Search Results

Search found 1449 results on 58 pages for 'oop'.

Page 35/58 | < Previous Page | 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42  | Next Page >

• Is it good practise to blank out inherited functionality that will not be used?

  - by Timo Kosig

  I'm wondering if I should change the software architecture of one of my projects. I'm developing software for a project where two sides (in fact a host and a device) use shared code. That helps because shared data, e.g. enums can be stored in one central place. I'm working with what we call a "channel" to transfer data between device and host. Each channel has to be implemented on device and host side. We have different kinds of channels, ordinary ones and special channels which transfer measurement data. My current solution has the shared code in an abstract base class. From there on code is split between the two sides. As it has turned out there are a few cases when we would have shared code but we can't share it, we have to implement it on each side. The principle of DRY (don't repeat yourself) says that you shouldn't have code twice. My thought was now to concatenate the functionality of e.g. the abstract measurement channel on the device side and the host side in an abstract class with shared code. That means though that once we create an actual class for either the device or the host side for that channel we have to hide the functionality that is used by the other side. Is this an acceptable thing to do: public abstract class MeasurementChannelAbstract { protected void MethodUsedByDeviceSide() { } protected void MethodUsedByHostSide() { } } public class DeviceMeasurementChannel : MeasurementChannelAbstract { public new void MethodUsedByDeviceSide() { base.MethodUsedByDeviceSide(); } } Now, DeviceMeasurementChannel is only using the functionality for the device side from MeasurementChannelAbstract. By declaring all methods/members of MeasurementChannelAbstract protected you have to use the new keyword to enable that functionality to be accessed from the outside. Is that acceptable or are there any pitfalls, caveats, etc. that could arise later when using the code?

  Read the article

• How to call object's method from constructor?

  - by Kirzilla

  Hello, var Dog = function(name) { this.name = name; this.sayName(); } Dog.prototype.sayName = function() { alert(this.name); } I'm creating new instance of Dog object, but method sayName() is undefined. Why? Or maybe I should do something like (but I can't see difference)... var Dog = function(name) { this.name = name; this.prototype.sayName = function() { alert(this.name); } } Thank you.

  Read the article

• Using PHP interfaces in Codeigniter

  - by John Stewart

  I am trying to find out how can I used PHP interfaces in my MVC design. I want to make sure that the design enforces an interface so that any new module would follow that. For example: <?php interface BaseAPI { public function postMessage($msg); } class ServiceAPI implements BaseAPI { public function postMessage($msg) { return $msg; } } class Service_Two_API implements BaseAPI { public function postMessage($msg) { return "can't do this: ".$msg; } } ?> I want to do this in CI. Is it possible? how should I design it?

  Read the article

• Creating an instance of a subclass extending an abstract class (Java)

  - by dacay

  In Java, is there any way to create an instance of any class that extends abstract class A, inside a member method of class A? Classes that extends abstract class A will return their instances with this method, but i don't want to implement same method in all subclasses with a "return this();" kind line.

  Read the article

• Formal name of Magento’s Class Override Design Pattern?

  - by Alan Storm

  Magento is a newish (past 5 years) PHP based Ecommerce system with an architecture that's similar to the Java Spring framework (or so I've been told) One of the features of the Framework is certain classes are not directly instantiated. Rather than do something like $model = new Mage_Foo_Model_Name(); you pass an identifier into a static method on a global application object $model = Mage::getModel('foo/name'); and this instantiates the class for you. One of the wins with this approach is getModel checks a global configuration system for the foo/name identifier, and instantiates the class name it finds in the configuration system. This allows you to change the behavior of a Model system wide with a single configuration change. Is there a formal, Gang of Four or otherwise, name that describes this system/design pattern? The instantiation itself looks like a classic Factory pattern, but I'm specifically interested in the whole "override a class in the system via configuration" aspect. Is there a name/concept that covers this, or is it contained within the worldview of a Factory?

  Read the article

• understanding the ORM models in MVC

  - by fayer

  i cant fully understand the ORM models in MVC. so i am using symfony with doctrine. the doctrine models are created. does this mean that i don't have to create any models? are the doctrine models the only models i need? where should i put the code that uses the doctrine models: eg. $phoneIds = array(); $phone1 = new Phonenumber(); $phone1['phonenumber'] = '555 202 7890'; $phone1->save(); $phoneIds[] = $phone1['id']; $phone2 = new Phonenumber(); $phone2['phonenumber'] = '555 100 7890'; $phone2->save(); $phoneIds[] = $phone2['id']; $user = new User(); $user['username'] = 'jwage'; $user['password'] = 'changeme'; $user->save(); $user->link('Phonenumbers', $phoneIds); should this code be in the controller or in another model? and where should i validate these fields (check if it exists in database, that email is email etc)? could someone please shed a light on this. thanks.

  Read the article

• Automatically selecting and creating class objects

  - by Omin

  Lets say that we have a box class: class Box { private int width; private int height; //Box Constructor public Box( int height ) { this.height = height; width = 450; } } and a series of Box objects in our main: Box Box1 = new Box(147); Box Box2 = new Box(178); Box Box3 = new Box(784); Is there a way to use a "for" loop to go through these objects? Also, how would you make the computer create class objects for us? eg. create 10 objects using: for( int i=0; i>10; i++) { //method }

  Read the article

• Ways to make (relatively) safe assumptions about the type of concrete subclasses?

  - by Kylotan

  I have an interface (defined as a abstract base class) that looks like this: class AbstractInterface { public: bool IsRelatedTo(const AbstractInterface& other) const = 0; } And I have an implementation of this (constructors etc omitted): class ConcreteThing { public: bool IsRelatedTo(const AbstractInterface& other) const { return m_ImplObject.has_relationship_to(other.m_ImplObject); } private: ImplementationObject m_ImplObject; } The AbstractInterface forms an interface in Project A, and the ConcreteThing lives in Project B as an implementation of that interface. This is so that code in Project A can access data from Project B without having a direct dependency on it - Project B just has to implement the correct interface. Obviously the line in the body of the IsRelatedTo function cannot compile - that instance of ConcreteThing has an m_ImplObject member, but it can't assume that all AbstractInterfaces do, including the other argument. In my system, I can actually assume that all implementations of AbstractInterface are instances of ConcreteThing (or subclasses thereof), but I'd prefer not to be casting the object to the concrete type in order to get at the private member, or encoding that assumption in a way that will crash without a diagnostic later if this assumption ceases to hold true. I cannot modify ImplementationObject, but I can modify AbstractInterface and ConcreteThing. I also cannot use the standard RTTI mechanism for checking a type prior to casting, or use dynamic_cast for a similar purpose. I have a feeling that I might be able to overload IsRelatedTo with a ConcreteThing argument, but I'm not sure how to call it via the base IsRelatedTo(AbstractInterface) method. It wouldn't get called automatically as it's not a strict reimplementation of that method. Is there a pattern for doing what I want here, allowing me to implement the IsRelatedTo function via ImplementationObject::has_relationship_to(ImplementationObject), without risky casts? (Also, I couldn't think of a good question title - please change it if you have a better one.)

  Read the article

• Magic methods + Reflection API = can't investigate class properties. Why?

  - by Parth

  If I use magic methods. While using reflection API, I can't investigate class properties.. Why is it so?

  Read the article

• Object Oriented vs Relational Databases

  - by Dan

  Objects oriented databases seem like a really cool idea to me, no need to worry about mapping your domain model to your database model, no messing around with sql or ORM tools. The way I understand it, relational DBs offer some advantages when there is massive amounts of data, and searching an indexing need to be done. To my mind 99% of websites are not massive, and enterprise issues never need to be thought about, so why arn't OO DBs more widely used?

  Read the article

• What is an instance of a field called?

  - by waxwing

  This might be an odd question, but it has actually caused me some headache. In Object oriented programming, there are accepted names for key concepts. In our model, we have classes with methods and fields. Now, going to the data world: An instance of a class is called an object. An instance of a field is called... what? A value? Isn't the term value a little broad for this? I have been offered "property" as well, but isn't property also part of the model and not the data? (This is not purely academic, I am actually coding these concepts.)

  Read the article

• javascript function object's inheritFrom method

  - by gawpertron

  I've come across this.inheritFrom that enables you to inherit from a super class. var superClass = function() { this.foo = 'foo'; this.bar = 'bar'; } var subClass = function() { this.inheritFrom = superClass; this.inheritFrom(); this.myFunction = function() { return this.foo; }; } I've looked in Mozilla and MSDN, but I can't seem to find it documented any where. As far as I can see it works in IE6 and Firefox 3. Any reason why it wouldn't be documented?

  Read the article

• Inheritance question / problem

  - by Itsik

  I'm creating a custom Layout for android. The layout implementation is exactly the same, but once I need to extend from RelativeLayout, and once from LinearLayout. class Layout1 extends LinearLayout { // methods and fields } class Layout2 extends RelativeLayout { // the same EXACT methods and fields } How can I use inheritance to avoid DRY and implement my methods once.

  Read the article

• how are association, aggregation and composition written?

  - by ajsie

  i have read some posts about the differences between these 3 relationships and i think i get the point. i just wonder, are all these written the same when coding? question 1: all 3 are just a value of the object type in a instance variable? class A { public $b = '' public function __construct($object) { $this->b = $object // <-- could be a association, aggregation or a composition relation? } } question 2: does it have to be an instance variable or can it be a static one? class A { public static $b = '' // <-- nothing changed? public function __construct($object) { $this->b = $object } } question 3: is there a difference in where the object is created? i tend to think that composition object is created inside the object: class A { public $b = '' public function __construct() { $this->b = new Object // is created inside the object } } and aggregation/association is passed through a constructor or another method: class A { public $b = '' public function __construct($object) { // passed through a method $this->b = $object } } question 4: why/when is this important to know. do i have to comment an object inside another what relation its about or do you do it in an UML diagram? could someone shed a light on these questions. thanks!

  Read the article

• How should I lay-out my PHP login class?

  - by ThinkingInBits

  So, there is going to be one login form; however 1 of 3 types of members will be signing in member_type_a, member_type_b, member_type_c all of whom have some of the same properties, and some whom may have specific methods and/or properties to them. I want the class to be saved to a session variable for use with member area pages. Any suggestions on applicable design patterns?

  Read the article

• what is the difference between static class and normal class?

  - by Phsika

  when i prefer static or normal class? Or what is the difference between them? using System; using System.Collections.Generic; using System.Linq; using System.Text; namespace staticmethodlar { class Program { static void Main(string[] args) { SinifA.method1(); } } static class SinifA { public static void method1() { Console.WriteLine("Deneme1"); } } public static class SinifB { public static void method2() { Console.WriteLine("Deneme2"); } } public class sinifC { public void method3() { Console.WriteLine("Deneme3"); } } public class sinifD : sinifC { void method4() { Console.WriteLine("Deneme4"); } sinifC sinifc = new sinifC(); // i need to use it:) } }

  Read the article

• Is it possible to create ostream object, which outputs to multiple destinations?

  - by fiktor

  In 0-th approximation I have a class class MyClass{ public: ... std::ostream & getOStream(){return f;} private: ofstream f; ... }; Which is used sometimes in the following way: MyClass myclass; myclass.getOStream()<<some<<information<<printed<<here; But now I want to change the class MyClass, so that information will be printed both to f and to std::out, i.e. I want the above line to be equivalent to myclass.f<<some<<information<<printed<<here; std::cout<<some<<information<<printed<<here; I don't know any good way to do that. Do you? Is there any standard solution (for example in stl or in boost)? P.S. I tried to search on this, but it seems that I don't know good keywords. Words multiple, output, ostream, C++, boost seem to be too general.

  Read the article

• 1067: Implicit coercion of a value of type theplayclass to an unrelated type main

  - by Minelava

  I need help because I want to create a gameover screen that display score. However, there's an error that prevent me from transferring the score from theplayclass.as to thegameoverclass.as. Are there ways to pass a value to another movieclip without causing any errors. I refer the source code from this website : http://www.emanueleferonato.com/2008/12/17/designing-the-structure-of-a-flash-game-as3-version/ Here's the error C:\Users\xxx\Downloads\Migrate\test\theplayclass.as, Line 54, Column 41 1067: Implicit coercion of a value of type theplayclass to an unrelated type main. main.as package { import flash.display.MovieClip; import flash.events.Event; public class main extends MovieClip { public var playClass:theplayclass; public var gameOverClass:thegameoverclass; public function main() { showWin(); } public function showWin() { playClass = new theplayclass(this); addChild(playClass); } public function showGameOver() { gameOverClass = new thegameoverclass(this); addChild(gameOverClass); removeChild(playClass); playClass = null; } } } theplayclass.as package { import flash.display.MovieClip; import flash.events.*; public class theplayclass extends MovieClip { private var mainClass:main; var gameScore:Number; var gameOverScore:thegameoverclass; public function theplayclass(passedClass:main) { mainClass = passedClass; scoreText.text ="0"; gameScore = 0; win.addEventListener(MouseEvent.CLICK, showwinFunction); next.addEventListener(MouseEvent.CLICK, showgameoverFunction); addEventListener(Event.ADDED_TO_STAGE, addToStage); addEventListener(Event.ENTER_FRAME, changeScore); } public function addToStage(e:Event):void { this.x = 0; this.y = 0; } private function showwinFunction(e:MouseEvent):void { gameScore+=50; } private function changeScore(e:Event):void { scoreText.text =""+gameScore; } public function showgameoverFunction(e:MouseEvent) { mainClass.showGameOver(); gameOverScore = new thegameoverclass(this); gameOverScore.setTextScore(gameScore); } } } thegameoverclass.as package { import flash.display.MovieClip; import flash.events.MouseEvent; import flash.events.*; public class thegameoverclass extends MovieClip { var mainClass:main; var scorePoints:Number; public function thegameoverclass(passedClass:main) { mainClass = passedClass; finalScore.text = "test"; } public function setTextScore(textToSet:Number) { finalScore.text = ""+scorePoints; } } }

  Read the article

• How value objects are saving and loading?

  - by yeraycaballero

  Since there isn't respositories for value objects. How can I load all value objects? Suppose we are modeling a blog application and we have this classes: Post (Entity) Comment (Value object) Tag (Value object) PostsRespository (Respository) I Know that when I save a new post, its tags are saving with it in the same table. But how could I load all tags of all posts. Has PostsRespository got a method to load all tags? I usually do it, but I want to know others opinions

  Read the article

• Hash Tables - Java

  - by Antony

  Am about to do a homework, and i need to store quite a lot of information (Dictionary) in a data structure of my choice. I heard people in my classroom saying hash-tables are the way to go. How come?

  Read the article

• Inheriting and overriding interfaces in C#

  - by Daniel A. White

  Please note: I am writing this question. I have these interfaces in a library/framework I am working on: interface IRepository<TKey,TModel> { void Remove(TModel entity); } interface IRepository<T> : IRepository<int, T> { } interface ISoftDeleteRepository<TKey,TModel> : IRepository<TKey, TModel> { } interface ISoftDeleteRepository<TModel> : ISoftDeleteRepository<int, TModel>, IRepository<TModel> { } and these implementations class Repository : IRepository { void Remove(TModel entity) { // actually Delete } } interface IRepository<T> : IRepository<int, T> { } interface ISoftDeleteRepository<TKey,TModel> : IRepository<TKey, TModel> { } interface ISoftDeleteRepository<TModel> : ISoftDeleteRepository<int, TModel>, IRepository<TModel> { }

  Read the article

• Objective-C inheritance; calling overriden method from superclass?

  - by anshuchimala

  Hello, I have an Objective-C class that has a method that is meant to be overridden, which is uses in a different method. Something like this: @interface BaseClass - (id)overrideMe; - (void)doAwesomeThings; @end @implementation BaseClass - (id)overrideMe { [self doesNotRecognizeSelector:_cmd]; return nil; } - (void)doAwesomeThings { id stuff = [self overrideMe]; /* do stuff */ } @end @interface SubClass : BaseClass @end @implementation SubClass - (id)overrideMe { /* Actually do things */ return <something>; } @end However, when I create a SubClass and try to use it, it still calls overrideMe on the BaseClass and crashes due to doesNotRecognizeSelector:. (I'm not doing a [super overrideMe] or anything stupid like that). Is there a way to get BaseClass to call the overridden overrideMe?

  Read the article

• Force result for empty() test on an object

  - by hsz

  Hello ! Simple class for example: class Foo { protected $_bar; public function setBar( $value ) { $this->_bar = $value; } } And here is the question: $obj = new Foo(); var_dump( empty( $obj ) ); // true $obj->setBar( 'foobar' ); var_dump( empty( $obj ) ); // false Is it possible to change class's behaviour with testing it with empty() function so it will returns true when object is not filled with data ? I know about magic function __isset( $name ) but it is called only when we test specific field like: empty( $obj->someField ); but not when test whole object.

  Read the article

• Get information from a higher class?

  - by Clint Davis

  I don't know really how to word the question so please bear with me... I have 3 classes: Server, Database, and Table. Each class has a "Name" property. How I want it to work is that each server can have multiple databases and each database can have multiple tables. So in the Server class I have this property. Private _databases As List(Of Database) Public Property Databases() As List(Of Database) Get Return _databases End Get Set(ByVal value As List(Of Database)) _databases = value End Set End Property And I have something similar in the Database class for the tables. This works fine now because I can do something like this to get all the databases in the server. For Each db In s.Databases 's being the server object Debug.Print(db.Name) Next I would like to expand these classes. I want the server class to handle all the connection information and I would like the other classes to use the server class's connection information in them. For example, I setup a server class and set the connection string to the server. Then I want the database class to use serverclass.connectionstring property to connect to the server and get a list of all the databases. But I want to keep that code in the database class. How can I do this? I've attached some code of what I want to do. Public Class Server Private _name As String Public Property Name() As String Get Return _name End Get Set(ByVal value As String) _name = value End Set End Property Private _databases As List(Of Database) Public Property Databases() As List(Of Database) Get Return _databases End Get Set(ByVal value As List(Of Database)) _databases = value End Set End Property End Class '-----New class Public Class Database Private _name As String Public Property Name() As String Get Return _name End Get Set(ByVal value As String) _name = value End Set End Property Private _tables As List(Of Table) Public Property Tables() As List(Of Table) Get Return _tables End Get Set(ByVal value As List(Of Table)) _tables = value End Set End Property 'This is where I need help! Private Sub LoadTables () dim connectionstring as string = server.connectionstring 'Possible? 'Do database stuff End Class Thanks for reading!

  Read the article

• Best way to design a class in python

  - by Fraz

  So, this is more like a philosophical question for someone who is trying to understand classes. Most of time, how i use class is actually a very bad way to use it. I think of a lot of functions and after a time just indent the code and makes it a class and replacing few stuff with self.variable if a variable is repeated a lot. (I know its bad practise) But anyways... What i am asking is: class FooBar: def __init__(self,foo,bar): self._foo = foo self._bar = bar self.ans = self.__execute() def __execute(self): return something(self._foo, self._bar) Now there are many ways to do this: class FooBar: def __init__(self,foo): self._foo = foo def execute(self,bar): return something(self._foo, bar) Can you suggest which one is bad and which one is worse? or any other way to do this. This is just a toy example (offcourse). I mean, there is no need to have a class here if there is one function.. but lets say in __execute something() calls a whole set of other methods.. ?? Thanks

  Read the article

< Previous Page | 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42  | Next Page >