 FUs need to be put in a flow a FD starts to become hard to understand. To keep diagrams clutter free they can be nested. You can turn any FU into a flow: This leads to Flow-Designs with different levels of abstraction. A in the above illustration is a high level functional unit, A.1 and A.2 are lower level functional units. One of the purposes of Flow-Design is to be able to describe systems on different levels of abstraction and thus make it easier to understand them. Humans use abstraction/decomposition to get a grip on complexity. Flow-Design strives to support this and make levels of abstraction first class citizens for programming. You can read the above illustration like this: Functional units A.1 and A.2 detail what A is supposed to do. The whole of A´s responsibility is decomposed into smaller responsibilities A.1 and A.2. FU A thus does not do anything itself anymore! All A is responsible for is actually accomplished by the collaboration between A.1 and A.2. Since A now is not doing anything anymore except containing A.1 and A.2 functional units are devided into two categories: boards and parts. Boards are just containing other functional units; their sole responsibility is to wire them up. A is a board. Boards thus depend on the functional units nested within them. This dependency is not of a functional nature, though. Boards are not dependent on services provided by nested functional units. They are just concerned with their interface to be able to plug them together. Parts are the workhorses of flows. They contain the real domain logic. They actually transform input into output. However, they do not depend on other functional units. Please note the usage of source and sink in boards. They correspond to input-pins and output-pins of the board.   Implicit Dependencies Nesting functional units leads to a dependency tree. Boards depend on nested functional units, they are the inner nodes of the tree. Parts are independent, they are the leafs: Even though dependencies are the bane of software development, Flow-Design does not usually draw these dependencies. They are implicitly created by visually nesting functional units. And they are harmless. Boards are so simple in their functionality, they are little affected by changes in functional units they are depending on. But functional units are implicitly dependent on more than nested functional units. They are also dependent on the data types of the wires attached to them: This is also natural and thus does not need to be made explicit. And it pertains mainly to parts being dependent. Since boards don´t do anything with regard to a problem domain, they don´t care much about data types. Their infrastructural purpose just needs types of input/output-pins to match.   Explicit Dependencies You could say, Flow-Orientation is about tackling complexity at its root cause: that´s dependencies. “Natural” dependencies are depicted naturally, i.e. implicitly. And whereever possible dependencies are not even created. Functional units don´t know their collaborators within a flow. This is core to Flow-Orientation. That makes for high composability of functional units. A part is as independent of other functional units as a motor is from the rest of the car. And a board is as dependend on nested functional units as a motor is on a spark plug or a crank shaft. With Flow-Design software development moves closer to how hardware is constructed. Implicit dependencies are not enough, though. Sometimes explicit dependencies make designs easier – as counterintuitive this might sound. So FD notation needs a ways to denote explicit dependencies: Data flows along wires. But data does not flow along dependency relations. Instead dependency relations represent service calls. Functional unit C is depending on/calling services on functional unit S. If you want to be more specific, name the services next to the dependency relation: Although you should try to stay clear of explicit dependencies, they are fundamentally ok. See them as a way to add another dimension to a flow. Usually the functionality of the independent FU (“Customer repository” above) is orthogonal to the domain of the flow it is referenced by. If you like emphasize this by using different shapes for dependent and independent FUs like above. Such dependencies can be used to link in resources like databases or shared in-memory state. FUs can not only produce output but also can have side effects. A common pattern for using such explizit dependencies is to hook a GUI into a flow as the source and/or the sink of data: Which can be shortened to: Treat FUs others depend on as boards (with a special non-FD API the dependent part is connected to), but do not embed them in a flow in the diagram they are depended upon.   Attributes of Functional Units Creation and usage of functional units can be modified with attributes. So far the following have shown to be helpful: Singleton: FUs are by default multitons. FUs in the same of different flows with the same name refer to the same functionality, but to different instances. Think of functional units as objects that get instanciated anew whereever they appear in a design. Sometimes though it´s helpful to reuse the same instance of a functional unit; this is always due to valuable state it holds. Signify this by annotating the FU with a “(S)”. Multiton: FUs on which others depend are singletons by default. This is, because they usually are introduced where shared state comes into play. If you want to change them to be a singletons mark them with a “(M)”. Configurable: Some parts need to be configured before the can do they work in a flow. Annotate them with a “(C)” to have them initialized before any data items to be processed by them arrive. Do not assume any order in which FUs are configured. How such configuration is happening is an implementation detail. Entry point: In each design there needs to be a single part where “it all starts”. That´s the entry point for all processing. It´s like Program.Main() in C# programs. Mark the entry point part with an “(E)”. Quite often this will be the GUI part. How the entry point is started is an implementation detail. Just consider it the first FU to start do its job.   Patterns / Standard Parts If more than a single wire is attached to an output-pin that´s called a split (or fork). The same data is flowing on all of the wires. Remember: Flow-Designs are synchronous by default. So a split does not mean data is processed in parallel afterwards. Processing still happens synchronously and thus one branch after another. Do not assume any specific order of the processing on the different branches after the split.   It is common to do a split and let only parts of the original data flow on through the branches. This effectively means a map is needed after a split. This map can be implicit or explicit.   Although FUs can have multiple input-pins it is preferrable in most cases to combine input data from different branches using an explicit join: The default output of a join is a tuple of its input values. The default behavior of a join is to output a value whenever a new input is received. However, to produce its first output a join needs an input for all its input-pins. Other join behaviors can be: reset all inputs after an output only produce output if data arrives on certain input-pins

    Read the article

  • cast operator to base class within a thin wrapper derived class

    - by miked
    I have a derived class that's a very thin wrapper around a base class. Basically, I have a class that has two ways that it can be compared depending on how you interpret it so I created a new class that derives from the base class and only has new constructors (that just delegate to the base class) and a new operator==. What I'd like to do is overload the operator Base&() in the Derived class so in cases where I need to interpret it as the Base. For example: class Base { Base(stuff); Base(const Base& that); bool operator==(Base& rhs); //typical equality test }; class Derived : public Base { Derived(stuff) : Base(stuff) {}; Derived(const Base& that) : Base(that) {}; Derived(const Derived& that) : Base(that) {}; bool operator==(Derived& rhs); //special case equality test operator Base&() { return (Base&)*this; //Is this OK? It seems wrong to me. } }; If you want a simple example of what I'm trying to do, pretend I had a String class and String==String is the typical character by character comparison. But I created a new class CaseInsensitiveString that did a case insensitive compare on CaseInsensitiveString==CaseInsensitiveString but in all other cases just behaved like a String. it doesn't even have any new data members, just an overloaded operator==. (Please, don't tell me to use std::string, this is just an example!) Am I going about this right? Something seems fishy, but I can't put my finger on it.

    Read the article

  • Getting the name of a child class in the parent class (static context)

    - by Benoit Myard
    Hi everybody, I'm building an ORM library with reuse and simplicity in mind; everything goes fine except that I got stuck by a stupid inheritance limitation. Please consider the code below: class BaseModel { /* * Return an instance of a Model from the database. */ static public function get (/* varargs */) { // 1. Notice we want an instance of User $class = get_class(parent); // value: bool(false) $class = get_class(self); // value: bool(false) $class = get_class(); // value: string(9) "BaseModel" $class = __CLASS__; // value: string(9) "BaseModel" // 2. Query the database with id $row = get_row_from_db_as_array(func_get_args()); // 3. Return the filled instance $obj = new $class(); $obj->data = $row; return $obj; } } class User extends BaseModel { protected $table = 'users'; protected $fields = array('id', 'name'); protected $primary_keys = array('id'); } class Section extends BaseModel { // [...] } $my_user = User::get(3); $my_user->name = 'Jean'; $other_user = User::get(24); $other_user->name = 'Paul'; $my_user->save(); $other_user->save(); $my_section = Section::get('apropos'); $my_section->delete(); Obviously, this is not the behavior I was expecting (although the actual behavior also makes sense).. So my question is if you guys know of a mean to get, in the parent class, the name of child class.

    Read the article

  • Class initialization and synchronized class method

    - by nybon
    Hi there, In my application, there is a class like below: public class Client { public synchronized static print() { System.out.println("hello"); } static { doSomething(); // which will take some time to complete } } This class will be used in a multi thread environment, many threads may call the Client.print() method simultaneously. I wonder if there is any chance that thread-1 triggers the class initialization, and before the class initialization complete, thread-2 enters into print method and print out the "hello" string? I see this behavior in a production system (64 bit JVM + Windows 2008R2), however, I cannot reproduce this behavior with a simple program in any environments. In Java language spec, section 12.4.1 (http://java.sun.com/docs/books/jls/second_edition/html/execution.doc.html), it says: A class or interface type T will be initialized immediately before the first occurrence of any one of the following: T is a class and an instance of T is created. T is a class and a static method declared by T is invoked. A static field declared by T is assigned. A static field declared by T is used and the reference to the field is not a compile-time constant (§15.28). References to compile-time constants must be resolved at compile time to a copy of the compile-time constant value, so uses of such a field never cause initialization. According to this paragraph, the class initialization will take place before the invocation of the static method, however, it is not clear if the class initialization need to be completed before the invocation of the static method. JVM should mandate the completion of class initialization before entering its static method according to my intuition, and some of my experiment supports my guess. However, I did see the opposite behavior in another environment. Can someone shed me some light on this? Any help is appreciated, thanks.

    Read the article

  • Oracle Launches Mobile Applications User Experience Design Patterns

    - by ultan o'broin
    OK, you heard Joe Huang (@JoeHuang_Oracle) Product Manager for Oracle Application Development Framework (ADF) Mobile. If you're an ADF developer, or a Java (yeah, Java in iOS) developer, well now you're a mobile developer as well. And, using the newly launched Applications User Experience (UX) team's Mobile UX Design Patterns, you're a UX developer rockstar too, offering users so much more than just cool functionality. Mobile Design Pattern for Inline Actions Mobile design requires a different way of thinking. Use Oracle’s mobile design patterns to design iPhone, Android, or browser-based smartphone apps. Oracle's sharing these cutting edge mobile design patterns and their baked-in, scientifically proven usability to enable Oracle customers and partners to build mobile apps quickly. The design patterns are common solutions that developers can easily apply across all application suites. Crafted by the UX team's insight into Oracle Fusion Middleware, the patterns are designed to work with the mobile technology provided by the Oracle Application Development Framework. Other great UX-related information on using ADF Mobile to design task flows and the development experience on offer are on the ADF EMG podcast series. Check out FXAer Brian 'Bex' Huff (@bex of Bezzotech talking about ADF Mobile in podcast number 6 and also number 8 which has great tips about getting going with Android and iOS mobile app development too.

    Read the article

  • Breaking through the class sealing

    - by Jason Crease
    Do you understand 'sealing' in C#?  Somewhat?  Anyway, here's the lowdown. I've done this article from a C# perspective, but I've occasionally referenced .NET when appropriate. What is sealing a class? By sealing a class in C#, you ensure that you ensure that no class can be derived from that class.  You do this by simply adding the word 'sealed' to a class definition: public sealed class Dog {} Now writing something like " public sealed class Hamster: Dog {} " you'll get a compile error like this: 'Hamster: cannot derive from sealed type 'Dog' If you look in an IL disassembler, you'll see a definition like this: .class public auto ansi sealed beforefieldinit Dog extends [mscorlib]System.Object Note the addition of the word 'sealed'. What about sealing methods? You can also seal overriding methods.  By adding the word 'sealed', you ensure that the method cannot be overridden in a derived class.  Consider the following code: public class Dog : Mammal { public sealed override void Go() { } } public class Mammal { public virtual void Go() { } } In this code, the method 'Go' in Dog is sealed.  It cannot be overridden in a subclass.  Writing this would cause a compile error: public class Dachshund : Dog { public override void Go() { } } However, we can 'new' a method with the same name.  This is essentially a new method; distinct from the 'Go' in the subclass: public class Terrier : Dog { public new void Go() { } } Sealing properties? You can also seal seal properties.  You add 'sealed' to the property definition, like so: public sealed override string Name {     get { return m_Name; }     set { m_Name = value; } } In C#, you can only seal a property, not the underlying setters/getters.  This is because C# offers no override syntax for setters or getters.  However, in underlying IL you seal the setter and getter methods individually - a property is just metadata. Why bother sealing? There are a few traditional reasons to seal: Invariance. Other people may want to derive from your class, even though your implementation may make successful derivation near-impossible.  There may be twisted, hacky logic that could never be second-guessed by another developer.  By sealing your class, you're protecting them from wasting their time.  The CLR team has sealed most of the framework classes, and I assume they did this for this reason. Security.  By deriving from your type, an attacker may gain access to functionality that enables him to hack your system.  I consider this a very weak security precaution. Speed.  If a class is sealed, then .NET doesn't need to consult the virtual-function-call table to find the actual type, since it knows that no derived type can exist.  Therefore, it could emit a 'call' instead of 'callvirt' or at least optimise the machine code, thus producing a performance benefit.  But I've done trials, and have been unable to demonstrate this If you have an example, please share! All in all, I'm not convinced that sealing is interesting or important.  Anyway, moving-on... What is automatically sealed? Value types and structs.  If they were not always sealed, all sorts of things would go wrong.  For instance, structs are laid-out inline within a class.  But what if you assigned a substruct to a struct field of that class?  There may be too many fields to fit. Static classes.  Static classes exist in C# but not .NET.  The C# compiler compiles a static class into an 'abstract sealed' class.  So static classes are already sealed in C#. Enumerations.  The CLR does not track the types of enumerations - it treats them as simple value types.  Hence, polymorphism would not work. What cannot be sealed? Interfaces.  Interfaces exist to be implemented, so sealing to prevent implementation is dumb.  But what if you could prevent interfaces from being extended (i.e. ban declarations like "public interface IMyInterface : ISealedInterface")?  There is no good reason to seal an interface like this.  Sealing finalizes behaviour, but interfaces have no intrinsic behaviour to finalize Abstract classes.  In IL you can create an abstract sealed class.  But C# syntax for this already exists - declaring a class as a 'static', so it forces you to declare it as such. Non-override methods.  If a method isn't declared as override it cannot be overridden, so sealing would make no difference.  Note this is stated from a C# perspective - the words are opposite in IL.  In IL, you have four choices in total: no declaration (which actually seals the method), 'virtual' (called 'override' in C#), 'sealed virtual' ('sealed override' in C#) and 'newslot virtual' ('new virtual' or 'virtual' in C#, depending on whether the method already exists in a base class). Methods that implement interface methods.  Methods that implement an interface method must be virtual, so cannot be sealed. Fields.  A field cannot be overridden, only hidden (using the 'new' keyword in C#), so sealing would make no sense.

    Read the article

  • What modern design pattern / software engineering books for Java SE 6 do you recommend ?

    - by Scott Davies
    Hi, I am very familiar with Java 6 SE language features and am now looking for modern books that cover design patterns in Java for beginners as well as software engineering books that discuss architectures, algorithms and best practices in Java coding (sort of like the Effective C# books). I am aware of the classic GoF design patterns book, however, I'd like a more modern reference that takes advantage of the features of Java 6 SE. What books would you recommend ? Thanks, Scott

    Read the article

  • Is there a language or design pattern that allows the *removal* of object behavior or properties in a class hierarchy?

    - by Sebastien Diot
    A well-know shortcoming of traditional class hierarchies is that they are bad when it comes to model the real world. As an example, trying to represent animals species with classes. There are actually several problems when doing that, but one that I never saw a solution to is when a sub-class "looses" a behavior or properties that was defined in a super-class, like a penguin not being able to fly (there are probably better examples, but that's the first one that comes to my mind, having seen "Madagascar 2" recently). On the one hand, you don't want to define for every property and behavior some flag that specifies if it is at all present, and check it every time before accessing that behavior or property. You would just like to say that birds can fly, simply and clearly, in the Bird class. But then it would be nice if one could define "exceptions" afterward, without having to use some horrible hacks everywhere. This often happens when a system has been productive for a while. You suddenly find an "exception" that doesn't fit in the original design at all, and you don't want to change a large portion of your code to accommodate it. So, is there some language or design patterns that can cleanly handle this problem, without requiring major changes to the "super-class", and all the code that uses it? Even if a solution only handle a specific case, several solutions might together form a complete strategy. [EDIT] Forgot about the Liskov Substitution Principle. That is why you can't do it. Assuming you define "traits/interfaces" for all major "feature groups", you can freely implement traits in different branches of the hierarchy, like the Flying trait could be implemented by Birds, and some special kind of squirrels and fish. So my question could amount to "How could I un-implement a trait?" If your super-class is a Java Serializable, you have to be one too, even if there is no way for you to serialize your state, for example if you contained a "Socket". So one way to do it is to always define all your traits in pair from the start: Flying and NotFlying (which would throw UnsupportedOperationExceiption, if not checked against). The Not-trait would not define any new interface, and could be simply checked for. Sounds like a "cheap" solution, in particular if used from the start.

    Read the article

  • What is the proper name for this design pattern in Python?

    - by James
    In Python, is the proper name for the PersonXXX class below PersonProxy, PersonInterface, etc? import rest class PersonXXX(object): def __init__(self,db_url): self.resource = rest.Resource(db_url) def create(self,person): self.resource.post(person.data()) def get(self): pass def update(self): pass def delete(self): pass class Person(object): def __init__(self,name, age): self.name = name self.age = age def data(self): return dict(name=self.name,age=self.age)

    Read the article

  • Software Architecture verses Software Design

    Recently, I was asked what the differences between software architecture and software design are. At a very superficial level both architecture and design seem to mean relatively the same thing. However, if we examine both of these terms further we will find that they are in fact very different due to the level of details they encompass. Software Architecture can be defined as the essence of an application because it deals with high level concepts that do not include any details as to how they will be implemented. To me this gives stakeholders a view of a system or application as if someone was viewing the earth from outer space. At this distance only very basic elements of the earth can be detected like land, weather and water. As the viewer comes closer to earth the details in this view start to become more defined. Details about the earth’s surface will start to actually take form as well as mane made structures will be detected. The process of transitioning a view from outer space to inside our earth’s atmosphere is similar to how an architectural concept is transformed to an architectural design. From this vantage point stakeholders can start to see buildings and other structures as if they were looking out of a small plane window. This distance is still high enough to see a large area of the earth’s surface while still being able to see some details about the surface. This viewing point is very similar to the actual design process of an application in that it takes the very high level architectural concept or concepts and applies concrete design details to form a software design that encompasses the actual implementation details in the form of responsibilities and functions. Examples of these details include: interfaces, components, data, and connections. In review, software architecture deals with high level concepts without regard to any implementation details. Software design on the other hand takes high level concepts and applies concrete details so that software can be implemented. As part of the transition between software architecture to the creation of software design an evaluation on the architecture is recommended. There are several benefits to including this step as part of the transition process. It allows for projects to ensure that they are on the correct path as to meeting the stakeholder’s requirement goals, identifies possible cost savings and can be used to find missing or nonspecific requirements that cause ambiguity in a design. In the book “Evaluating Software Architectures: Methods and Case Studies”, they define key benefits to adding an architectural review process to ensure that an architecture is ready to move on to the design phase. Benefits to evaluating software architecture: Gathers all stakeholders to communicate about the project Goals are clearly defined in regards to the creation or validation of specific requirements Goals are prioritized so that when conflicts occur decisions will be made based on goal priority Defines a clear expectation of the architecture so that all stakeholders have a keen understanding of the project Ensures high quality documentation of the architecture Enables discoveries of architectural reuse  Increases the quality of architecture practices. I can remember a few projects that I worked on that could have really used an architectural review prior to being passed on to developers. This project was to create some new advertising space on the company’s website in order to sell space based on the location and some other criteria. I was one of the developer selected to lead this project and I was given a high level design concept and a long list of ever changing requirements due to the fact that sales department had no clear direction as to what exactly the project was going to do or how they were going to bill the clients once they actually agreed to purchase the Ad space. In my personal opinion IT should have pushed back to have the requirements further articulated instead of forcing programmers to code blindly attempting to build such an ambiguous project.  Unfortunately, we had to suffer with this project for about 4 months when it should have only taken 1.5 to complete due to the constantly changing and unclear requirements. References  Clements, P., Kazman, R., & Klein, M. (2002). Evaluating Software Architectures. Westford, Massachusetts: Courier Westford. 

    Read the article

  • Is this the correct approach to an OOP design structure in php?

    - by Silver89
    I'm converting a procedural based site to an OOP design to allow more easily manageable code in the future and so far have created the following structure: /classes /templates index.php With these classes: ConnectDB Games System User User -Moderator User -Administrator In the index.php file I have code that detects if any $_GET values are posted to determine on which page content to build (it's early so there's only one example and no default): function __autoload($className) { require "classes/".strtolower($className).".class.php"; } $db = new Connect; $db->connect(); $user = new User(); if(isset($_GET['gameId'])) { System::buildGame($gameId); } This then runs the BuildGame function in the system class which looks like the following and then uses gets in the Game Class to return values, such as $game->getTitle() in the template file template/play.php: function buildGame($gameId){ $game = new Game($gameId); $game->setRatio(900, 600); require 'templates/play.php'; } I also have .htaccess so that actual game page url works instead of passing the parameters to index.php Are there any major errors of how I'm setting this up or do I have the general idea of OOP correct?

    Read the article

  • Object oriented n-tier design. Am I abstracting too much? Or not enough?

    - by max
    Hi guys, I'm building my first enterprise grade solution (at least I'm attempting to make it enterprise grade). I'm trying to follow best practice design patterns but am starting to worry that I might be going too far with abstraction. I'm trying to build my asp.net webforms (in C#) app as an n-tier application. I've created a Data Access Layer using an XSD strongly-typed dataset that interfaces with a SQL server backend. I access the DAL through some Business Layer Objects that I've created on a 1:1 basis to the datatables in the dataset (eg, a UsersBLL class for the Users datatable in the dataset). I'm doing checks inside the BLL to make sure that data passed to DAL is following the business rules of the application. That's all well and good. Where I'm getting stuck though is the point at which I connect the BLL to the presentation layer. For example, my UsersBLL class deals mostly with whole datatables, as it's interfacing with the DAL. Should I now create a separate "User" (Singular) class that maps out the properties of a single user, rather than multiple users? This way I don't have to do any searching through datatables in the presentation layer, as I could use the properties created in the User class. Or would it be better to somehow try to handle this inside the UsersBLL? Sorry if this sounds a little complicated... Below is the code from the UsersBLL: using System; using System.Data; using PedChallenge.DAL.PedDataSetTableAdapters; [System.ComponentModel.DataObject] public class UsersBLL { private UsersTableAdapter _UsersAdapter = null; protected UsersTableAdapter Adapter { get { if (_UsersAdapter == null) _UsersAdapter = new UsersTableAdapter(); return _UsersAdapter; } } [System.ComponentModel.DataObjectMethodAttribute (System.ComponentModel.DataObjectMethodType.Select, true)] public PedChallenge.DAL.PedDataSet.UsersDataTable GetUsers() { return Adapter.GetUsers(); } [System.ComponentModel.DataObjectMethodAttribute (System.ComponentModel.DataObjectMethodType.Select, false)] public PedChallenge.DAL.PedDataSet.UsersDataTable GetUserByUserID(int userID) { return Adapter.GetUserByUserID(userID); } [System.ComponentModel.DataObjectMethodAttribute (System.ComponentModel.DataObjectMethodType.Select, false)] public PedChallenge.DAL.PedDataSet.UsersDataTable GetUsersByTeamID(int teamID) { return Adapter.GetUsersByTeamID(teamID); } [System.ComponentModel.DataObjectMethodAttribute (System.ComponentModel.DataObjectMethodType.Select, false)] public PedChallenge.DAL.PedDataSet.UsersDataTable GetUsersByEmail(string Email) { return Adapter.GetUserByEmail(Email); } [System.ComponentModel.DataObjectMethodAttribute (System.ComponentModel.DataObjectMethodType.Insert, true)] public bool AddUser(int? teamID, string FirstName, string LastName, string Email, string Role, int LocationID) { // Create a new UsersRow instance PedChallenge.DAL.PedDataSet.UsersDataTable Users = new PedChallenge.DAL.PedDataSet.UsersDataTable(); PedChallenge.DAL.PedDataSet.UsersRow user = Users.NewUsersRow(); if (UserExists(Users, Email) == true) return false; if (teamID == null) user.SetTeamIDNull(); else user.TeamID = teamID.Value; user.FirstName = FirstName; user.LastName = LastName; user.Email = Email; user.Role = Role; user.LocationID = LocationID; // Add the new user Users.AddUsersRow(user); int rowsAffected = Adapter.Update(Users); // Return true if precisely one row was inserted, // otherwise false return rowsAffected == 1; } [System.ComponentModel.DataObjectMethodAttribute (System.ComponentModel.DataObjectMethodType.Update, true)] public bool UpdateUser(int userID, int? teamID, string FirstName, string LastName, string Email, string Role, int LocationID) { PedChallenge.DAL.PedDataSet.UsersDataTable Users = Adapter.GetUserByUserID(userID); if (Users.Count == 0) // no matching record found, return false return false; PedChallenge.DAL.PedDataSet.UsersRow user = Users[0]; if (teamID == null) user.SetTeamIDNull(); else user.TeamID = teamID.Value; user.FirstName = FirstName; user.LastName = LastName; user.Email = Email; user.Role = Role; user.LocationID = LocationID; // Update the product record int rowsAffected = Adapter.Update(user); // Return true if precisely one row was updated, // otherwise false return rowsAffected == 1; } [System.ComponentModel.DataObjectMethodAttribute (System.ComponentModel.DataObjectMethodType.Delete, true)] public bool DeleteUser(int userID) { int rowsAffected = Adapter.Delete(userID); // Return true if precisely one row was deleted, // otherwise false return rowsAffected == 1; } private bool UserExists(PedChallenge.DAL.PedDataSet.UsersDataTable users, string email) { // Check if user email already exists foreach (PedChallenge.DAL.PedDataSet.UsersRow userRow in users) { if (userRow.Email == email) return true; } return false; } } Some guidance in the right direction would be greatly appreciated!! Thanks all! Max

    Read the article

  • In .NET, Why Can I Access Private Members of a Class Instance within the Class?

    - by AMissico
    While cleaning some code today written by someone else, I changed the access modifier from Public to Private on a class variable/member/field. I expected a long list of compiler errors that I use to "refactor/rework/review" the code that used this variable. Imagine my surprise when I didn't get any errors. After reviewing, it turns out that another instance of the Class can access the private members of another instance declared within the Class. Totally unexcepted. Is this normal? I been coding in .NET since the beginning and never ran into this issue, nor read about it. I may have stumbled onto it before, but only "vaguely noticed" and move on. Can anyone explain this behavoir to me? I would like to know the "why" I can do this. Please explain, don't just tell me the rule. Am I doing something wrong? I found this behavior in both C# and VB.NET. The code seems to take advantage of the ability to access private variables. Sincerely, Totally Confused Class Jack Private _int As Integer End Class Class Foo Public Property Value() As Integer Get Return _int End Get Set(ByVal value As Integer) _int = value * 2 End Set End Property Private _int As Integer Private _foo As Foo Private _jack As Jack Private _fred As Fred Public Sub SetPrivate() _foo = New Foo _foo.Value = 4 'what you would expect to do because _int is private _foo._int = 3 'TOTALLY UNEXPECTED _jack = New Jack '_jack._int = 3 'expected compile error _fred = New Fred '_fred._int = 3 'expected compile error End Sub Private Class Fred Private _int As Integer End Class End Class

    Read the article

  • What design pattern shall I use in this question?

    - by iyad al aqel
    To be frank, this is a homework question, so I'll tell you my opinion. Can you let me know my mistakes rather than giving me the solution? This is the question : Assume a restaurant that only offers the following two types of meals: (a) a full meal and (b)an economic meal. The full meal consists of the following food items and is served in the following order: 1. Appetizer 2. Drink 3. Main dish 4. Dessert Meanwhile the economic meal consists of the following food items and is served in the following order: 1. Drink 2. Main dish Identify the most appropriate design pattern that can be used to allow a customer to only order using one of the two types of meals provided and that the meal components must be served in the given order. I'm confused between the Factory and the Iterator and using them both together. Using the factory Pattern we can create the two meals full and economic and provide the user with with a base object class that will decide upon. But how can we enforce the ordering of the elements, I thought of using the iterator along that will iterate through the the composite of the two created factories sort of speak. What do you think?

    Read the article

  • Java: Generics, Class.isaAssignableFrom, and type casting

    - by bguiz
    This method that uses method-level generics, that parses the values from a custom POJO, JXlistOfKeyValuePairs (which is exactly that). The only thing is that both the keys and values in JXlistOfKeyValuePairs are Strings. This method wants to taken in, in addition to the JXlistOfKeyValuePairs instance, a Class<T> that defines which data type to convert the values to (assume that only Boolean, Integer and Float are possible). It then outputs a HashMap with the specified type for the values in its entries. This is the code that I have got, and it is obviously broken. private <T extends Object> Map<String, T> fromListOfKeyValuePairs(JXlistOfKeyValuePairs jxval, Class<T> clasz) { Map<String, T> val = new HashMap<String, T>(); List<Entry> jxents = jxval.getEntry(); T value; String str; for (Entry jxent : jxents) { str = jxent.getValue(); value = null; if (clasz.isAssignableFrom(Boolean.class)) { value = (T)(Boolean.parseBoolean(str)); } else if (clasz.isAssignableFrom(Integer.class)) { value = (T)(Integer.parseInt(str)); } else if (clasz.isAssignableFrom(Float.class)) { value = (T)(Float.parseFloat(str)); } else { logger.warn("Unsupporteded value type encountered in key-value pairs, continuing anyway: " + clasz.getName()); } val.put(jxent.getKey(), value); } return val; } This is the bit that I want to solve: if (clasz.isAssignableFrom(Boolean.class)) { value = (T)(Boolean.parseBoolean(str)); } else if (clasz.isAssignableFrom(Integer.class)) { value = (T)(Integer.parseInt(str)); } I get: Inconvertible types required: T found: Boolean Also, if possible, I would like to be able to do this with more elegant code, avoiding Class#isAssignableFrom. Any suggestions? Sample method invocation: Map<String, Boolean> foo = fromListOfKeyValuePairs(bar, Boolean.class);

    Read the article

  • Generic Class Vb.net

    - by KoolKabin
    hi guys, I am stuck with a problem about generic classes. I am confused how I call the constructor with parameters. My interface: Public Interface IDBObject Sub [Get](ByRef DataRow As DataRow) Property UIN() As Integer End Interface My Child Class: Public Class User Implements IDBObject Public Sub [Get](ByRef DataRow As System.Data.DataRow) Implements IDBObject.Get End Sub Public Property UIN() As Integer Implements IDBObject.UIN Get End Get Set(ByVal value As Integer) End Set End Property End Class My Next Class: Public Class Users Inherits DBLayer(Of User) #Region " Standard Methods " #End Region End Class My DBObject Class: Public Class DBLayer(Of DBObject As {New, IDBObject}) Public Shared Function GetData() As List(Of DBObject) Dim QueryString As String = "SELECT * ***;" Dim Dataset As DataSet = New DataSet() Dim DataList As List(Of DBObject) = New List(Of DBObject) Try Dataset = Query(QueryString) For Each DataRow As DataRow In Dataset.Tables(0).Rows **DataList.Add(New DBObject(DataRow))** Next Catch ex As Exception DataList = Nothing End Try Return DataList End Function End Class I get error in the starred area of the DBLayer Object. What might be the possible reason? what can I do to fix it? I even want to add New(byval someval as datatype) in IDBObject interface for overloading construction. but it also gives an error? how can i do it? Adding Sub New(ByVal DataRow As DataRow) in IDBObject producess following error 'Sub New' cannot be declared in an interface. Error Produced in DBLayer Object line: DataList.Add(New DBObject(DataRow)) Msg: Arguments cannot be passed to a 'New' used on a type parameter.

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40  | Next Page >