Search Results

Search found 3838 results on 154 pages for 'abstract factory'.

Page 4/154 | < Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >

  • Does this factory method pattern example violate open-close?

    - by William
    In Head-First Design Patterns, they use a pizza shop example to demonstrate the factory method pattern. public abstract class PizzaStore { public Pizza orderPizza(String type) { Pizza pizza; pizza = createPizza(type); pizza.prepare(); pizza.bake(); pizza.cut(); pizza.box(); return pizza; } abstract Pizza createPizza(String type) } public class NYPizzaStore extends PizzaStore { Pizza createPizza(String item) { if (item.equals("cheese") { return new NYStyleCheesePizza(); } else if (item.equals("veggie")) { return new NYStyleVeggiePizza(); } else if (item.equals("clam")) { return new NYStyleClamPizza(); } else if (item.equals("pepperoni")) { return new NYStylePepperioniPizza(); } else return null; } } I don't understand how this pattern is not violating open-close. What if we require a beef Pizza, then we must edit the if statement in the NYPizzaStore class.

    Read the article

  • is a factory pattern to prevent multuple instances for same object (instance that is Equal) good design?

    - by dsollen
    I have a number of objects storing state. There are essentially two types of fields. The ones that uniquly define what the object is (what node, what edge etc), and the oens that store state describing how these things are connected (this node is connected to these edges, this edge is part of these paths) etc. My model is updating the state variables using package methdos, so these objects all act as immutable to anyone not in Model scope. All Objects extend one base type. I've toyed with the idea of a Factory approch which accepts a Builder object and construct the applicable object. However, if an instance of the object already exists (ie would return true if I created the object defined by the builder and passed it to the equal method for the existing instance) the factory returns the current object instead of creating a new instance. Because the Equal method would only compare what uniquly defines the type of object (this is node A nto node B) but won't check the dynamic state stuff (node A is currently connected to nodes C and E) this would be a way of ensuring anyone that wants my Node A automatically knows it's state connections. More importantly it would prevent aliasing nightmares of someone trying to pass an instance of node A with different state then the node A in my model has. I've never heard of this pattern before, and it's a bit odd. I would have to do some overiding of serlization methods to make it work (ensure when I read in a serilized object I add it to my facotry list of known instances, and/or return an existing factory in it's place), as well as using a weakHashMap as if it was a weakHashSet to know rather an instance exists without worrying about a quasi-memory leak occuring. I don't know if this is too confusing or prone to it's own obscure bugs. One thing I know is that plugins interface with lowest level hardware. The plugins have to be able to return state taht is different then my memory; to tell my memory when it's own state is inconsistent. I believe this is possible despit their fetching objects that exist in my memory; we allow building of objects without checking their consistency with the model until the addToModel is called anyways; and the existing plugins design was written before all this extra state existed and worked fine without ever being aware of it. Should I just be using some other design to avoid this crazyness? (I have another question to that affect I'm posting).

    Read the article

  • Is there a factory pattern to prevent multiple instances for same object (instance that is Equal) good design?

    - by dsollen
    I have a number of objects storing state. There are essentially two types of fields. The ones that uniquely define what the object is (what node, what edge etc), and the others that store state describing how these things are connected (this node is connected to these edges, this edge is part of these paths) etc. My model is updating the state variables using package methods, so all these objects act as immutable to anyone not in Model scope. All Objects extend one base type. I've toyed with the idea of a Factory approach which accepts a Builder object and constructs the applicable object. However, if an instance of the object already exists (ie would return true if I created the object defined by the builder and passed it to the equal method for the existing instance) the factory returns the current object instead of creating a new instance. Because the Equal method would only compare what uniquely defines the type of object (this is node A to node B) but won't check the dynamic state stuff (node A is currently connected to nodes C and E) this would be a way of ensuring anyone that wants my Node A automatically knows its state connections. More importantly it would prevent aliasing nightmares of someone trying to pass an instance of node A with different state then the node A in my model has. I've never heard of this pattern before, and it's a bit odd. I would have to do some overriding of serialization methods to make it work (ensure that when I read in a serilized object I add it to my facotry list of known instances, and/or return an existing factory in its place), as well as using a weakHashMap as if it was a weakHashSet to know whether an instance exists without worrying about a quasi-memory leak occuring. I don't know if this is too confusing or prone to its own obscure bugs. One thing I know is that plugins interface with lowest level hardware. The plugins have to be able to return state that is different than my memory; to tell my memory when its own state is inconsistent. I believe this is possible despite their fetching objects that exist in my memory; we allow building of objects without checking their consistency with the model until the addToModel is called anyways; and the existing plugins design was written before all this extra state existed and worked fine without ever being aware of it. Should I just be using some other design to avoid this crazyness? (I have another question to that affect that I'm posting).

    Read the article

  • Advice on Factory Method

    - by heath
    Using php 5.2, I'm trying to use a factory to return a service to the controller. My request uri would be of the format www.mydomain.com/service/method/param1/param2/etc. My controller would then call a service factory using the token sent in the uri. From what I've seen, there are two main routes I could go with my factory. Single method: class ServiceFactory { public static function getInstance($token) { switch($token) { case 'location': return new StaticPageTemplateService('location'); break; case 'product': return new DynamicPageTemplateService('product'); break; case 'user' return new UserService(); break; default: return new StaticPageTemplateService($token); } } } or multiple methods: class ServiceFactory { public static function getLocationService() { return new StaticPageTemplateService('location'); } public static function getProductService() { return new DynamicPageTemplateService('product'); } public static function getUserService() { return new UserService(); } public static function getDefaultService($token) { return new StaticPageTemplateService($token); } } So, given this, I will have a handful of generic services in which I will pass that token (for example, StaticPageTemplateService and DynamicPageTemplateService) that will probably implement another factory method just like this to grab templates, domain objects, etc. And some that will be specific services (for example, UserService) which will be 1:1 to that token and not reused. So, this seems to be an ok approach (please give suggestions if it is not) for a small amount of services. But what about when, over time and my site grows, I end up with 100s of possibilities. This no longer seems like a good approach. Am I just way off to begin with or is there another design pattern that would be a better fit? Thanks. UPDATE: @JSprang - the token is actually sent in the uri like mydomain.com/location would want a service specific to loction and mydomain.com/news would want a service specific to news. Now, for a lot of these, the service will be generic. For instance, a lot of pages will call a StaticTemplatePageService in which the token is passed in to the service. That service in turn will grab the "location" template or "links" template and just spit it back out. Some will need DynamicTemplatePageService in which the token gets passed in, like "news" and that service will grab a NewsDomainObject, determine how to present it and spit that back out. Others, like "user" will be specific to a UserService in which it will have methods like Login, Logout, etc. So basically, the token will be used to determine which service is needed AND if it is generic service, that token will be passed to that service. Maybe token isn't the correct terminology but I hope you get the purpose. I wanted to use the factory so I can easily swap out which Service I need in case my needs change. I just worry that after the site grows larger (both pages and functionality) that the factory will become rather bloated. But I'm starting to feel like I just can't get away from storing the mappings in an array (like Stephen's solution). That just doesn't feel OOP to me and I was hoping to find something more elegant.

    Read the article

  • Python: Class factory using user input as class names

    - by Sano98
    Hi everyone, I want to add class atttributes to a superclass dynamically. Furthermore, I want to create classes that inherit from this superclass dynamically, and the name of those subclasses should depend on user input. There is a superclass "Unit", to which I can add attributes at runtime. This already works. def add_attr (cls, name, value): setattr(cls, name, value) class Unit(object): pass class Archer(Unit): pass myArcher = Archer() add_attr(Unit, 'strength', 5) print "Strenght ofmyarcher: " + str(myArcher.strength) Archer.strength = 2 print "Strenght ofmyarcher: " + str(myArcher.strength) This leads to the desired output: Strenght ofmyarcher: 5 Strenght ofmyarcher: 2 But now I don't want to predefine the subclass Archer, but I'd rather let the user decide how to call this subclass. I've tried something like this: class Meta(type, subclassname): def __new__(cls, subclassname, bases, dct): return type.__new__(cls, subclassname, Unit, dct) factory = Meta() factory.__new__("Soldier") but no luck. I guess I haven't really understood what new does here. What I want as a result here is class Soldier(Unit): pass being created by the factory. And if I call the factory with the argument "Knight", I'd like a class Knight, subclass of Unit, to be created. Any ideas? Many thanks in advance! Bye -Sano

    Read the article

  • I need an abstract field !

    - by Jules Olléon
    I know abstract fields do not exist in java. I also read this question but the solutions proposed won't solve my problem. Maybe there is no solution, but it's worth asking :) Problem I have an abstract class that does an operation in the constructor depending on the value of one of its fields. The problem is that the value of this field will change depending on the subclass. How can I do so that the operation is done on the value of the field redefined by the subclass ? If I just "override" the field in the subclass the operation is done on the value of the field in the abstract class. I'm open to any solution that would ensure that the operation will be done during the instantiation of the subclass (ie putting the operation in a method called by each subclass in the constructor is not a valid solution, because someone might extend the abstract class and forget to call the method). Also, I don't want to give the value of the field as an argument of the constructor. Is there any solution to do that, or should I just change my design ?

    Read the article

  • Complicated .NET factory design

    - by Tom W
    Hello SO; I'm planning to ask a fairly elaborate question that is also something of a musing here, so bear with me... I'm trying to design a factory implementation for a simulation application. The simulation will consist of different sorts of entities i.e. it is not a homogenous simulation in any respect. As a result, there will be numerous very different concrete implementations and only the very general properties will be abstracted at the top level. What I'd like to be able to do is create new simulation entities by calling a method on the model with a series of named arguments representing the parameters of the entity, and have the model infer what type of object is being described by the inbound parameters (from the names of the parameters and potentially the sequence they occur in) and call a factory method on the appropriate derived class. For example, if I pass the model a pair of parameters (Param1=5000, Param2="Bacon") I would like it to infer that the names Param1 and Param2 'belong' to the class "Blob1" and call a shared function "getBlob1" with named parameters Param1:=5000, Param2:="Bacon" whereas if I pass the model (Param1=5000, Param3=50) it would call a similar factory method for Blob2; because Param1 and Param3 in that order 'belong' to Blob2. I foresee several issues to resolve: Whether or not I can reflect on the available types with string parameter names and how to do this if it's possible Whether or not there's a neat way of doing the appropriate constructor inference from the combinatoric properties of the argument list or whether I'm going to have to bodge something to do it 'by hand'. If possible I'd like the model class to be able to accept parameters as parameters rather than as some collection of keys and values, which would require the model to expose a large number of parametrised methods at runtime without me having to code them explicitly - presumably one for every factory method available in the relevant namespace. What I'm really asking is how you'd go about implementing such a system, rather than whether or not it's fundamentally possible. I don't have the foresight or experience with .NET reflection to be able to figure out a way by myself. Hopefully this will prove an informative discussion.

    Read the article

  • How to name a static factory method in the utility class?

    - by leventov
    I have an interface MyLongNameInterface with a counterpart utility class MyLongNameInterfaces. What is the best name for a static factory method in the utility class, which creates an instance of MyLongNameInterface? MyLongNameInterfaces.newInstance() -- a new instance of the utility class? MyLongNameInterfaces.newMyLongNameInterface() -- too verbose MyLongNameInterfaces.create() -- create an instance of the utility class? Also, create is not a widely used conventional verb in Java better option?

    Read the article

  • 'abstract class' versus 'normal class' for a reusable library

    - by Greg
    I'm developing a reusable library and have been creating abstract classes, so the client can then extend from these. QUESTION: Is there any reason in fact I should use an abstract class here as opposed to just a normal class? Note - Have already decided I do not want to use interfaces as I want to include actual default methods in my library so the client using it doesn't have to write the code.

    Read the article

  • Django: Inherit Permssions from abstract models?

    - by lazerscience
    Is it possible to inherit permissions from an abstract model in Django? I can not really find anything about that. For me this doesn't work! class PublishBase(models.Model): class Meta: abstract = True get_latest_by = 'created' permissions = (('change_foreign_items', "Can change other user's items"),) EDIT: Not working means it fails silently. Permission is not created, as it wouldn't exist on the models inheriting from this class.

    Read the article

  • Factory Method and Cyclic Dependancy

    - by metdos
    If I'm not wrong, because of its nature in factory method there is cyclic dependency: Base class needs to know subclasses because it creates them, and subclasses need to know base class. Having cyclic dependency is bad programming practice, is not it? Practically I implemented a factory, I have problem above, even I added #ifndef MYCLASS_H #define MYCLASS_H #endif I'm still getting Compiler Error C2504 'class' : base class undefined And this error disappers when I remove subclass include from base class header.

    Read the article

  • C#: Abstract classes need to implement interfaces?

    - by bguiz
    My test code in C#: namespace DSnA { public abstract class Test : IComparable { } } Results in the following compiler error: error CS0535: 'DSnA.Test' does not implement interface member 'System.IComparable.CompareTo(object)' Since the class Test is an abstract class, why does the compiler require it to implement the interface? Shouldn't this requirement only be compulsory for concrete classes?

    Read the article

  • What is the purpose of abstract classes?

    - by SpikETidE
    I am trying to learn OOP in PHP, and I have some confusion about interfaces and abstract classes. They both contain no implementations, only definitions, and should be implemented through their sub-classes. What part of abstract classes clearly distinguishes them from interfaces? Also, due to their apparent similarities, based on what reasons should I decide to use one over the other?

    Read the article

  • Abstract attributes in Python

    - by deamon
    What is the shortest / most elegant way to implement the following Scala code with an abstract attribute in Python? abstract class Controller { val path: String } A subclass of Controller is enforced to define "path" by the Scala compiler. A subclass would look like this: class MyController extends Controller { override val path = "/home" }

    Read the article

  • Object of an abstract class

    - by webgenius
    Why is it not possible to create an object of an abstract class? I understand that the compiler creates a VTABLE with VPTR pointing to NULL. Does this prevent from creating an object of an abstract class?

    Read the article

  • Difference between abstract class and interface

    - by nectar
    A class implementing an interface has to implement all the methods of the interface, but if that class is implementing an abctract class is it necessary to implement all abstract methods? If not, can we create the object of that class which is implementing the Abstract class???

    Read the article

  • Deriving a class from an abstract class (C++)

    - by cemregoksu
    I have an abstract class with a pure virtual function f() and i want to create a class inherited from that class, and also override function f(). I seperated the header file and the cpp file. I declared the function f(int) in the header file and the definition is in the cpp file. However, the compiler says the derived class is still abstract. How can i fix it?

    Read the article

  • Factory(:user) hits database?

    - by davidegp
    Playing around with factories, which I read weren't supposed to hit the database, allowing you to avoid having your controller specs interacting with the DB. But when I fire up the Rails console in test and use a factory to create a sample user, I noticed an actual user gets created in the database. Huh? (Using Rails 2.3.8 and Factory Girl 1.2.3.)

    Read the article

  • Calling a Factory in AngularJS

    - by Kohjah Breese
    How do you call a factory? As defined below. angular.module('fb.services', []).factory('getQueryString', function () { return { call: function () { var result = {}, queryString = qs.substring(1), re = /([^&=]+)=([^&]*)/g, m; while (m = re.exec(queryString)) result[decodeURIComponent(m[1])] = decodeURIComponent(m[2]); return result; } } }); alert(getQueryString.call('this=that&me=you'));

    Read the article

  • Factory Pattern - when do you say you need a specialised factory

    - by dbones
    Hi, I am having a little design crisis, I am making a Plane class, which is made of an engine 2 wings and N seats The engine takes in a engine size, and the wings have a span. would this still be feasible to have a PlaneFactory, when the factory may have to take in multiple parameters to setup the plane (wings, engine, no of seats) thanks in advance bones

    Read the article

  • NHibernate DuplicateMappingException when mapping abstract class and subclass

    - by stiank81
    I have an abstract class, and subclasses of this, and I want to map this to my database using NHibernate. I'm using Fluent, and read on the wiki how to do the mapping. But when I add the mapping of the subclass an NHibernate.DuplicateMappingException is thrown when it is mapping. Why? Here are my (simplified) classes: public abstract class FieldValue { public int Id { get; set; } public abstract object Value { get; set; } } public class StringFieldValue : FieldValue { public string ValueAsString { get; set; } public override object Value { get { return ValueAsString; } set { ValueAsString = (string)value; } } } And the mappings: public class FieldValueMapping : ClassMap<FieldValue> { public FieldValueMapping() { Id(m => m.Id).GeneratedBy.HiLo("1"); // DiscriminateSubClassesOnColumn("type"); } } public class StringValueMapping : SubclassMap<StringFieldValue> { public StringValueMapping() { Map(m => m.ValueAsString).Length(100); } } And the exception: NHibernate.MappingException : Could not compile the mapping document: (XmlDocument) ---- NHibernate.DuplicateMappingException : Duplicate class/entity mapping NamespacePath.StringFieldValue Any ideas?

    Read the article

  • Can the Singleton be replaced by Factory?

    - by lostiniceland
    Hello Everyone There are already quite some posts about the Singleton-Pattern around, but I would like to start another one on this topic since I would like to know if the Factory-Pattern would be the right approach to remove this "anti-pattern". In the past I used the singleton quite a lot, also did my fellow collegues since it is so easy to use. For example, the Eclipse IDE or better its workbench-model makes heavy usage of singletons as well. It was due to some posts about E4 (the next big Eclipse version) that made me start to rethink the singleton. The bottom line was that due to this singletons the dependecies in Eclipse 3.x are tightly coupled. Lets assume I want to get rid of all singletons completely and instead use factories. My thoughts were as follows: hide complexity less coupling I have control over how many instances are created (just store the reference I a private field of the factory) mock the factory for testing (with Dependency Injection) when it is behind an interface In some cases the factories can make more than one singleton obsolete (depending on business logic/component composition) Does this make sense? If not, please give good reasons for why you think so. An alternative solution is also appreciated. Thanks Marc

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >