Search Results

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

Page 34/635 | < Previous Page | 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41  | Next Page >

• "Default approach" when creating a class from scratch: getters for everything, or limited access?

  - by Prog

  Until recently I always had getters (and sometimes setters but not always) for all the fields in my class. It was my 'default': very automatic and I never doubted it. However recently some discussions on this site made me realize maybe it's not the best approach. When you create a class, you often don't know exactly how it's going to be used in the future by other classes. So in that sense, it's good to have getters and setter for all of the fields in the class. So other classes could use it in the future any way they want. Allowing this flexibility doesn't require you to over engineer anything, only to provide getters. However some would say it's better to limit the access to a class, and only allow access to certain fields, while other fields stay completely private. What is your 'default' approach when building a class from scratch? Do you make getters for all the fields? Or do you always choose selectively which fields to expose through a getter and which to keep completely private?

  Read the article

• How should I define my Java Objects?

  - by HonorGod

  I have a data grid where I sort of show the following information - All Guests Total Adults = 22 Total Children = 27 Confirmed Total Adults = 9 Total Children = 13 Country = Germany Total Adults = 5 Total Childres = 6 Friends Adults = 2 Children = 2 Relatives Adults = 3 Children = 4 Country = USA Total Adults = 4 Total Childres = 7 Friends Adults = 2 Children = 5 Relatives Adults = 2 Children = 2 Tentative Total Adults = 13 Total Children - 14 Country = Australia Total Adults = 7 Total Childres = 8 Friends Adults = 2 Children = 3 Relatives Adults = 5 Children = 5 Country = China Total Adults = 6 Total Childres = 6 Friends Adults = 2 Children = 4 Relatives Adults = 4 Children = 2 And in the database what I have is data at the lowest level which is Friends / Relatives and the corresponding countries set as a look-up value which in indirectly connected to another look-up that can tell me if they fall under confirmed or tentative. I guess my question is how do I layout my Java Object and perform the aggregations and give it back to the client. I am not sure if I am clear with my question, but feel free to comment so I can update the question accordingly.

  Read the article

• Sharing object between 2 classes

  - by Justin

  I am struggling to wrap my head around being able to share an object between two classes. I want to be able to create only one instance of the object, commonlib in my main class and then have the classes, foo1 and foo2, to be able to mutually share the properties of the commonlib. commonlib is a 3rd party class which has a property Queries that will be added to in each child class of bar. This is why it is vital that only one instance is created. I create two separate queries in foo1 and foo2. This is my setup: abstract class bar{ //common methods } class foo1 extends bar{ //add query to commonlib } class foo2 extends bar{ //add query to commonlib } class main { public $commonlib = new commonlib(); public function start(){ //goal is to share one instance of $this->commonlib between foo1 and foo2 //so that they can both add to the properites of $this->commonlib (global //between the two) //now execute all of the queries after foo1 and foo2 add their query $this->commonlib->RunQueries(); } }

  Read the article

• Interface hierarchy design for separate domains

  - by jerzi

  There are businesses and people. People could be liked and businesses could be commented on: class Like class Comment class Person implements iLikeTarget class Business implements iCommentTarget Likes and comments are performed by a user(person) so they are authored: class Like implements iAuthored class Comment implements iAuthored People's like could also be used in their history: class history class Like implements iAuthored, iHistoryTarget Now, a smart developer comes and says each history is attached to a user so history should be authored: interface iHistoryTarget extends iAuthored so it could be removed from class Like: class Person implements iLikeTarget class Business implements iCommentTarget class Like implements iHistoryTarget class Comment implements iAuthored class history interface iHistoryTarget extends iAuthored Here, another smart guy comes with a question: How could I capture the Authored fact in Like and Comment classes? He may knows nothing about history concept in the project. By scalling these kind of functionallities, interfaces may goes to their encapsulated types which cause more type strength, on the other hand explicitness suffered and also code end users will face much pain to process. So here is the question: Should I encapsulate those dependant types to their parent types (interface hierarchies) or not or explicitly repeat each type for every single level of my type system or ...?

  Read the article

• How to access functions in extended classes efficiently?

  - by nischayn22

  In PHP I have classes as below class Animal { //some vars public function printname(){ echo $this->name; } } class AnimalMySql extends Animal { static public function getTableFields(){ return array(); } } class AnimalPostgreSql extends Animal { static public function getTableFields(){ return array(); } } Now I have an object $lion = new Animal(); and I want to do if($store == mysql) //getTableFields from class AnimalMySql else //getTableFields form class AnimalPostgreSql I am new to OOP and not sure what is the best way to call the method from the specific class P.S. Please leave a note with the answer to explain the efficiency of the approach

  Read the article

• Do functional generics exist or what is the correct name for them if they do?

  - by voroninp

  Consider the following generic class public class EntityChangeInfo<EntityType,TEntityKey> { ChangeTypeEnum ChangeType {get;} TEntityKeyType EntityKey {get;} } Here EntityType unambiguously defines TEntityKeyType. So it would be nice to have some kind of types' map public class EntityChangeInfo<EntityType,TEntityKey> with map < [ EntityType : Person -> TEntityKeyType : int] [ EntityType : Car -> TEntityKeyType : CarIdType ]> { ChangeTypeEnum ChangeType {get;} TEntityKeyType EntityKey {get;} } Another one example is: public class Foo<TIn> with map < [TIn : Person -> TOut1 : string, TOut2 : int, ..., TOutN : double ] [TIn : Car -> TOut1 : int, TOut2 :int, ..., TOutN : Price ] > { TOut1 Prop1 {get;set;} TOut2 Prop2 {get;set;} ... TOutN PropN {get;set;} } The reasonable question how this can be interpreted by the compiler? Well, for me it is just the sortcut for two structurally similar classes: public sealed class Foo<Person> { string Prop1 {get;set;} int Prop2 {get;set;} ... double PropN {get;set;} } public sealed class Foo<Car> { int Prop1 {get;set;} int Prop2 {get;set;} ... Price PropN {get;set;} } But besides this we could imaging some update of the Foo<: public class Foo<TIn> with map < [TIn : Person -> TOut1 : string, TOut2 : int, ..., TOutN : double ] [TIn : Car -> TOut1 : int, TOut2 :int, ..., TOutN : Price ] > { TOut1 Prop1 {get;set;} TOut2 Prop2 {get;set;} ... TOutN PropN {get;set;} public override string ToString() { return string.Format("prop1={0}, prop2={1},...propN={N-1}, Prop1, Prop2,...,PropN); } } This all can seem quite superficial but the idea came when I was designing the messages for our system. The very first class. Many messages with the same structrue should be discriminated by the EntityType. So the question is whether such construct exist in any programming language?

  Read the article

• OOP Design: relationship between entity classes

  - by beginner_

  I have at first sight a simple issue but can't wrap my head around on how to solve. I have an abstract class Compound. A Compound is made up of Structures. Then there is also a Container which holds 1 Compound. A "special" implementation of Compound has Versions. For that type of Compound I want the Container to hold the Versionof the Compound and not the Compound itself. You could say "just create an interface Containable" and a Container holds 1 Containable. However that won't work. The reason is I'm creating a framework and the main part of that framework is to simplify storing and especially searching for special data type held by Structure objects. Hence to search for Containers which contain a Compound made up of a specific Structure requires that the "Path" from Containerto Structure is well defined (Number of relationships or joins). I hope this was understandable. My question is how to design the classes and relationships to be able to do what I outlined.

  Read the article

• using static methods and classes

  - by vedant1811

  I know that static methods/variables are associated with the class and not the objects of the class and are useful in situations when we need to keep count of, say the number of objects of the class that were created. Non-static members on the other hand may need to work on the specific object (i.e. to use the variables initialized by the constructor) My question what should we do when we need neither of the functionalities? Say I just need a utility function that accepts value(s) and returns a value besed solely on the values passed. I want to know whether such methods should be static or not. How is programming efficiency affected and which is a better coding practice/convention and why. PS: I don't want to spark off a debate, I just want a subjective answer and/or references.

  Read the article

• Should single purpose utility app use a class

  - by jmoreno

  When writing a small utility app, that does just one thing, should that one thing be encapsulated in a seperate class, or just let it be part of whatever class/module is used to start the application? I.e. Main would consist of 2 or three lines calling the constructor and then the DoIt methods, nothing else. Or should Main be the DoIt method, with whatever functions it needs added to the main class? Asking because I want to get some alternative perspective, but couldn't find a similar question. If my google-fu is bad and there's a dup, please close.

  Read the article

• Is "If a method is re-used without changes, put the method in a base class, else create an interface" a good rule-of-thumb?

  - by exizt

  A colleague of mine came up with a rule-of-thumb for choosing between creating a base class or an interface. He says: Imagine every new method that you are about to implement. For each of them, consider this: will this method be implemented by more than one class in exactly this form, without any change? If the answer is "yes", create a base class. In every other situation, create an interface. For example: Consider the classes cat and dog, which extend the class mammal and have a single method pet(). We then add the class alligator, which doesn't extend anything and has a single method slither(). Now, we want to add an eat() method to all of them. If the implementation of eat() method will be exactly the same for cat, dog and alligator, we should create a base class (let's say, animal), which implements this method. However, if it's implementation in alligator differs in the slightest way, we should create an IEat interface and make mammal and alligator implement it. He insists that this method covers all cases, but it seems like over-simplification to me. Is it worth following this rule-of-thumb?

  Read the article

• How to separate and maintain customer specific code

  - by WYSIWYG

  I am implementing customer specific code and currently following simple approach like if (cusomterId == 23) do it. I want to separate out all the customer related code in separate place. But I have following problems. In code is in 1. Stored procs 2. Plain old classes. 3. Controllers 4. Views I came up with two solutions. First is to create table CustomerFunctionlity with columns CustomerId, FunctionalityName, method/Proc, inputs/outputs With this table I can simply check if exists, execute given function. Another way is creating a factory which returns customer related object for an interface. I am writting small end to end customer specific functionalities. How can I write maintenable code. Thanks

  Read the article

• Is there a pattern to restrict which classes can update another class?

  - by Mike

  Say I have a class ImportantInfo with a public writable property Data. Many classes will read this property but only a few will ever set it. Basically, if you want to update Data you should really know what you're doing. Is there a pattern I could use to make this explicit other than by documenting it? For example, some way to enforce that only classes that implement IUpdateImportantData can do it (this is just an example)? I'm not talking about security here, but more of a "hey, are you sure you want to do that?" kind of thing.

  Read the article

• OOP Structure for web application

  - by Query

  Ok so I have a website in which users complete tasks to earn points. When they earn enough points, they rise in rank. The site from my understanding is very basic and only executes one query or two queries at most a page. There is a user table, a support ticket table, and an orders table. All of these contain a relational row for username. Our class was familiarized with OOP back in highschool with Java but that was for video games and I could grasp the concept on why you would need a class player and class enemy. However I don't understand it's web application. At least not in my situation. I understand the user class might contain stuff like: getUsername getPoints getEmail setEmail addPoints (does this belong here? OR only things the user can manipulate should be here?) etc.. But I'm at a loss with everything else such as user registration. Can you help give me a wire framework that I could wrap my head around? Pointing me to a good eBook would help greatly

  Read the article

• "Collection Wrapper" pattern - is this common?

  - by Prog

  A different question of mine had to do with encapsulating member data structures inside classes. In order to understand this question better please read that question and look at the approach discussed. One of the guys who answered that question said that the approach is good, but if I understood him correctly - he said that there should be a class existing just for the purpose of wrapping the collection, instead of an ordinary class offering a number of public methods just to access the member collection. For example, instead of this: class SomeClass{ // downright exposing the concrete collection. Things[] someCollection; // other stuff omitted Thing[] getCollection(){return someCollection;} } Or this: class SomeClass{ // encapsulating the collection, but inflating the class' public interface. Thing[] someCollection; // class functionality omitted. public Thing getThing(int index){ return someCollection[index]; } public int getSize(){ return someCollection.length; } public void setThing(int index, Thing thing){ someCollection[index] = thing; } public void removeThing(int index){ someCollection[index] = null; } } We'll have this: // encapsulating the collection - in a different class, dedicated to this. class SomeClass{ CollectionWrapper someCollection; CollectionWrapper getCollection(){return someCollection;} } class CollectionWrapper{ Thing[] someCollection; public Thing getThing(int index){ return someCollection[index]; } public int getSize(){ return someCollection.length; } public void setThing(int index, Thing thing){ someCollection[index] = thing; } public void removeThing(int index){ someCollection[index] = null; } } This way, the inner data structure in SomeClass can change without affecting client code, and without forcing SomeClass to offer a lot of public methods just to access the inner collection. CollectionWrapper does this instead. E.g. if the collection changes from an array to a List, the internal implementation of CollectionWrapper changes, but client code stays the same. Also, the CollectionWrapper can hide certain things from the client code - from example, it can disallow mutation to the collection by not having the methods setThing and removeThing. This approach to decoupling client code from the concrete data structure seems IMHO pretty good. Is this approach common? What are it's downfalls? Is this used in practice?

  Read the article

• How to Document and Configure SQL Server Instance Settings

  Occasionally, when you install identical databases on two different SQL Server instances, they will behave in surprisingly different ways. Why? Most likely, it is down to different configuration settings. There are around seventy of these settings and the DBA needs to be aware of the effect that many of them have. Brad McGehee explains them all in enough detail to help with most common configuration problems, and suggests some best practices.

  Read the article

• What is the better design decision approach?

  - by palm snow

  I have two classes (MyFoo1 and MyFoo2) that share some common functionality. So far it does not seem like I need any polymorphic inheritence but at this point I am considering the following options: Have the common functionality in a utility class. Both of these classes call these methods from that utility class. Have an abstract class and implement common methods in that abstract class. Then derive MyFoo1 and MyFoo2 from that abstract class. Any suggestion on what would be a better design decision?

  Read the article

• OOP PHP make separate classes or one

  - by user2956219

  I'm studying OOP PHP and working on a small personal project but I have hard time grasping some concepts. Let's say I have a list of items, each item belongs to subcategory, and each subcategory belongs to category. So should I make separate classes for category (with methods to list all categories, add new category, delete category), class for subcategories and class for items? Or should I make creating, listing and deleting categories as methods for item class? Both category and subcategory are very simple and basically consist of ID, Name and parentID (for subcategory).

  Read the article

• Where would a senior PHP developer locate the method getActiveEntries()?

  - by darga33

  I have a class named GuestbookEntry that maps to the properties that are in the database table named "guestbook". Very simple! Originally, I had a static method named getActiveEntries() that retrieved an array of all GuestbookEntry objects. Each row in the guestbook table was an object that was added to that array. Then while learning how to properly design PHP classes, I learned some things: Static methods are not desirable. Separation of Concerns Single Responsibility Principle If the GuestbookEntry class should only be responsible for managing single guestbook entries then where should this getActiveEntries() method most properly go? Update: I am looking for an answer that complies with the SOLID acronym principles and allows for test-ability. That's why I want to stay away from static calls/standard functions. DAO, repository, ...? Please explain as though your explanation will be part of "Where to Locate FOR DUMMIES"... :-)

  Read the article

• Name for this antipattern? Fields as local variables

  - by JSB????

  In some code I'm reviewing, I'm seeing stuff that's the moral equivalent of the following: public class Foo { private Bar bar; public MethodA() { bar = new Bar(); bar.A(); bar = null; } public MethodB() { bar = new Bar(); bar.B(); bar = null; } } The field bar here is logically a local variable, as its value is never intended to persist across method calls. However, since many of the methods in Foo need an object of type Bar, the original code author has just made a field of type Bar. This is obviously bad, right? Is there a name for this antipattern?

  Read the article

• How should I refactor switch statements like this (Switching on type) to be more OO?

  - by Taytay

  I'm seeing some code like this in our code base, and want to refactor it: (Typescript psuedocode follows): class EntityManager{ private findEntityForServerObject(entityType:string, serverObject:any):IEntity { var existingEntity:IEntity = null; switch(entityType) { case Types.UserSetting: existingEntity = this.getUserSettingByUserIdAndSettingName(serverObject.user_id, serverObject.setting_name); break; case Types.Bar: existingEntity = this.getBarByUserIdAndId(serverObject.user_id, serverObject.id); break; //Lots more case statements here... } return existingEntity; } } The downsides of switching on type are self-explanatory. Normally, when switching behavior based on type, I try to push the behavior into subclasses so that I can reduce this to a single method call, and let polymorphism take care of the rest. However, the following two things are giving me pause: 1) I don't want to couple the serverObject with the class that is storing all of these objects. It doesn't know where to look for entities of a certain type. And unfortunately, the identity of a type of ServerObject varies with the type of ServerObject. (So sometimes it's just an ID, other times it's a combination of an id and a uniquely identifying string, etc). And this behavior doesn't belong down there on those subclasses. It is the responsibility of the EntityManager and its delegates. 2) In this case, I can't modify the ServerObject classes since they're plain old data objects. It should be mentioned that I've got other instances of the above method that take a parameter like "IEntity" and proceed to do almost the same thing (but slightly modify the name of the methods they're calling to get the identity of the entity). So, we might have: case Types.Bar: existingEntity = this.getBarByUserIdAndId(entity.getUserId(), entity.getId()); break; So in that case, I can change the entity interface and subclasses, but this isn't behavior that belongs in that class. So, I think that points me to some sort of map. So eventually I will call: private findEntityForServerObject(entityType:string, serverObject:any):IEntity { return aMapOfSomeSort[entityType].findByServerObject(serverObject); } private findEntityForEntity(someEntity:IEntity):IEntity { return aMapOfSomeSort[someEntity.entityType].findByEntity(someEntity); } Which means I need to register some sort of strategy classes/functions at runtime with this map. And again, I darn well better remember to register one for each my my types, or I'll get a runtime exception. Is there a better way to refactor this? I feel like I'm missing something really obvious here.

  Read the article

• Recommended design pattern for object with optional and modifiable attributtes? [on hold]

  - by Ikuzen

  I've been using the Builder pattern to create objects with a large number of attributes, where most of them are optional. But up until now, I've defined them as final, as recommended by Joshua Block and other authors, and haven't needed to change their values. I am wondering what should I do though if I need a class with a substantial number of optional but non-final (mutable) attributes? My Builder pattern code looks like this: public class Example { //All possible parameters (optional or not) private final int param1; private final int param2; //Builder class public static class Builder { private final int param1; //Required parameters private int param2 = 0; //Optional parameters - initialized to default //Builder constructor public Builder (int param1) { this.param1 = param1; } //Setter-like methods for optional parameters public Builder param2(int value) { param2 = value; return this; } //build() method public Example build() { return new Example(this); } } //Private constructor private Example(Builder builder) { param1 = builder.param1; param2 = builder.param2; } } Can I just remove the final keyword from the declaration to be able to access the attributes externally (through normal setters, for example)? Or is there a creational pattern that allows optional but non-final attributes that would be better suited in this case?

  Read the article

• Separating Db from business with Inherited classes using multiple views

  - by catalinux

  I have a software that has a car model that will be used in different views (listing, ads, detail page, carousel, up sell widget,etc). class CarModel extends DbModel{ } I look for a "nice way" (a combination of flexible, easy to maintain,etc) to have this used in views. I'm thinking at two different ways Having object views for each context CarViewBase{ var car;// of type CarModel function constructor(args){ //will instantienta internal variable car based on args } function getThumb(){ } function getTitle(){ } } CarListingView extends CarViewBase{ function getListing(){ } } CarAdsView extends CarViewBase{ //the busines rule changes for ads widget function getThumb(){ } } Extending directly the CarModel The challenges comes when My Car Model might need an abstract factory. Let's say I have a field on my car object that states the type of the car : a truck, or a bike, or van. How would affect that my object view? Let's say that getTitle() rule would be different for each type of it. How would you do it?

  Read the article

• Should Equality be commutative within a Class Hierachy?

  - by vossad01

  It is easy to define the Equals operation in ways that are not commutative. When providing equality against other types, there are obviously situations (in most languages) were equality not being commutative is unavoidable. However, within one's own inheritance hierarchy where the root base class defines an equality member, a programmer has more control. Thus you can create situations where (A = B) ? (B = A), where A and B both derive from base class T Substituting the = with the appropriate variation for a given language. (.Equals(_), ==, etc.) That seems wrong to me, however, I recognize I may be biased by background in Mathematics. I have not been in programming long enough to know what is standard/accepted/preferred practice when programming. Do most programmers just accept .Equals(_)may not be commutative and code defensibly. Do they expect commutativity and get annoyed if it is not. In short, when working in a class hierarchy, should effort me made to ensure Equality is commutative?

  Read the article

• Did Bjarne Stroustrup create the terms constructor/destructor when talking about objects?

  - by user104971

  I was watching this keynote and Bjarne Stroustrup (Creator of C++) claims that he hadn't yet invented the words constructor and destructor yet when he was giving an example of RAII. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IYBLXBJr0HU I know the concept of construction and destruction has been around a lot longer (even in C, a function that allocates and returns a struct and then a function that frees it etc.), but was Bjarne really the first to invent the terms?

  Read the article

• Significant amount of the time, I can't think of a reason to have an object instead of a static class. Do objects have more benefits than I think?

  - by Prog

  I understand the concept of an object, and as a Java programmer I feel the OO paradigm comes rather naturally to me in practice. However recently I found myself thinking: Wait a second, what are actually the practical benefits of using an object over using a static class (with proper encapsulation and OO practices)? I could think of two benefits of using an object (both significant and powerful): Polymorphism: allows you to swap functionality dynamically and flexibly during runtime. Also allows to add new functionality 'parts' and alternatives to the system easily. For example if there's a Car class designed to work with Engine objects, and you want to add a new Engine to the system that the Car can use, you can create a new Engine subclass and simply pass an object of this class into the Car object, without having to change anything about Car. And you can decide to do so during runtime. Being able to 'pass functionality around': you can pass an object around the system dynamically. But are there any more advantages to objects over static classes? Often when I add new 'parts' to a system, I do so by creating a new class and instantiating objects from it. But recently when I stopped and thought about it, I realized that a static class would do just the same as an object, in a lot of the places where I normally use an object. For example, I'm working on adding a save/load-file mechanism to my app. With an object, the calling line of code will look like this: Thing thing = fileLoader.load(file); With a static class, it would look like this: Thing thing = FileLoader.load(file); What's the difference? Fairly often I just can't think of a reason to instantiate an object when a plain-old static-class would act just the same. But in OO systems, static classes are fairly rare. So I must be missing something. Are there any more advantages to objects other from the two that I listed? Please explain.

  Read the article

< Previous Page | 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41  | Next Page >