Search Results

Search found 1591 results on 64 pages for 'oop criticism'.

Page 4/64 | < Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >

• OOP - Handling Automated Instances of a Class - PHP

  - by dscher

  This is a topic that, as a beginner to PHP and programming, sort of perplexes me. I'm building a stockmarket website and want users to add their own stocks. I can clearly see the benefit of having each stock be a class instance with all the methods of a class. What I am stumped on is the best way to give that instance a name when I instantiate it. If I have: class Stock() { ....doing stuff..... } what is the best way to give my instances of it a name. Obviously I can write: $newStock = new Stock(); $newStock.getPrice(); or whatever, but if a user adds a stock via the app, where can the name of that instance come from? I guess that there is little harm in always creating a new child with $newStock = new Stock() and then storing that to the DB which leads me to my next question! What would be the best way to retrieve 20 user stocks(for example) into instances of class Stock()? Do I need to instantiate 20 new instances of class Stock() every time the user logs in or is there something I'm missing? I hope someone answers this and more important hope a bunch of people answer this and it somehow helps someone else who is having a hard time wrapping their head around what probably leads to a really elegant solution. Thanks guys!

  Read the article

• Authorization in a more purely OOP style...

  - by noblethrasher

  I've never seen this done but I had an idea of doing authorization in a more purely OO way. For each method that requires authorization we associate a delegate. During initialization of the class we wire up the delegates so that they point to the appropriate method (based on the user's rights). For example: class User { private deleteMemberDelegate deleteMember; public StatusMessage DeleteMember(Member member) { if(deleteMember != null) { deleteMember(member); } } //other methods defined similarly... User(string name, string password) //cstor. { //wire up delegates based on user's rights. //Thus we handle authentication and authorization in the same method. } } This way the client code never has to explictly check whether or not a user is in a role, it just calls the method. Of course each method should return a status message so that we know if and why it failed. Thoughts?

  Read the article

• Question on overview of C# OOP in business WinForms application - scope of Object

  - by TimR

  I may have all this OO completely wrong, but here goes: Ok the scenario is a classic order entry. Customer places an Order which has OrderLineItems of StockItems. Order is entered by Employee. 1) Application starts and asks for login/password 2) Employee selects 'Orders' from Mainmenu form 3) Orders forms opens.... 4) Employee selects Customer 5) Employee selects Stock adds to OrderLineItems 6) Selects second StockItem; add to OrderLineItems 7) Order is committed, [stock decremented, order posted to DB, Order printed] 8) Employee is returned to MainMenu Now with Object scope: 1) Application starts and asks for login/password Is this the best place to make objEmployee, to be kept whilst in this whole Sales application? 2) Employee selects 'Orders' from Mainmenu form 3) Orders forms opens.... *Make objOrderHeader, is objEmployee able to be passed in or is it created here, or re-created here.* 4) Employee selects Customer - adds/edits Customer details if required... Make objCustomer 5) Employee selects Stock adds to OrderLineItems... *Make objStockItem and objOrderLineItem - add to objOrderLineItems_collection* 6) Selects second StockItem; add to OrderLineItems... *Make objStockItem and objOrderLineItem - add to objOrderLineItems_collection* 7) Order is committed, [stock decremented, order posted to DB, Order printed, Order Entered By = EmployeeID] Once posted to Db, all objects now redundant/garbage [except objEmployee?] 8) Employee is returned to MainMenu is objEmployee still valid as an object?

  Read the article

• PHP OOP: Method Chaining

  - by Isis

  I have the following code, <?php class Templater { static $params = array(); public static function assign($name, $value) { self::$params[] = array($name => $value); } public static function draw() { self::$params; } } $test = Templater::assign('key', 'value'); $test = Templater::draw(); print_r($test); How can I alter this script so I could use this? $test = Templater::assign('key', 'value')->assign('key2', 'value2')->draw(); print_r($test);

  Read the article

• Do delegates defy OOP

  - by Dave Rook

  I'm trying to understand OOP so I can write better OOP code and one thing which keeps coming up is this concept of a delegate (using .NET). I could have an object, which is totally self contained (encapsulated); it knows nothing of the outside world... but then I attach a delegate to it. In my head, this is still quite well separated as the delegate only knows what to reference, but this by itself means it has to know about something else outside it's world! That a method exists within another class! Have I got myself it total muddle here, or is this a grey area, or is this actually down to interpretation (and if so, sorry as that will be off topic I'm sure). My question is, do delegates defy/muddy the OOP pattern?

  Read the article

• OOP, Interface Design and Encapsulation

  - by Mau

  C# project, but it could be applied to any OO languages. 3 interfaces interacting: public interface IPublicData {} public /* internal */ interface IInternalDataProducer { string GetData(); } public interface IPublicWorker { IPublicData DoWork(); IInternalDataProducer GetInternalProducer(); } public class Engine { Engine(IPublicWorker worker) {} IPublicData Run() { DoSomethingWith(worker.GetInternalProducer().GetData()); return worker.DoWork(); } } Clearly Engine is parametric in the actual worker that does the job. A further source of parametrization is how we produce the 'internal data' via IInternalDataProducer. This implementation requires IInternalDataProducer to be public because it's part of the declaration of the public interface IPublicWorker. However, I'd like it to be internal since it's only used by the engine. A solution is make the IPublicWorker produce the internal data itself, but that's not very elegant since there's only a couple of ways of producing it (while there are many more worker implementations), therefore it's nice to delegate to a couple of separate concrete classes. Moreover, the IInternalDataProducer is used in more places inside the engine, so it's good for the engine to pass around the actual object. I'm looking for elegant ideas/patterns. Cheers :-)

  Read the article

• PHP OOP singleton doesn't return object

  - by Misiur

  Weird trouble. I've used singleton multiple times but this particular case just doesn't want to work. Dump says that instance is null. define('ROOT', "/"); define('INC', 'includes/'); define('CLS', 'classes/'); require_once(CLS.'Core/Core.class.php'); $core = Core::getInstance(); var_dump($core->instance); $core->settings(INC.'config.php'); $core->go(); Core class class Core { static $instance; public $db; public $created = false; private function __construct() { $this->created = true; } static function getInstance() { if(!self::$instance) { self::$instance = new Core(); } else { return self::$instance; } } public function settings($path = null) { ... } public function go() { ... } } Error code Fatal error: Call to a member function settings() on a non-object in path It's possibly some stupid typo, but I don't have any errors in my editor. Thanks for the fast responses as always.

  Read the article

• PHP OOP: Avoid Singleton/Static Methods in Domain Model Pattern

  - by sunwukung

  I understand the importance of Dependency Injection and its role in Unit testing, which is why the following issue is giving me pause: One area where I struggle not to use the Singleton is the Identity Map/Unit of Work pattern (Which keeps tabs on Domain Object state). //Not actual code, but it should demonstrate the point class Monitor{//singleton construction omitted for brevity static $members = array();//keeps record of all objects static $dirty = array();//keeps record of all modified objects static $clean = array();//keeps record of all clean objects } class Mapper{//queries database, maps values to object fields public function find($id){ if(isset(Monitor::members[$id]){ return Monitor::members[$id]; } $values = $this->selectStmt($id); //field mapping process omitted for brevity $Object = new Object($values); Monitor::new[$id]=$Object return $Object; } $User = $UserMapper->find(1);//domain object is registered in Id Map $User->changePropertyX();//object is marked "dirty" in UoW // at this point, I can save by passing the Domain Object back to the Mapper $UserMapper->save($User);//object is marked clean in UoW //but a nicer API would be something like this $User->save(); //but if I want to do this - it has to make a call to the mapper/db somehow $User->getBlogPosts(); //or else have to generate specific collection/object graphing methods in the mapper $UserPosts = $UserMapper->getBlogPosts(); $User->setPosts($UserPosts); Any advice on how you might handle this situation? I would be loathe to pass/generate instances of the mapper/database access into the Domain Object itself to satisfy DI - At the same time, avoiding that results in lots of calls within the Domain Object to external static methods. Although I guess if I want "save" to be part of its behaviour then a facility to do so is required in its construction. Perhaps it's a problem with responsibility, the Domain Object shouldn't be burdened with saving. It's just quite a neat feature from the Active Record pattern - it would be nice to implement it in some way.

  Read the article

• Problem with OOP Class Definitions

  - by oben

  Hi, this is Oben from Turkey. I work for my homework in C++ and i have some problems with multiply definitions. My graph class ; class Graph{ private: string name; //Graph name fstream* graphFile; //Graph's file protected: string opBuf; //Operations buffer int containsNode(string); //Query if a node is present Node* nodes; //Nodes in the graph int nofNodes; //Number of nodes in the graph public: static int nOfGraphs; //Number of graphs produced Graph(); //Constructors and destructor Graph(int); Graph(string); Graph(const Graph &); ~Graph(); string getGraphName(); //Get graph name bool addNode(string); //add a node to the graph bool deleteNode(string); //delete a node from the graph bool addEdge(string,string); //add an edge to the graph bool deleteEdge(string,string); //delete an edge from the graph void intersect(const Graph&); //intersect the graph with the <par> void unite(const Graph&); //intersect the graph with the <par> string toString(); //get string representation of the graph void acceptTraverse(BreadthFirst*); void acceptTraverse(DepthFirst *); }; and my traversal class; class Traversal { public: string *visitedNodes; virtual string traverse (const Graph & ); }; class BreadthFirst : public Traversal { public : BreadthFirst(); string traverse(); }; class DepthFirst : public Traversal { public : DepthFirst(); string traverse(); }; My problem is in traversal class , i need to declare Graph class at the same time , in graph class i need traversal class to declare. I have big problems with declerations :) Could you please help me ?

  Read the article

• OOP C# Question: Making a Fruit a Pear

  - by Adam Kane

  Given that I have an instance of Fruit with some properties set, and I want to get those properties into a new Pear instance (because this particular Fruit happens to have the qualities of a pear), what's the best way to achieve this effect? For example, what we can't do is simple cast a Fruit to a Pear, because not all Fruits are Pears: public static class PearGenerator { public static Pear CreatePear () { // Make a new generic fruit. Fruit genericFruit = new Fruit(); // Upcast it to a pear. (Throws exception: Can't cast a Fruit to a Pear.) Pear pear = (Pear)genericFruit; // Return freshly grown pear. return ( pear ); } } public class Fruit { // some code } public class Pear : Fruit { public void PutInPie () { // some code } } Thanks! Update: I don't control the "new Fruit()" code. My starting point is that I've got a Fruit to work with. I need to get that Fruit into a new Pear somehow. Maybe copy all the properties one by one?

  Read the article

• Is OOP based on any branch of mathematics?

  - by ektrules

  I know relational databases are based on set-theory, functional programming is based on lambda calculus, logic programming is based on logic (of course :)), and now that I think of it; I'm not sure if imperative and generic programming is based on any particular branch of mathematics either.

  Read the article

• Question about OOP and objects.

  - by loddn

  I have a school assignment, a Dog Show. My assignment is to create a website where vistors can display results and Judges and Secretary can admin, crud. I have a small problem one part of the assignment. The result should be based on two protokols from different judges and after that checked by the secretary before the result is displayed for the user. I have to say i'm fairly new to programming and so i need some smart suggestions on how to design and implement this. The assignment should cover both a db and c# (.net mvc). Q1: How do i create a object (result)that depends on two other objects(protocol)? Is that even needed? Q2: How to solve this in a relational db?

  Read the article

• inheritance problem OOP extend

  - by hsmit

  If a Father is a Parent and a Parent is a Person and a Person has a Father I create the following: class Person{ Father father; } class Parent extends Person{} class Father extends Parent{} Instances: Person p1 = new Person(); Person p2 = new Person(); p1.father = p2; //father is of the type Father This doesn't work... Now try casting:: Person p1 = new Person(); Person p2 = new Person(); p1.father = (Father)p2; This doesn't work either. What does work for this case?

  Read the article

• OOP design issue: Polymorphism

  - by Graham Phillips

  I'm trying to solve a design issue using inheritance based polymorphism and dynamic binding. I have an abstract superclass and two subclasses. The superclass contains common behaviour. SubClassA and SubClassB define some different methods: SubClassA defines a method performTransform(), but SubClassB does not. So the following example 1 var v:SuperClass; 2 var b:SubClassB = new SubClassB(); 3 v = b; 4 v.performTransform(); would cause a compile error on line 4 as performTransform() is not defined in the superclass. We can get it to compile by casting... (v as SubClassA).performTransform(); however, this will cause a runtime exception to be thrown as v is actually an instance of SubClassB, which also does not define performTransform() So we can get around that by testing the type of an object before casting it: if( typeof v == SubClassA) { (cast v to SubClassA).performTransform(); } That will ensure that we only call performTransform() on v's that are instances of SubClassA. That's a pretty inelegant solution to my eyes, but at least its safe. I have used interface based polymorphism (interface meaning a type that can't be instantiated and defines the API of classes that implement it) in the past, but that also feels clunky. For the above case, if SubClassA and SubClassB implemented ISuperClass that defined performTransform, then they would both have to implement performTransform(). If SubClassB had no real need for a performTransform() you would have to implement an empty function. There must be a design pattern out there that addresses the issue.

  Read the article

• OOP design for DMS that allows searching and grouping

  - by James P.

  I'd like to make a searchable Document Management System and allow a user to group documents together. On one hand, there would be a functionality that registers/fingerprints in a linear fashion and, on the other, one that associates documents into groups. How could I compromise between the two in terms of object design?

  Read the article

• OOP/MVC advice on where to place a global helper function

  - by franko75

  Hi, I have a couple of controllers on my site which are handling form data. The forms use AJAX and I have quite a few methods across different controllers which are having to do some specific processing to return errors in a JSON encoded format - see code below. Obviously this isn't DRY and I need to move this code into a single helper function which I can use globally, but I'm wondering where this should actually go! Should I create a static helper class which contains this function (e.g Validation::build_ajax_errors()), or as this code is producing a format which is application specific and tied into the jQuery validation plugin I'm using, should it be a static method stored in, for example, my main Website controller which the form handling controllers extend from? //if ajax request, output errors if (request::is_ajax()) { //need to build errors into array form for javascript validation - move this into a helper method accessible globally $errors = $post->errors('form_data/form_error_messages'); $i = 0; $new_errors = array(); foreach ($errors as $key => $value) { $new_errors[$i][0] = '#' . $key; $new_errors[$i][1] = $value; $new_errors[$i][2] = "error"; $i++; } echo '{"jsonValidateReturn":' . json_encode($new_errors) . '}'; return; }

  Read the article

• Questions about "casting operation" in OOP

  - by rhapsodyn

  When programming, we usually use some type-casting operations. When the casting happens on the objects "on the same level", it feels ok. But when it happens on the ojects "on the different levels"(mainly between father and son), it feels weird. Considering this: Class Son extends Father WhenSon s = (Son)father;, it's absolutely unreasonable. Because a "Son" is not a "Father" anymore, "Son" may grow up with some new properties "Father" doesn't have, the casting operation makes these properties unknown. On the other hand, Father f = (Father)son seems reasonable, but according to LSP "An instance of a derived should be able to replace any instance of its superclass" A "Son" can do anything his "Father" can, so the casting operation seems useless. So can i say that these casting operations are agaisnt OO design principle but necessary?

  Read the article

• Where to store frequently used functions in a OOP correct way

  - by Stefan Kuijers

  I'm working on a project which I want to build up OO. Now I came with a function that checks or a value is valid. private function valid(value:*, acceptedValues:Array):Boolean { for(var i:uint = 0; i < acceptedValues.length; i++) { if (value == acceptedValues[i]) { return true; } } return false; } As you can see, the function is very general and will be accessed across different classes. Now my question is; where do I store it in a OO correct way? Thanks in advance!

  Read the article

• PHP OOP: method?

  - by Isis

  Hello <?php class Templater { static $params = array(); public static function assign($name, $value) { self::$params[] = array($name => $value); } public static function draw() { self::$params; } } $test = Templater::assign('key', 'value'); $test = Templater::draw(); print_r($test); How to alter this script so I could use this:? $test = Templater::assign('key', 'value')->assign('key2', 'value2')-draw(); print_r($test);

  Read the article

• C++ OOP - Can you 'overload a cast' <- hard to explain in 1 sentence

  - by Brandon Miller

  Well, the WinAPI has a POINT struct, but I am trying to make an alternative class to this so you can set the values of x and y from a constructor. /** * X-Y coordinates */ class Point { public: int X, Y; Point(void) : X(0), Y(0) {} Point(int x, int y) : X(x), Y(y) {} Point(const POINT& pt) : X(pt.x), Y(pt.y) {} Point& operator= (const POINT& other) { X = other.x; Y = other.y; } }; // I have an assignment operator and copy constructor. Point myPtA(3,7); Point myPtB(8,5); POINT pt; pt.x = 9; pt.y = 2; // I can assign a 'POINT' to a 'Point' myPtA = pt; // But I also want to be able to assign a 'Point' to a 'POINT' pt = myPtB; Is it possible to overload operator= in a way so that I can assign a Point to a POINT? Or maybe some other method to achieve this? Thanks in advance.

  Read the article

• PHP OOP: Unique method per argument type?

  - by sunwukung

  I'm writing a little homebrew ORM (academic interest). I'm trying to adhere to the TDD concept as a training exercise, and as part of that exercise I'm writing documentation for the API as I develop the class. Case in point - I'm working on a classic "getCollection" type mapper class. I want it to be able to retrieve collections of asset X (let's say blog posts) for a specific user, and also collections based on an arbitrary array of numeric values. So - you might have a method like any one of these $User = $UserMapper->load(1); $ArticleCollection = $ArticleMapper->getCollection(range(10,20)); $ArticleCollection = $ArticleMapper->getCollection($User); $ArticleCollection = $ArticleMapper->getCollection($User->getId()); So, in writing the documentation for the getCollection method - I want to declare the @param variable in the Docblock. Is it better to have a unique method for each argument type, or is it acceptable to have a method that delegates to the correct internal method/class based on argument type?

  Read the article

• Simple OOP-related question.

  - by M4design

  This question came to my mind quite a few times. Let my explain my question through an example. Say I've got two classes: 1- Grid. 2- Cell. Now the location of the cell 'should' be stored in the grid class, not in the cell class itself. Say that the cell wanted to get its location through a method in the grid. How can it do that? Keep in mind that the cell was created/initialised by the Grid class. What good OO approach to solve this problem? Thank you

  Read the article

• avoiding enums as interface identifiers c++ OOP

  - by AlasdairC

  Hi I'm working on a plugin framework using dynamic loaded shared libraries which is based on Eclipse's (and probally other's) extension-point model. All plugins share similar properties (name, id, version etc) and each plugin could in theory satisfy any extension-point. The actual plugin (ie Dll) handling is managed by another library, all I am doing really is managing collections of interfaces for the application. I started by using an enum PluginType to distinguish the different interfaces, but I have quickly realised that using template functions made the code far cleaner and would leave the grunt work up to the compiler, rather than forcing me to use lots of switch {...} statements. The only issue is where I need to specify like functionality for class members - most obvious example is the default plugin which provides a particular interface. A Settings class handles all settings, including the default plugin for an interface. ie Skin newSkin = settings.GetDefault<ISkin>(); How do I store the default ISkin in a container without resorting to some other means of identifying the interface? As I mentioned above, I currently use a std::map<PluginType, IPlugin> Settings::defaults member to achieve this (where IPlugin is an abstract base class which all plugins derive from. I can then dynamic_cast to the desired interface when required, but this really smells of bad design to me and introduces more harm than good I think. would welcome any tips edit: here's an example of the current use of default plugins typedef boost::shared_ptr<ISkin> Skin; typedef boost::shared_ptr<IPlugin> Plugin; enum PluginType { skin, ..., ... } class Settings { public: void SetDefault(const PluginType type, boost::shared_ptr<IPlugin> plugin) { m_default[type] = plugin; } boost::shared_ptr<IPlugin> GetDefault(const PluginType type) { return m_default[type]; } private: std::map<PluginType, boost::shared_ptr<IPlugin> m_default; }; SkinManager::Initialize() { Plugin thedefault = g_settings.GetDefault(skinplugin); Skin defaultskin = boost::dynamic_pointer_cast<ISkin>(theskin); defaultskin->Initialize(); } I would much rather call the getdefault as the following, with automatic casting to the derived class. However I need to specialize for every class type. template<> Skin Settings::GetDefault<ISkin>() { return boost::dynamic_pointer_cast<ISkin>(m_default(skin)); }

  Read the article

• PHP OOP: Parenting objects/functions?

  - by Industrial

  Hi everyone, How is parenting functions in PHP done properly according to the following example? Can I make sure that my array isn't overwritten and the previous values inside array lost, on each addArray call? function arraybase() { $this->array = new ArrayObject(); return $this; } function addArray($value) { parent::$this->arraybase(); $this->array->append($value); return $this; } $this->addArray('1')->addArray('2')->addArray('3'); // outputs: Array ( [0] => 3 ) Thanks a lot!

  Read the article

• PHP OOP problem

  - by Isis

  Hello <?php class Templater { var $params = array(); public static function assign($name, $value) { $this->params[] = array($name => $value); } public static dunction draw() { return $this->params; } } <?php $test = Templater::assign('key', 'value')->draw(); print_r($test); I need to function "assign" was static, but $params was common for the whole class.. BUt this code is not working(( Fatal error: Using $this when not in object context Any ideas?

  Read the article

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