Search Results

Search found 29788 results on 1192 pages for 'object lifetime'.

Page 37/1192 | < Previous Page | 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44  | Next Page >

  • Visual C++, CMap object save to blob column

    - by ilansch
    I have a MFC CMap object, each object stores 160K~ entries of long data. I need to store it on Oracle SQL. we decided to save it as a blob. since we do not want to make additional table. we also thought about saving it as local file and point the SQL column to that file, but we rather just keep it as blob on the server and clear the table every couple of weeks. The table has a sequential key as ID, and 2 column of time. I need to add the blob column in order to store on every row that CMap. Can you recommend a guide to do so (read/write Map to blob or maybe a clob) ? Thanks.

    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

  • 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

  • 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

  • Rotate an object given only by its points?

    - by d33tah
    I was recently writing a simple 3D maze FPP game. Once I was done fiddling with planes in OpenGL, I wanted to add support for importing Blender objects. The approach I used was triangulization of the object, then using Three.js to export the points to plaintext and then parsing the result JSON in my app. The example file can be seen here: https://github.com/d33tah/tinyfpp/blob/master/Data/Models/cross.txt The numbers represent x,y,z,u,v of a single vertex, which combined in three make a triangle. Then I rendered such an object triangle-by-triangle and played with it. I could move it back and forth and sideways, but I still have no idea how to rotate it by some axis. Let's say I'd like to rotate all the points by five degrees to the left, how would a code doing it look like?

    Read the article

  • Settings object with singleton pattern

    - by axis
    I need to build an object that will have only one instance because this Object is dedicated to the storage of vital settings for my application and I would like to avoid a misuse of this type or a conflict at run-time. The most popular solution for this, according to the internet, is the Singleton pattern. But I would like to know about other ideas or solutions for this; also I would like to know if other solutions can be much more easy to grasp for an user of this hypothetical library. Thanks.

    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

  • 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 an imperative language with a Haskell-like type system?

    - by Graham Kaemmer
    I've tried to learn Haskell a few times over the last few years, and, maybe because I know mainly scripting languages, the functional-ness of it has always bothered me (monads seem like a huge mess for doing lots of I/O). However, I think it's type system is perfect. Reading through a guide to Haskell's types and typeclasses (like this), I don't really see a reason why they would require a functional language, and furthermore, they seem like they would be perfect for an industry-grade object-oriented language (like Java). This all begs the question: has anyone ever taken Haskell's typing system and made a imperative, OOP language with it? If so, I want to use it.

    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 to deal with OOP design problems in interviews?

    - by haps10
    This is a question where I seek guidance from fellow/senior developers to get into my dream company - it's a pioneer in OOP and Agile. I've already failed once to clear an interview. One part I feel most challenging is to come up with a proper Object Oriented design(classes, interfaces, methods, interactions etc.) in a very short time for certain situations like Pacman, Game Of Life and so on. As the problems are unprecedented ones - my approach is mostly to try different things and then make decisions - which they feel is not clear and not what they expect from a developer with 5+ years of experience. I've already studied a few books on patterns, OOP - it didn't help me much and I think it'll take a bit more than that. Could some one please guide on what specifically shall I practice so that I can do better at design problems as above. I want to refine my approach and have a better thought process.

    Read the article

  • How to check if JavaScript object is JSON

    - by Wei Hao
    I have a nested JSON object that I need to loop through, and the value of each key could be a String, JSON array or another JSON object. Depending on the type of object, I need to carry out different operations. Is there any way I can check the type of the object to see if it is a String, JSON object or JSON array? I tried using typeof and instanceof but both didn't seem to work, as typeof will return an object for both JSON object and array, and instanceof gives an error when I do obj instanceof JSON. To be more specific, after parsing the JSON into a JS object, is there any way I can check if it is a normal string, or an object with keys and values (from a JSON object), or an array (from a JSON array)? For example: JSON var data = {"hi": {"hello": ["hi1","hi2"] }, "hey":"words" } JavaScript var jsonObj = JSON.parse(data); var level1 = jsonObj.hi; var text = jsonObj.hey; var arr = level1.hello; //how to check if level1 was formerly a JSON object? //how to check if arr was formerly a JSON array? //how to check if text is a string?

    Read the article

  • Help with Java Generics: Cannot use "Object" as argument for "? extends Object"

    - by AniDev
    Hello, I have the following code: import java.util.*; public class SellTransaction extends Transaction { private Map<String,? extends Object> origValueMap; public SellTransaction(Map<String,? extends Object> valueMap) { super(Transaction.Type.Sell); assignValues(valueMap); this.origValueMap=valueMap; } public SellTransaction[] splitTransaction(double splitAtQuantity) { Map<String,? extends Object> valueMapPart1=origValueMap; valueMapPart1.put(nameMappings[3],(Object)new Double(splitAtQuantity)); Map<String,? extends Object> valueMapPart2=origValueMap; valueMapPart2.put(nameMappings[3],((Double)origValueMap.get(nameMappings[3]))-splitAtQuantity); return new SellTransaction[] {new SellTransaction(valueMapPart1),new SellTransaction(valueMapPart2)}; } } The code fails to compile when I call valueMapPart1.put and valueMapPart2.put, with the error: The method put(String, capture#5-of ? extends Object) in the type Map is not applicable for the arguments (String, Object) I have read on the Internet about generics and wildcards and captures, but I still don't understand what is going wrong. My understanding is that the value of the Map's can be any class that extends Object, which I think might be redundant, because all classes extend Object. And I cannot change the generics to something like ? super Object, because the Map is supplied by some library. So why is this not compiling? Also, if I try to cast valueMap to Map<String,Object>, the compiler gives me that 'Unchecked conversion' warning. Thanks!

    Read the article

  • Is it true that in most Object Oriented Programming Languages, an "i" in an instance method always r

    - by Jian Lin
    In the following code: <script type="text/javascript"> var i = 10; function Circle(radius) { this.r = radius; this.i = radius; } Circle.i = 123; Circle.prototype.area = function() { alert(i); } var c = new Circle(1); var a = c.area(); </script> What is being alerted? The answer is at the end of this question. I found that the i in the alert call either refers to any local (if any), or the global variable. There is no way that it can be the instance variable or the class variable even when there is no local and no global defined. To refer to the instance variable i, we need this.i, and to the class variable i, we need Circle.i. Is this actually true for almost all Object oriented programming languages? Any exception? Are there cases that when there is no local and no global, it will look up the instance variable and then the class variable scope? (or in this case, are those called scope?) the answer is: 10 is being alerted.

    Read the article

  • Convert enumerated records to php object

    - by Matt H
    I have a table containing a bunch of records like this: +-----------+--------+----------+ | extension | fwd_to | type | +-----------+--------+----------+ | 800 | 11111 | noanswer | | 800 | 12345 | uncond | | 800 | 22222 | unavail | | 800 | 54321 | busy | | 801 | 123 | uncond | +-----------+--------+----------+ etc The query looks like this: select fwd_to, type from forwards where extension='800'; Now I get back an array containing objects which look like the following when printed with Kohana::debug: (object) stdClass Object ( [fwd_to] => 11111 [type] => noanswer ) (object) stdClass Object ( [fwd_to] => 12345 [type] => uncond ) (object) stdClass Object ( [fwd_to] => 22222 [type] => unavail ) (object) stdClass Object ( [fwd_to] => 54321 [type] => busy ) What I'd like to do is convert this to an object of this form: (object) stdClass Object ( [busy] => 54321 [uncond] => 12345 [unavail] => 22222 [noanswer] => 11111 ) The reason being I want to then call json_encode on it. This will allow me to use jquery populate to populate a form. Is there a suggested way I can do this nicely? I'm fairly new to PHP and I'm sure this is easy but it's eluding me at the moment.

    Read the article

  • Simple form validation. Object-oriented.

    - by kalininew
    Problem statement: It is necessary for me to write a code, whether which before form sending will check all necessary fields are filled. If not all fields are filled, it is necessary to allocate with their red colour and not to send the form. Now the code exists in such kind: function formsubmit(formName, reqFieldArr){ var curForm = new formObj(formName, reqFieldArr); if(curForm.valid) curForm.send(); else curForm.paint(); } function formObj(formName, reqFieldArr){ var filledCount = 0; var fieldArr = new Array(); for(i=reqFieldArr.length-1; i>=0; i--){ fieldArr[i] = new fieldObj(formName, reqFieldArr[i]); if(fieldArr[i].filled == true) filledCount++; } if(filledCount == fieldArr.length) this.valid = true; else this.valid = false; this.paint = function(){ for(i=fieldArr.length-1; i>=0; i--){ if(fieldArr[i].filled == false) fieldArr[i].paintInRed(); else fieldArr[i].unPaintInRed(); } } this.send = function(){ document.forms[formName].submit(); } } function fieldObj(formName, fName){ var curField = document.forms[formName].elements[fName]; if(curField.value != '') this.filled = true; else this.filled = false; this.paintInRed = function(){ curField.addClassName('red'); } this.unPaintInRed = function(){ curField.removeClassName('red'); } } Function is caused in such a way: <input type="button" onClick="formsubmit('orderform', ['name', 'post', 'payer', 'recipient', 'good'])" value="send" /> Now the code works. But I would like to add "dynamism" in it. That it is necessary for me: to keep an initial code essentially, to add listening form fields (only necessary for filling). For example, when the field is allocated by red colour and the user starts it to fill, it should become white. As a matter of fact I need to add listening of events: onChange, blur for the blank fields of the form. As it to make within the limits of an initial code. If all my code - full nonsense, let me know about it. As to me it to change using object-oriented the approach.

    Read the article

  • Serialize JavaScript's navigator object

    - by kappa
    Hi, I'm creating a page to help diagnose the problem our users are experiencing with our web pages (you know, asking a user "What browser are you using?" usually leads to "Internet"). This page already submits to me all the HTTP headers and now I'm trying to have JavaScript give some more informations, so I thought it would be great to have the user's navigator JavaScript object and I started looking how to serialize it so I can submit it through a form. The problem is I'm not able to serialize the navigator object using any JSON library I know of, everyone returns an empty object (?!), so I decided to write an ad-hoc serializer. You can find the code here: <!DOCTYPE html> <html> <head> <script src="https://ajax.googleapis.com/ajax/libs/jquery/1.5.0/jquery.min.js" type="text/javascript"></script> <script type="text/javascript"> function serialize (object) { var type = typeof object; if (object === null) { return '"nullValue"'; } if (type == 'string' || type === 'number' || type === 'boolean') { return '"' + object + '"'; } else if (type === 'function') { return '"functionValue"'; } else if (type === 'object') { var output = '{'; for (var item in object) { if (item !== 'enabledPlugin') { output += '"' + item + '":' + serialize(object[item]) + ','; } } return output.replace(/\,$/, '') + '}'; } else if (type === 'undefined') { return '"undefinedError"'; } else { return '"unknownTypeError"'; } }; $(document).ready(function () { $('#navigator').text(serialize(navigator)); }); </script> <style type="text/css"> #navigator { font-family: monospaced; } </style> <title>Serialize</title> </head> <body> <h1>Serialize</h1> <p id="navigator"></p> </body> </html> This code seems to work perfectly in Firefox, Opera, Chrome and Safari but (obviously) doesn't work in Internet Explorer (at least version 8.0), it complains that "Property or method not supported by the object" at line for (var item in object) {. Do you have any hint on how to fix the code or how to reach the goal (serialize the navigator object) by other means?

    Read the article

  • C#: Object having two constructors: how to limit which properties are set together?

    - by Dr. Zim
    Say you have a Price object that accepts either an (int quantity, decimal price) or a string containing "4/$3.99". Is there a way to limit which properties can be set together? Feel free to correct me in my logic below. The Test: A and B are equal to each other, but the C example should not be allowed. Thus the question How to enforce that all three parameters are not invoked as in the C example? AdPrice A = new AdPrice { priceText = "4/$3.99"}; // Valid AdPrice B = new AdPrice { qty = 4, price = 3.99m}; // Valid AdPrice C = new AdPrice { qty = 4, priceText = "2/$1.99", price = 3.99m};// Not The class: public class AdPrice { private int _qty; private decimal _price; private string _priceText; The constructors: public AdPrice () : this( qty: 0, price: 0.0m) {} // Default Constructor public AdPrice (int qty = 0, decimal price = 0.0m) { // Numbers only this.qty = qty; this.price = price; } public AdPrice (string priceText = "0/$0.00") { // String only this.priceText = priceText; } The Methods: private void SetPriceValues() { var matches = Regex.Match(_priceText, @"^\s?((?<qty>\d+)\s?/)?\s?[$]?\s?(?<price>[0-9]?\.?[0-9]?[0-9]?)"); if( matches.Success) { if (!Decimal.TryParse(matches.Groups["price"].Value, out this._price)) this._price = 0.0m; if (!Int32.TryParse(matches.Groups["qty"].Value, out this._qty)) this._qty = (this._price > 0 ? 1 : 0); else if (this._price > 0 && this._qty == 0) this._qty = 1; } } private void SetPriceString() { this._priceText = (this._qty > 1 ? this._qty.ToString() + '/' : "") + String.Format("{0:C}",this.price); } The Accessors: public int qty { get { return this._qty; } set { this._qty = value; this.SetPriceString(); } } public decimal price { get { return this._price; } set { this._price = value; this.SetPriceString(); } } public string priceText { get { return this._priceText; } set { this._priceText = value; this.SetPriceValues(); } } }

    Read the article

  • facebook open graph meta property og:type of 'website'. The property 'object-name' requires an object of og:type 'object-name'

    - by chinmayahd
    in cake php 1.3 in view ctp i have follow code: $url = 'http://example.com/exmp/explus/books/view/'.$book['Book']['id']; echo $this->Html->meta(array('property' => 'fb:app_id', 'content' => '*******'),'',array('inline'=>false)); echo $this->Html->meta(array('property' => 'og:type', 'content' => 'book'),'',array('inline'=>false)); echo $this->Html->meta(array('property' => 'og:url', 'content' => $url ),'',array('inline'=>false)); echo $this->Html->meta(array('property' => 'og:title', 'content' => $book['Book']['title']),'',array('inline'=>false)); echo $this->Html->meta(array('property' => 'og:description', 'content' => $book['Book']['title']),'',array('inline'=>false)); $imgurl = '../image/'.$book['Book']['id']; echo $this->Html->meta(array('property' => 'og:image', 'content' => $imgurl ),'',array('inline'=>false)); ?> and it gives the following error when i am posting it' { "error": { "message": "(#3502) Object at URL http://example.com/exmp/explus/books/view/234' has og:type of 'website'. The property 'book' requires an object of og:type 'book'. ", "type": "OAuthException", "code": 3502 } } is any one know how to solve it?

    Read the article

  • Web workflow solution - how should I approach the design?

    - by Tom Pickles
    We've been tasked with creating a web based workflow tool to track change management. It has a single workflow with multiple synchronous tasks for the most part, but branch out at a point to tasks running in parallel which meet up later on. There will be all sorts of people using the application, and all of them will need to see their outstanding tasks for each change, but only theirs, not others. There will also be a high level group of people who oversee all changes, so need to see everything. They will need to see tasks which have not been done in the specified time, who's responsible etc. The data will be persisted to a SQL database. It'll all be put together using .Net. I've been trying to learn and implement OOP into my designs of late, but I'm wondering if this is moot in this instance as it may be better to have the business logic for this in stored procedures in the DB. I could use POCO's, a front end layer and a data access layer for the web application and just use it as a mechanism for CRUD actions on the DB, then use SP's fired in the DB to apply the business rules. On the other hand, I could use an object oriented design within the web app, but as the data in the app is state-less, is this a bad idea? I could try and model out the whole application into a class structure, implementing interfaces, base classes and all that good stuff. So I would create a change class, which contained a list of task classes/types, which defined each task, and implement an ITask interface etc. Put end-user types into the tasks to identify who should be doing what task. Then apply all the business logic in the respective class methods etc. What approach do you guys think I should be using for this solution?

    Read the article

  • When too much encapsulation was reached

    - by Samuel
    Recently, I read a lot of gook articles about how to do a good encapsulation. And when I say "good encapsulation", I don't talk about hiding private fields with public properties; I talk about preventing users of your Api to do wrong things. Here is two good articles about this subject: http://blog.ploeh.dk/2011/05/24/PokayokeDesignFromSmellToFragrance.aspx http://lostechies.com/derickbailey/2011/03/28/encapsulation-youre-doing-it-wrong/ At my job, the majority a our applications are not destined to other programmers but rather to the customers. About 80% of the application code is at the top of the structure (Not used by other code). For this reason, there is probably no chance ever that this code will be used by other application. An example of encapsulation that prevent user to do wrong thing with your Api is to return an IEnumerable instead of IList when you don't want to give the ability to the user to add or remove items in the list. My question is: When encapsulation could be considered like too much of purism object oriented programming while keeping in mind that each hour of programming is charged to the customer? I want to do good code that is maintainable, easy to read and to use but when this is not a public Api (Used by other programmer), where could we put the line between perfect code and not so perfect code? Thank you.

    Read the article

  • Manager/Container class vs static class methods

    - by Ben
    Suppose I a have a Widget class that is part of a framework used independently by many applications. I create Widget instances in many situations and their lifetimes vary. In addition to Widget's instance specified methods, I would like to be able to perform the follow class wide operations: Find a single Widget instance based on a unique id Iterate over the list of all Widgets Remove a widget from the set of all widgets In order support these operations, I have been considering two approaches: Container class - Create some container or manager class, WidgetContainer, which holds a list of all Widget instances, support iteration and provides methods for Widget addition, removal and lookup. For example in C#: public class WidgetContainer : IEnumerable<Widget { public void AddWidget(Widget); public Widget GetWidget(WidgetId id); public void RemoveWidget(WidgetId id); } Static class methods - Add static class methods to Widget. For example: public class Widget { public Widget(WidgetId id); public static Widget GetWidget(WidgetId id); public static void RemoveWidget(WidgetId id); public static IEnumerable<Widget AllWidgets(); } Using a container class has the added problem of how to access the container class. Make it a singleton?..yuck! Create some World object that provides access to all such container classes? I have seen many frameworks that use the container class approach, so what is the general consensus?

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44  | Next Page >