Search Results

Search found 254060 results on 10163 pages for 'stack oriented'.

Page 39/10163 | < Previous Page | 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46  | Next Page >

• Search and Replace in MVC

  - by danip

  What would be a good MVC/OOP/GRASP/SOLID structure for a search/replace functionality. Methods: search/searchNext/replace/replaceAll. I'm interested only in the PHP arhitecture and how a professional developer would implement this in it's OWN FRAMEWORK. What names would you use for the classes? What subfolders would you used in your MODEL folder? How would you connect the MODELS/CONTROLLER? This is just a arhitecture question to understand better the principles of good OOP in practice. My current implementation is very simplistic using a service model: /controller/SearchReplaceController.php /models/services/SearchReplaceService.php The problem with this is I know I'm breaking SRP in the service but I found this somehow acceptable. Also creating a service does not feel like the best solution for this.

  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

• 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

• 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

• "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

• Advice on approaching a significant rearrangement/refactoring?

  - by Prog

  I'm working on an application (hobby project, solo programmer, small-medium size), and I have recently redesigned a significant part of it. The program already works in it's current state, but I decided to reimplement things to improve the OO design. I'm about to implement this new design by refactoring a big part of the application. Thing is I'm not sure where to start. Obviously, by the nature of a rearrangement, the moment you change one part of the program several other parts (at least temporarily) break. So it's a little 'scary' to rearrange something in a piece of software that already works. I'm asking for advice or some general guidelines: how should I approach a significant refactoring? When you approach rearranging large parts of your application, where do you start? Note that I'm interested only in re-arranging the high-level structure of the app. I have no intention of rewriting local algorithms.

  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

• Should the 12-String be in it's own class and why?

  - by MayNotBe

  This question is regarding a homework project in my first Java programming class (online program). The assignment is to create a "stringed instrument" class using (among other things) an array of String names representing instrument string names ("A", "E", etc). The idea for the 12-string is beyond the scope of the assignment (it doesn't have to be included at all) but now that I've thought of it, I want to figure out how to make it work. Part of me feels like the 12-String should have it's own class, but another part of me feels that it should be in the guitar class because it's a guitar. I suppose this will become clear as I progress but I thought I would see what kind of response I get here. Also, why would they ask for a String[] for the instrument string names? Seems like a char[] makes more sense. Thank you for any insight. Here's my code so far (it's a work in progress): public class Guitar { private int numberOfStrings = 6; private static int numberOfGuitars = 0; private String[] stringNotes = {"E", "A", "D", "G", "B", "A"}; private boolean tuned = false; private boolean playing = false; public Guitar(){ numberOfGuitars++; } public Guitar(boolean twelveString){ if(twelveString){ stringNotes[0] = "E, E"; stringNotes[1] = "A, A"; stringNotes[2] = "D, D"; stringNotes[3] = "G, G"; stringNotes[4] = "B, B"; stringNotes[5] = "E, E"; numberOfStrings = 12; } } public int getNumberOfStrings() { return numberOfStrings; } public void setNumberOfStrings(int strings) { if(strings == 12 || strings == 6) { if(strings == 12){ stringNotes[0] = "E, E"; stringNotes[1] = "A, A"; stringNotes[2] = "D, D"; stringNotes[3] = "G, G"; stringNotes[4] = "B, B"; stringNotes[5] = "E, E"; numberOfStrings = strings; } if(strings == 6) numberOfStrings = strings; }//if else System.out.println("***ERROR***Guitar can only have 6 or 12 strings***ERROR***"); } public void getStringNotes() { for(int i = 0; i < stringNotes.length; i++){ if(i == stringNotes.length - 1) System.out.println(stringNotes[i]); else System.out.print(stringNotes[i] + ", "); }//for }

  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

• 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

• 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

• Should the 12-String be in it's own class and why? Java

  - by MayNotBe

  This is my first question here. I will amend it as instructed. This is regarding a homework project in my first Java programming class (online program). The assignment is to create a "stringed instrument" class using (among other things) an array of String names representing instrument string names ("A", "E", etc). The idea for the 12-string is beyond the scope of the assignment (it doesn't have to be included at all) but now that I've thought of it, I want to figure out how to make it work. Part of me feels like the 12-String should have it's own class, but another part of me feels that it should be in the guitar class because it's a guitar. I suppose this will become clear as I progress but I thought I would see what kind of response I get here. Also, why would they ask for a String[] for the instrument string names? Seems like a char[] makes more sense. Thank you for any insight. Here's my code so far (it's a work in progress): public class Guitar { private int numberOfStrings = 6; private static int numberOfGuitars = 0; private String[] stringNotes = {"E", "A", "D", "G", "B", "A"}; private boolean tuned = false; private boolean playing = false; public Guitar(){ numberOfGuitars++; } public Guitar(boolean twelveString){ if(twelveString){ stringNotes[0] = "E, E"; stringNotes[1] = "A, A"; stringNotes[2] = "D, D"; stringNotes[3] = "G, G"; stringNotes[4] = "B, B"; stringNotes[5] = "E, E"; numberOfStrings = 12; } } public int getNumberOfStrings() { return numberOfStrings; } public void setNumberOfStrings(int strings) { if(strings == 12 || strings == 6) { if(strings == 12){ stringNotes[0] = "E, E"; stringNotes[1] = "A, A"; stringNotes[2] = "D, D"; stringNotes[3] = "G, G"; stringNotes[4] = "B, B"; stringNotes[5] = "E, E"; numberOfStrings = strings; } if(strings == 6) numberOfStrings = strings; }//if else System.out.println("***ERROR***Guitar can only have 6 or 12 strings***ERROR***"); } public void getStringNotes() { for(int i = 0; i < stringNotes.length; i++){ if(i == stringNotes.length - 1) System.out.println(stringNotes[i]); else System.out.print(stringNotes[i] + ", "); }//for }

  Read the article

• A programmer who doesn't get to program - where to turn? [closed]

  - by Just an Anon

  I'm in my mid 20's, and have been working as a full time programmer / developer for the last ~6 years, with several years of part-time freelancing before this, and three straight years of freelancing in the middle of this short career. I work mostly with PHP and the Drupal framework. By and large, I focus on programming custom pieces of functionality; these, of course, vary greatly from project to project. I've got years of solid experience with OOP (have done some Java & C# years ago, too) including intensive experience with front-end development, and even some design work. I've lead small teams (2-4 people) of developers. And of course, given the large amount of freelancing, I've got decent project- & client-management skills. My problem is staying motivated at any place of employment. In the time mentioned I've worked (full-time) at six local companies. The longest I've stayed at any company was just over a year. I find that I'll get hired and be very excited and motivated for the first few months, but the work quickly gets "stale." By that I mean that the interesting components (ie. the programming) get done, and the rest of the work turns into boring cleanup (move a button, add text, change colours, add a field). I don't get challenged, and I don't feel like I'm learning anything new. This happens repeatedly time and time again, and I always end up leaving for either a new opportunity, or to freelance. I'm wondering if perhaps I've painted myself into a corner with the rather niche work market (although with very high demand and good compensation) and need to explore other career choices. Another possibility is that I may be choosing the wrong places of employment, mostly small agencies, and need to look into working for a larger, more established firm. I find programming, writing code, and architecting solutions very rewarding. When I'm working on an interesting problem I lose all sense of time and 14-16 hours can fly by like minutes. I get the same exciting feeling when I'm doing high-level planning of a complex system, breaking up the work and figuring out how everything will tie-in together. I absolutely hate doing small, "stupid" changes that pose no challenge, yet seem to make up more and more of my work. I want to find a workplace where I will get to work on such tasks, be challenged, and improve in all areas of product development. This maybe a programming job, management, architecture of desktop apps, or may be managing a taco stand on a beach in Mexico - I don't know, and I need some advice and real-world feedback. What are some job areas worth exploring? The requirements are fairly simple: working with computers interacting with others challenging decent pay (I'm making just short of 90k / year with a month of vacation & some benefits, and would like to stay in this range, but am willing to take a temporary cut in pay for a more interesting position) Any advice would be much appreciated!

  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

• 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

• PHP class data implementation

  - by Bakanyaka

  I'm studying OOP PHP and have watched two tutorials that implement user login\registration system as an example. But implementation varies. Which way will be more correct one to work with data such as this? Load all data retrieved from database as array into a property called something like _data on class creation and further methods operate with this property Create separate properties for each field retrieved from database, on class creation load all data fields into respective properties and operate with that properties separately? Then let's say I want to create a method that returns a list of all users with their data. Which way is better? Method that returns just an array of userdata like this: Array([0]=>array([id] => 1, [username] => 'John', ...), [1]=>array([id] => 2, [username] => 'Jack', ...), ...) Method that creates a new instance of it's class for each user and returns an array of objects

  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

• IXRepository and test problems

  - by Ridermansb

  Recently had a doubt about how and where to test repository methods. Let the following situation: I have an interface IRepository like this: public interface IRepository<T> where T: class, IEntity { IQueryable<T> Query(Expression<Func<T, bool>> expression); // ... Omitted } And a generic implementation of IRepository public class Repository<T> : IRepository<T> where T : class, IEntity { public IQueryable<T> Query(Expression<Func<T, bool>> expression) { return All().Where(expression).AsQueryable(); } } This is an implementation base that can be used by any repository. It contains the basic implementation of my ORM. Some repositories have specific filters, in which case we will IEmployeeRepository with a specific filter: public interface IEmployeeRepository : IRepository<Employee> { IQueryable<Employee> GetInactiveEmployees(); } And the implementation of IEmployeeRepository: public class EmployeeRepository : Repository<Employee>, IEmployeeRepository // TODO: I have a dependency with ORM at this point in Repository<Employee>. How to solve? How to test the GetInactiveEmployees method { public IQueryable<Employee> GetInactiveEmployees() { return Query(p => p.Status != StatusEmployeeEnum.Active || p.StartDate < DateTime.Now); } } Questions Is right to inherit Repository<Employee>? The goal is to reuse code once all implementing IRepository already been made. If EmployeeRepository inherit only IEmployeeRepository, I have to literally copy and paste the code of Repository<T>. In our example, in EmployeeRepository : Repository<Employee> our Repository lies in our ORM layer. We have a dependency here with our ORM impossible to perform some unit test. How to create a unit test to ensure that the filter GetInactiveEmployees return all Employees in which the Status != Active and StartDate < DateTime.Now. I can not create a Fake/Mock of IEmployeeRepository because I would be testing? Need to test the actual implementation of GetInactiveEmployees. The complete code can be found on Github

  Read the article

• If an entity is composed, is it still a god object?

  - by Telastyn

  I am working on a system to configure hardware. Unfortunately, there is tons of variety in the hardware, which means there's a wide variety of capabilities and configurations depending on what specific hardware the software connects to. To deal with this, we're using a Component Based Entity design where the "hardware" class itself is a very thin container for components that are composed at runtime based on what capabilities/configuration are available. This works great, and the design itself has worked well elsewhere (particularly in games). The problem is that all this software does is configure the hardware. As such, almost all of the code is a component of the hardware instance. While the consumer only ever works against the strongly typed interfaces for the components, it could be argued that the class that represents an instance of the hardware is a God Object. If you want to do anything to/with the hardware, you query an interface and work with it. So, even if the components of an object are modular and decoupled well, is their container a God Object and the downsides associated with the anti-pattern?

  Read the article

• Android app, No error message but has stopped unexpectedly [migrated]

  - by user74722

  Does anyone know what is my problem. I do not have any compile error messages however when i run the app it crashes and stops unexpectedly. Here is my codes. Thank you in advance. ListView l ; @Override protected void onCreate(Bundle savedInstanceState) { super.onCreate(savedInstanceState); setContentView(R.layout.activity_final_project); String arr[]={"Red","Green","Blue","Yellow","Cyan"}; l=(ListView) findViewById(R.id.listView1); ArrayAdapter<String> adapter=new ArrayAdapter<String>(getApplicationContext(), android.R.layout.simple_list_item_1, arr); l.setAdapter(adapter); Button buttonOne = (Button) findViewById(R.id.button1); buttonOne.setOnClickListener(new OnClickListener(){ @Override public void onClick(View v){ setContentView(R.layout.layout_save); // setContentView(R.layout.activity_final_project); //startActivity(new Intent("com.example.finalproject.layout_save")); } }); }

  Read the article

• Which order to define getters and setters in? [closed]

  - by N.N.

  Is there a best practice for the order to define getters and setters in? There seems to be two practices: getter/setter pairs first getters, then setters (or the other way around) To illuminate the difference here is a Java example of getter/setter pairs: public class Foo { private int var1, var2, var3; public int getVar1() { return var1; } public void setVar1(int var1) { this.var1 = var1; } public int getVar2() { return var2; } public void setVar2(int var2) { this.var2 = var2; } public int getVar3() { return var3; } public void setVar3(int var3) { this.var3 = var3; } } And here is a Java example of first getters, then setters: public class Foo { private int var1, var2, var3; public int getVar1() { return var1; } public int getVar2() { return var2; } public int getVar3() { return var3; } public void setVar1(int var1) { this.var1 = var1; } public void setVar2(int var2) { this.var2 = var2; } public void setVar3(int var3) { this.var3 = var3; } } I think the latter type of ordering is clearer both in code and in class diagrams but I do not know if that is enough to rule out the other type of ordering.

  Read the article

• Object Oriented PHP Best Practices

  - by user270797

  Say I have a class which represents a person, a variable within that class would be $name. Previously, In my scripts I would create an instance of the object then set the name by just using: $object->name = "x"; However, I was told this was not best practice? That I should have a function set_name() or something similar like this: function set_name($name) { $this->name=$name; } is this correct? If in this example I want to insert a new "person" record into the db, how do I pass all the information about the person ie $name, $age, $address, $phone etc to the class in order to insert it, should I do: function set($data) { $this->name= $data['name']; $this->age = $data['age']; etc etc } Then send it an array? Would this be best practice? or could someone please recommend best practice?

  Read the article

• zend gdata google base getting link url and parsing xml with object oriented php

  - by thrice801

  Hi, So I am using Zend frameworks Gdata extension to parse xml data from google base. http://framework.zend.com/manual/en/zend.gdata.gbase.html Working fine minus one damn important thing I cant seem to parse, the link to the actual page, because there are two elements and its returned as an array. Anyways Ive tried vardumping the array but what comes out didnt help me figure out what was going on any better. So heres the specifics of the issue. echo $entry->title->text."<br />".$entry->id->text."<br />".$entry->content->text."<br />".$entry->author[0]->name."<br />"; (the above code works fine). Now according to the documentation I thought I could get the link href by going $entry-link-text or $entry-link-url (tried both, neither worked). Anyways, Im not sure whether this is zend specific or just a gap in my OOP understanding, but any help would be much appreciated!

  Read the article

• Service Oriented Architecture & Domain-Driven Design

  - by Michael

  I've always developed code in a SOA type of way. This year I've been trying to do more DDD but I keep getting the feeling that I'm not getting it. At work our systems are load balanced and designed not to have state. The architecture is: Website ===Physical Layer== Main Service ==Physical Layer== Server 1/Service 2/Service 3/Service 4 Only Server 1,Service 2,Service 3 and Service 4 can talk to the database and the Main Service calls the correct service based on products ordered. Every physical layer is load balanced too. Now when I develop a new service, I try to think DDD in that service even though it doesn't really feel like it fits. I use good DDD principles like entities, value types, repositories, aggregates, factories and etc. I've even tried using ORM's but they just don't seem like they fit in a stateless architecture. I know there are ways around it, for example use IStatelessSession instead of ISession with NHibernate. However, ORM just feel like they don't fit in a stateless architecture. I've noticed I really only use some of the concepts and patterns DDD has taught me but the overall architecture is still SOA. I am starting to think DDD doesn't fit in large systems but I do think some of the patterns and concepts do fit in large systems. Like I said, maybe I'm just not grasping DDD or maybe I'm over analyzing my designs? Maybe by using the patterns and concepts DDD has taught me I am using DDD? Not sure if there is really a question to this post but more of thoughts I've had when trying to figure out where DDD fits in overall systems and how scalable it truly is. The truth is, I don't think I really even know what DDD is?

  Read the article

< Previous Page | 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46  | Next Page >