Search Results

Search found 37902 results on 1517 pages for 'object methods'.

Page 4/1517 | < Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >

  • Javascript object list sorting by object property

    - by Constructor
    I need to do this: (sorry not in javascript syntax-still learning object language :) ) object=car attibutes:top-speed, brand.... now I want to sort the list of those cars in order by top-speed, brand... How do I do this (please note the solution must be javascript only, no php or other stuff) ?

    Read the article

  • Nhibernate/Hibernate, lookup tables and object design

    - by Simon G
    Hi, I've got two tables. Invoice with columns CustomerID, InvoiceDate, Value, InvoiceTypeID (CustomerID and InvoiceDate make up a composite key) and InvoiceType with InvoiceTypeID and InvoiceTypeName columns. I know I can create my objects like: public class Invoice { public virtual int CustomerID { get; set; } public virtual DateTime InvoiceDate { get; set; } public virtual decimal Value { get; set; } public virtual InvoiceType InvoiceType { get; set; } } public class InvoiceType { public virtual InvoiceTypeID { get; set; } public virtual InvoiceTypeName { get; set; } } So the generated sql would look something like: SELECT CustomerID, InvoiceDate, Value, InvoiceTypeID FROM Invoice WHERE CustomerID = x AND InvoiceDate = y SELECT InvoiceTypeID, InvoiceTypeName FROM InvoiceType WHERE InvoiceTypeID = z But rather that having two select queries executed to retrieve the data I would rather have one. I would also like to avoid using child object for simple lookup lists. So my object would look something like: public class Invoice { public virtual int CustomerID { get; set; } public virtual DateTime InvoiceDate { get; set; } public virtual decimal Value { get; set; } public virtual InvoiceTypeID { get; set; } public virtual InvoiceTypeName { get; set; } } And my sql would look something like: SELECT CustomerID, InvoiceDate, Value, InvoiceTypeID FROM Invoice INNER JOIN InvoiceType ON Invoice.InvoiceTypeID = InvoiceType.InvoiceTypeID WHERE CustomerID = x AND InvoiceDate = y My question is how do I create the mapping for this? I've tried using join but this tried to join using CustomerID and InvoiceDate, am I missing something obvious? Thanks

    Read the article

  • Getting my head around object oriented programing

    - by nLL
    I am entry level .Net developer and using it to develop web sites. I started with classic asp and last year jumped on the ship with a short C# book. As I developed I learned more and started to see that coming from classic asp I always used C# like scripting language. For example in my last project I needed to encode video on the webserver and wrote a code like public class Encoder { Public static bool Encode(string videopath) { ...snip... return true; } } While searching samples related to my project I’ve seen people doing this public class Encoder { Public static Encode(string videopath) { EncodedVideo encoded = new EncodedVideo(); ...snip... encoded.EncodedVideoPath = outputFile; encoded.Success = true; ...snip... } } public class EncodedVideo { public string EncodedVideoPath { get; set; } public bool Success { get; set; } } As I understand second example is more object oriented but I don’t see the point of using EncodedVideo object. Am I doing something wrong? Does it really necessary to use this sort of code in a web app?

    Read the article

  • Designing a class in such a way that it doesn't become a "God object"

    - by devoured elysium
    I'm designing an application that will allow me to draw some functions on a graphic. Each function will be drawn from a set of points that I will pass to this graphic class. There are different kinds of points, all inheriting from a MyPoint class. For some kind of points it will be just printing them on the screen as they are, others can be ignored, others added, so there is some kind of logic associated to them that can get complex. How to actually draw the graphic is not the main issue here. What bothers me is how to make the code logic such that this GraphicMaker class doesn't become the so called God-Object. It would be easy to make something like this: class GraphicMaker { ArrayList<Point> points = new ArrayList<Point>(); public void AddPoint(Point point) { points.add(point); } public void DoDrawing() { foreach (Point point in points) { if (point is PointA) { //some logic here else if (point is PointXYZ) { //...etc } } } } How would you do something like this? I have a feeling the correct way would be to put the drawing logic on each Point object (so each child class from Point would know how to draw itself) but two problems arise: There will be kinds of points that need to know all the other points that exist in the GraphicObject class to know how to draw themselves. I can make a lot of the methods/properties from the Graphic class public, so that all the points have a reference to the Graphic class and can make all their logic as they want, but isn't that a big price to pay for not wanting to have a God class?

    Read the article

  • Thoughts on C# Extension Methods

    - by Damon
    I'm not a huge fan of extension methods.  When they first came out, I remember seeing a method on an object that was fairly useful, but when I went to use it another piece of code that method wasn't available.  Turns out it was an extension method and I hadn't included the appropriate assembly and imports statement in my code to use it.  I remember being a bit confused at first about how the heck that could happen (hey, extension methods were new, cut me some slack) and it took a bit of time to track down exactly what it was that I needed to include to get that method back.  I just imagined a new developer trying to figure out why a method was missing and fruitlessly searching on MSDN for a method that didn't exist and it just didn't sit well with me. I am of the opinion that if you have an object, then you shouldn't have to include additional assemblies to get additional instance level methods out of that object.  That opinion applies to namespaces as well - I do not like it when the contents of a namespace are split out into multiple assemblies.  I prefer to have static utility classes instead of extension methods to keep things nicely packaged into a cohesive unit.  It also makes it abundantly clear where utility methods are used in code.  I will concede, however, that it can make code a bit more verbose and lengthy.  There is always a trade-off. Some people harp on extension methods because it breaks the tenants of object oriented development and allows you to add methods to sealed classes.  Whatever.  Extension methods are just utility methods that you can tack onto an object after the fact.  Extension methods do not give you any more access to an object than the developer of that object allows, so I say that those who cry OO foul on extension methods really don't have much of an argument on which to stand.  In fact, I have to concede that my dislike of them is really more about style than anything of great substance. One interesting thing that I found regarding extension methods is that you can call them on null objects. Take a look at this extension method: namespace ExtensionMethods {   public static class StringUtility   {     public static int WordCount(this string str)     {       if(str == null) return 0;       return str.Split(new char[] { ' ', '.', '?' },         StringSplitOptions.RemoveEmptyEntries).Length;     }   }   } Notice that the extension method checks to see if the incoming string parameter is null.  I was worried that the runtime would perform a check on the object instance to make sure it was not null before calling an extension method, but that is apparently not the case.  So, if you call the following code it runs just fine. string s = null; int words = s.WordCount(); I am a big fan of things working, but this seems to go against everything I've come to know about instance level methods.  However, an extension method is really a static method masquerading as an instance-level method, so I suppose it would be far more frustrating if it failed since there is really no reason it shouldn't succeed. Although I'm not a fan of extension methods, I will say that if you ever find yourself at an impasse with a die-hard fan of either the utility class or extension method approach, then there is a common ground.  Extension methods are defined in static classes, and you call them from those static classes as well as directly from the objects they extend.  So if you build your utility classes using extension methods, then you can have it your way and they can have it theirs. 

    Read the article

  • Should all, none, or some overriden methods call Super?

    - by JoJo
    When designing a class, how do you decide when all overridden methods should call super or when none of the overridden methods should call super? Also, is it considered bad practice if your code logic requires a mixture of supered and non-supered methods like the Javascript example below? ChildClass = new Class.create(ParentClass, { /** * @Override */ initialize: function($super) { $super(); this.foo = 99; }, /** * @Override */ methodOne: function($super) { $super(); this.foo++; }, /** * @Override */ methodTwo: function($super) { this.foo--; } }); After delving into the iPhone and Android SDKs, I noticed that super must be called on every overridden method, or else the program will crash because something wouldn't get initialized. When deriving from a template/delegate, none of the methods are supered (obviously). So what exactly are these "je ne sais quoi" qualities that determine whether a all, none, or some overriden methods should call super?

    Read the article

  • Should all, none, or some overridden methods call Super?

    - by JoJo
    When designing a class, how do you decide when all overridden methods should call super or when none of the overridden methods should call super? Also, is it considered bad practice if your code logic requires a mixture of supered and non-supered methods like the Javascript example below? ChildClass = new Class.create(ParentClass, { /** * @Override */ initialize: function($super) { $super(); this.foo = 99; }, /** * @Override */ methodOne: function($super) { $super(); this.foo++; }, /** * @Override */ methodTwo: function($super) { this.foo--; } }); After delving into the iPhone and Android SDKs, I noticed that super must be called on every overridden method, or else the program will crash because something wouldn't get initialized. When deriving from a template/delegate, none of the methods are supered (obviously). So what exactly are these "je ne sais quoi" qualities that determine whether a all, none, or some overriden methods should call super?

    Read the article

  • How to build Object Oriented Skills?

    - by cedar715
    Being a core developer for couple of years, coding applications seeing the class diagrams, sequence diagrams, I decided to improve my self, taking the next step of designing. As I'm an OO developer, I'm interested in improving my design skills. For Example, I had a hard time designing a currency converter. My questions to the SO: Is it by experience the design skills can be acquired? Will learning books/blog/material over internet etc help? Is it that one needs the domain knowledge of the application being developed? Knowing Design patterns, principles? Studying 'Code Complete' book ? Need to have Problem-solving skills? In short, given a problem, I just want to solve it in Object-oriented way??

    Read the article

  • Prefer class members or passing arguments between internal methods?

    - by geoffjentry
    Suppose within the private portion of a class there is a value which is utilized by multiple private methods. Do people prefer having this defined as a member variable for the class or passing it as an argument to each of the methods - and why? On one hand I could see an argument to be made that reducing state (ie member variables) in a class is generally a good thing, although if the same value is being repeatedly used throughout a class' methods it seems like that would be an ideal candidate for representation as state for the class to make the code visibly cleaner if nothing else. Edit: To clarify some of the comments/questions that were raised, I'm not talking about constants and this isn't relating to any particular case rather just a hypothetical that I was talking to some other people about. Ignoring the OOP angle for a moment, the particular use case that I had in mind was the following (assume pass by reference just to make the pseudocode cleaner) int x doSomething(x) doAnotherThing(x) doYetAnotherThing(x) doSomethingElse(x) So what I mean is that there's some variable that is common between multiple functions - in the case I had in mind it was due to chaining of smaller functions. In an OOP system, if these were all methods of a class (say due to refactoring via extracting methods from a large method), that variable could be passed around them all or it could be a class member.

    Read the article

  • Ruby - when to use instance variables vs parameters between methods?

    - by Michael Durrant
    I'm writing several methods that call other methods. To pass the information I have a couple of choices: Pass the information as parameters Set instance variables so that other methods can access them When should I choose one option over the other? It seems that the first option is good as it is very specific about what is being passed. the downside seems to be that a lot of values are being passed around. The second method doesn't require passing all the values around but seems to lead to a lot of magic where methods set instance variables 'somewhere' Should I always be very explicit about gets passed to other methods in the class? Are there exceptions so this?

    Read the article

  • Purpose of Instance Methods vs. Class Methods in Objective-C

    - by qegal
    I have checked out all these questions... Difference Class and Instance Methods Difference between class methods and instance methods? Objective-C: Class vs Instance Methods? ...and all they explain is how instance methods are used on instances of a class and class methods are used with the class name, when a message is sent to a class object. This is helpful, but I'm curious to know why one would use a class method vs. an instance method. I'm fairly new to iOS application development, and usually use class methods, and I feel like I'm doing something wrong. Thanks in advanced!

    Read the article

  • How do I decide to which class a method should belong

    - by Eleeist
    I have TopicBusiness.class and PostBusiness.class. I have no problem with deciding into which class methods such as addPostToDatabase() or getAllPostsFromDatabase() should go. But what about getAllPostsFromTopic(TopicEntity topic) or getNumberOfPostsInTopic(TopicEntity topic)? Should the parameter be the deciding factor? So when the method takes TopicEntity as parameter it should belong to TopicBusiness.class? I am quite puzzled by this. EDIT: Some more info as requested. TopicBusiness.class and PostBusiness.class are classes holding all the business logic of the application concerning topics and posts respectively - that is fetching the data from database and/or performing some operations on them. TopicEntity is data (in this case representing single topic) fetched from database. getAllPostFromTopic(TopicEntity topic) gets all posts from database that belong to particular topic, while getNumberOfPostsInTopic(TopicEntity topic) performs database query and returns the number of posts that topic passed as parameter consists of.

    Read the article

  • Loose Coupling in Object Oriented Design

    - by m3th0dman
    I am trying to learn GRASP and I found this explained (here on page 3) about Low Coupling and I was very surprised when I found this: Consider the method addTrack for an Album class, two possible methods are: addTrack( Track t ) and addTrack( int no, String title, double duration ) Which method reduces coupling? The second one does, since the class using the Album class does not have to know a Track class. In general, parameters to methods should use base types (int, char ...) and classes from the java.* packages. I tend to diasgree with this; I believe addTrack(Track t) is better than addTrack(int no, String title, double duration) due to various reasons: It is always better for a method to as fewer parameters as possible (according to Uncle Bob's Clean Code none or one preferably, 2 in some cases and 3 in special cases; more than 3 needs refactoring - these are of course recommendations not holly rules). If addTrack is a method of an interface, and the requirements need that a Track should have more information (say year or genre) then the interface needs to be changed and so that the method should supports another parameter. Encapsulation is broke; if addTrack is in an interface, then it should not know the internals of the Track. It is actually more coupled in the second way, with many parameters. Suppose the no parameter needs to be changed from int to long because there are more than MAX_INT tracks (or for whatever reason); then both the Track and the method need to be changed while if the method would be addTrack(Track track) only the Track would be changed. All the 4 arguments are actually connected with each other, and some of them are consequences from others. Which approach is better?

    Read the article

  • Does this copy the reference or the object?

    - by Water Cooler v2
    Sorry, I am being both thick and lazy, but mostly lazy. Actually, not even that. I am trying to save time so I can do more in less time as there's a lot to be done. Does this copy the reference or the actual object data? public class Foo { private NameValueCollection _nvc = null; public Foo( NameValueCollection nvc) { _nvc = nvc; } } public class Bar { public static void Main() { NameValueCollection toPass = new NameValueCollection(); new Foo( toPass ); // I believe this only copies the reference // so if I ever wanted to compare toPass and // Foo._nvc (assuming I got hold of the private // field using reflection), I would only have to // compare the references and wouldn't have to compare // each string (deep copy compare), right? } I think I know the answer for sure: it only copies the reference. But I am not even sure why I am asking this. I guess my only concern is, if, after instantiating Foo by calling its parameterized ctor with toPass, if I needed to make sure that the NVC I passed as toPass and the NVC private field _nvc had the exact same content, I would just need to compare their references, right?

    Read the article

  • controlling an object through another object ?

    - by Stefano Borini
    Today I've seen the following pattern: you have an object A and an object B. Object B accepts a pointer to A at its constructor. Once B is created, there's a method B.doCalc() that performs a calculation (internally using A's information). The result is obtained with method B.getResult(). In order to perform another calculation, A is modified, and B.doCalc() is called again. What is your opinion on this choice ? I would have designed it differently, but I want to hear your voice. Edit : note that my main objection is to modify A to have a different result from B, without touching B. Although similar, I think that just this discipline expresses a much better feeling of what's going on. Instead of a = new A a.whatever = 5 b = new B(a) b.doCalc() res = b.getResult() a.whatever = 6 b.doCalc() res = b.getResult() You get the a pointer object from b itself. a = new A a.whatever = 5 b = new B(a) b.doCalc() res = b.getResult() a = b.getAPointer() a.whatever = 6 b.doCalc() res = b.getResult() because it makes more explicit the fact that a is taken from b and then modified. I still don't like it, though...

    Read the article

  • Why am I seeing so many instantiable classes without state?

    - by futlib
    I'm seeing a lot of instantiable classes in the C++ and Java world that don't have any state. I really can't figure out why people do that, they could just use a namespace with free functions in C++, or a class with a private constructor and only static methods in Java. The only benefit I can think of is that you don't have to change most of your code if you later decide that you want a different implementation in certain situations. But isn't that a case of premature design? It could be turned into a class later, when/if it becomes appropriate. Am I getting this wrong? Is it not OOP if I don't put everything into objects (i.e. instantiated classes)? Then why are there so many utility namespaces and classes in the standard libraries of C++ and Java? Update: I've certainly seen a lot examples of this in my previous jobs, but I'm struggling to find open source examples, so maybe it's not that common after all. Still, I'm wondering why people do it, and how common it is.

    Read the article

  • Uncaught TypeError: Object [object Object] has no method 'onAdded'

    - by user3604227
    I am using ExtJS4 with Java servlets. I am following the MVC architecture for ExtJS. I am trying a simple example of displaying a border layout but it doesnt work and I get the following error in ext-all.js in the javascript console: Uncaught TypeError: Object [object Object] has no method 'onAdded' Here is my code: app.js Ext.Loader.setConfig({ enabled : true }); Ext.application({ name : 'IN', appFolder : 'app', controllers : [ 'Items' ], launch : function() { console.log('in LAUNCH-appjs'); Ext.create('Ext.container.Viewport', { items : [ { xtype : 'borderlyt' } ] }); } }); Items.js (controller) Ext.define('IN.controller.Items', { extend : 'Ext.app.Controller', views : [ 'item.Border' ], init : function() { this.control({ 'viewport > panel' : { render : this.onPanelRendered } }); }, onPanelRendered : function() { console.log('The panel was rendered'); } }); Border.js (view) Ext.define('IN.view.item.Border',{extend : 'Ext.layout.container.Border', alias : 'widget.borderlyt', title : 'Border layout' , autoShow : true, renderTo : Ext.getBody(), defaults : { split : true, layout : 'border', autoScroll : true, height : 800, width : 500 }, items : [ { region : 'north', html : "Header here..", id : 'mainHeader' }, { region : 'west', width : 140, html : "Its West..", }, { region : 'south', html : "This is my temp footer content", height : 30, margins : '0 5 5 5', bodyPadding : 2, id : 'mainFooter' }, { id : 'mainContent', collapsible : false, region : 'center', margins : '5', border : true, } ] }); The folder structure for the Webcontent is as follows: WebContent app controller Items.js model store view item Border.js ext_js resources src ext_all.js index.html app.js Can someone help me resolve this error? Thanks in advance

    Read the article

  • wcf web service in post method, object properties are null, although the object is not null

    - by Abdalhadi Kolayb
    i have this problem in post method when i send object parameter to the method, then the object is not null, but all its properties have the default values. here is data module: [DataContract] public class Products { [DataMember(Order = 1)] public int ProdID { get; set; } [DataMember(Order = 2)] public string ProdName { get; set; } [DataMember(Order = 3)] public float PrpdPrice { get; set; } } and here is the interface: [OperationContract] [WebInvoke( Method = "POST", UriTemplate = "AddProduct", ResponseFormat = WebMessageFormat.Json, BodyStyle = WebMessageBodyStyle.WrappedRequest, RequestFormat = WebMessageFormat.Json)] string AddProduct([MessageParameter(Name = "prod")]Products prod); public string AddProduct(Products prod) { ProductsList.Add(prod); return "return string"; } here is the json request: Content-type:application/json {"prod":[{"ProdID": 111,"ProdName": "P111","PrpdPrice": 111}]} but in the server the object received: {"prod":[{"ProdID": 0,"ProdName": NULL,"PrpdPrice": 0}]}

    Read the article

  • Returning a mock object from a mock object

    - by Songo
    I'm trying to return an object when mocking a parser class. This is the test code using PHPUnit 3.7 //set up the result object that I want to be returned from the call to parse method $parserResult= new ParserResult(); $parserResult->setSegment('some string'); //set up the stub Parser object $stubParser=$this->getMock('Parser'); $stubParser->expects($this->any()) ->method('parse') ->will($this->returnValue($parserResult)); //injecting the stub to my client class $fileHeaderParser= new FileWriter($stubParser); $output=$fileParser->writeStringToFile(); Inside my writeStringToFile() method I'm using $parserResult like this: writeStringToFile(){ //Some code... $parserResult=$parser->parse(); $segment=$parserResult->getSegment();//that's why I set the segment in the test. } Should I mock ParserResult in the first place, so that the mock returns a mock? Is it good design for mocks to return mocks? Is there a better approach to do this all?!

    Read the article

  • Object-Oriented Operating System

    - by nmagerko
    As I thought about writing an operating system, I came across a point that I really couldn't figure out on my own: Can an operating system truly be written in an Object-Oriented Programming (OOP) Language? Being that these types of languages do not allow for direct accessing of memory, wouldn't this make it impossible for a developer to write an entire operating system using only an OOP Language? Take, for example, the Android Operating System that runs many phones and some tablets in use around the world. I believe that this operating system uses only Java, an Object-Oriented language. In Java, I have been unsuccessful in trying to point at and manipulate a specific memory address that the run-time environment (JRE) has not assigned to my program implicitly. In C, C++, and other non-OOP languages, I can do this in a few lines. So this makes me question whether or not an operating system can be written in an OOP, especially Java. Any counterexamples or other information is appreciated.

    Read the article

  • Object Oriented programming on 8-bit MCU Case Study

    - by Calvin Grier
    I see that there's a lot of questions related to OO Programming here. I'm actually trying to find a specific resource related to embedded OO approaches for an 8 bit MCU. Several years back (maybe 6) I was looking for material related to Object Oriented programming for resource constrained 8051 microprocessors. I found an article/website with a case history of a design group that used a very small RAM part, and implemented many Object based constructs during their C design and development. I believe it was an 8051. The project was a success, and managed to stay inside the very small ROM/RAM they had available. I'm attempting to find it again, but Google can't locate it. The article was well written, and recommended a "mixed" approach using C methods for inheritance and encapsulation - if I recall correctly. Can anyone help me locate this article?

    Read the article

  • What is Object Oriented Programming ill-suited for?

    - by Richard JP Le Guen
    In Martin Fowler's book Refactoring, Fowler speaks of how when developers learn something new, they don't consider when it's inappropriate for the job: Ten years ago it was like that with objects. If someone asked me when not to use objects, it was hard to answer. [...] It was just that I didn't know what those limitations were, although I knew what the benefits were. Reading this, it occurred to me I don't know what the limitations or potential disadvantages of Object-Oriented Programming are. What are the limitations of Object Oriented Programming? When should one look at a project and think "OOP is not best suited for this"?

    Read the article

  • Is there really Object-relational impedance mismatch?

    - by user52763
    It is always stated that it is hard to store applications objects in relational databases - the object-relational impedance mismatch - and that is why Document databases are better. However, is there really an impedance mismatch? And object has a key (albeit it may be hidden away by the runtime as a pointer to memory), a set of values, and foreign keys to other objects. Objects are as much made up of tables as it is a document. Neither really fit. I can see a use for databases to model the data into specific shapes for scenarios in the application - e.g. to speed up database lookup and avoid joins, etc., but won't it be better to keep the data as normalized as possible at the core, and transform as required?

    Read the article

  • In which object should I implement wait()/notify()?

    - by Christopher Francisco
    I'm working in an Android project with multithreading. Basically I have to wait to the server to respond before sending more data. The data sending task is delimited by the flag boolean hasServerResponded so the Thread will loop infinitely without doing anything until the flag becomes true. Since this boolean isn't declared as volatile (yet), and also looping without doing anything wastes resources, I thought maybe I should use AtomicBoolean and also implement wait() / notify() mechanism. Should I use the AtomicBoolean object notify() and wait() methods or should I create a lock Object?

    Read the article

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