Search Results

Search found 320 results on 13 pages for 'polymorphism'.

Page 4/13 | < Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >

• polymorphism in java

  - by aks

  is operator overloading is a expmple of comppile time polymorphism? What about overriding?

  Read the article

• can we implement polymorphism using interface in c#?

  - by Azhar

  can we implement polymorphism using interface in c#? any example

  Read the article

• Change default polymorphism in Hibernate

  - by Sujee

  Hi, I'd like to set polymorphism="explicit" property to several hibernate mapping classes. is it possible to override the default implicit value, so that I do not need to set explicit in multiple classes? <class name="xxxxx" table="XXXXX" polymorphism="explicit"> I am using hibernate mapping xml files (No annotations or JPA) and it was loaded by Spring as follows, <bean id="xxxsessionFactory" class="org.springframework.orm.hibernate3.LocalSessionFactoryBean"> <property name="dataSource"> <ref bean="xxxDataSource"/> </property> <property name="mappingResources"> <list> <value>xxx.hbm.xml</value> -------- -------- </list> </property> <property name="hibernateProperties"> <props> <prop key="hibernate.dialect">org.hibernate.dialect.OracleDialect</prop> ---- ---- </props> </property> </bean> Thank you.

  Read the article

• OO Design, how to model Tonal Harmony?

  - by David

  I have started to write a program in C++ 11 that would analyse chords, scales, and harmony. The biggest problem I am having in my design phase, is that the note 'C' is a note, a type of chord (Cmaj, Cmin, C7, etc), and a type of key (the key of Cmajor, Cminor). The same issue arises with intervals (minor 3rd, major 3rd). I am using a base class, Token, that is the base class for all 'symbols' in the program. so for example: class Token { public: typedef shared_ptr<Token> pointer_type; Token() {} virtual ~Token() {} }; class Command : public Token { public: Command() {} pointer_type execute(); } class Note : public Token; class Triad : public Token; class MajorTriad : public Triad; // CMajorTriad, etc class Key : public Token; class MinorKey : public Key; // Natural Minor, Harmonic minor,etc class Scale : public Token; As you can see, to create all the derived classes (CMajorTriad, C, CMajorScale, CMajorKey, etc) would quickly become ridiculously complex including all the other notes, as well as enharmonics. multiple inheritance would not work, ie: class C : public Note, Triad, Key, Scale class C, cannot be all of these things at the same time. It is contextual, also polymorphing with this will not work (how to determine which super methods to perform? calling every super class constructors should not happen here) Are there any design ideas or suggestions that people have to offer? I have not been able to find anything on google in regards to modelling tonal harmony from an OO perspective. There are just far too many relationships between all the concepts here.

  Read the article

• Java Dynamic Binding

  - by Chris Okyen

  I am having trouble understanding the OOP Polymorphic principl of Dynamic Binding ( Late Binding ) in Java. I looked for question pertaining to java, and wasn't sure if a overall answer to how dynamic binding works would pertain to Java Dynamic Binding, I wrote this question. Given: class Person { private String name; Person(intitialName) { name = initialName; } // irrelevant methods is here. // Overides Objects method public void writeOutput() { println(name); } } class Student extends Person { private int studentNumber; Student(String intitialName, int initialStudentNumber) { super(intitialName); studentNumber = initialStudentNumber; } // irrellevant methods here... // overides Person, Student and Objects method public void writeOutput() { super.writeOutput(); println(studentNumber); } } class Undergaraduate extends Student { private int level; Undergraduate(String intitialName, int initialStudentNumber,int initialLevel) { super(intitialName,initialStudentNumber); level = initialLevel; } // irrelevant methods is here. // overides Person, Student and Objects method public void writeOutput() { super.writeOutput(); println(level); } } I am wondering. if I had an array called person declared to contain objects of type Person: Person[] people = new Person[2]; person[0] = new Undergraduate("Cotty, Manny",4910,1); person[1] = new Student("DeBanque, Robin", 8812); Given that person[] is declared to be of type Person, you would expect, for example, in the third line where person[0] is initialized to a new Undergraduate object,to only gain the instance variable from Person and Persons Methods since doesn't the assignment to a new Undergraduate to it's ancestor denote the Undergraduate object to access Person - it's Ancestors, methods and isntance variables... Thus ...with the following code I would expect person[0].writeOutput(); // calls Undergraduate::writeOutput() person[1].writeOutput(); // calls Student::writeOutput() person[0] to not have Undergraduate's writeOutput() overidden method, nor have person[1] to have Student's overidden method - writeOutput(). If I had Person mikeJones = new Student("Who?,MikeJones",44,4); mikeJones.writeOutput(); The Person::writeOutput() method would be called. Why is this not so? Does it have to do with something I don't understand about relating to arrays? Does the declaration Person[] people = new Person[2] not bind the method like the previous code would?

  Read the article

• How to setup the c++ rule of three in a virtual base class

  - by Minion91

  I am trying to create a pure virtual base class (or simulated pure virtual) my goal: User can't create instances of BaseClass. Derived classes have to implement default constructor, copy constructor, copy assignment operator and destructor. My attempt: class Base { public: virtual ~Base() {}; /* some pure virtual functions */ private: Base() = default; Base(const Base& base) = default; Base& operator=(const Base& base) = default; } This gives some errors complaining that (for one) the copy constructor is private. But i don't want this mimicked constructor to be called. Can anyone give me the correct construction to do this if this is at all possible?

  Read the article

• Interface extension

  - by user877329

  Suppose that I have an input stream interface, which defines a method for reading data. I also have a seekable interface which defines a method for seeking. A natural way of defining a input file is then to implement both input stream and seekable. I want to construct a data decoder from the input stream interface so I can read data from a file or from another stream. The problem is that I also want to implement seek functionality to the data decoder, since I want to be able to step individual records not raw bytes. This is not possible if I only provide an input stream, which does not have the bytewise seek method. Should I skip the seekable interface and add the seek method to input stream instead and force all streams to at least leave it as a nop.

  Read the article

• overriding implemented base class methods

  - by user793468

  I read somewhere that the chain of inheritance breaks when you alter a behavior from derived class. What does "altering a behavior" mean here? Is overriding an already implemented method in base class considered as "altering behavior"? Or, does the author mean altering method signatures and the output? Also, I ready Duplicating code is not a good practice, and its a maintenance nightmare. Again, does overriding an already implemented method in base class considered "Duplicating code"? If not, what would be considered as "Duplicating code"? I

  Read the article

• Alternatives to type casting in your domain

  - by Mr Happy

  In my Domain I have an entity Activity which has a list of ITasks. Each implementation of this task has it's own properties beside the implementation of ITask itself. Now each operation of the Activity entity (e.g. Execute()) only needs to loop over this list and call an ITask method (e.g. ExecuteTask()). Where I'm having trouble is when a specific tasks' properties need to be updated. How do I get an instance of that task? The options I see are: Get the Activity by Id and cast the task I need. This'll either sprinkle my code with: Tasks.OfType<SpecificTask>().Single(t => t.Id == taskId) or Tasks.Single(t => t.Id == taskId) as SpecificTask Make each task unique in the whole system (make each task an entity), and create a new repository for each ITask implementation I don't like either option, the first because I don't like casting: I'm using NHibernate and I'm sure this'll come back and bite me when I start using Lazy Loading (NHibernate currently uses proxies to implement this). I don't like the second option because there are/will be dozens of different kind of tasks. Which would mean I'd have to create as many repositories. Am I missing a third option here? Or are any of my objections to the two options not justified? How have you solved this problem in the past?

  Read the article

• Combinatorial explosion of interfaces: How many is too many?

  - by mga

  I'm a relative newcomer to OOP, and I'm having a bit of trouble creating good designs when it comes to interfaces. Consider a class A with N public methods. There are a number of other classes, B, C, ..., each of which interacts with A in a different way, that is, accesses some subset (<= N) of A's methods. The maximum degree of encapsulation is achieved by implementing an interface of A for each other class, i.e. AInterfaceForB, AInterfaceForC, etc. However, if B, C, ... etc. also interact with A and with each other, then there will be a combinatorial explosion of interfaces (a maximum of n(n-1), to be precise), and the benefit of encapsulation becomes outweighed by a code-bloat. What is the best practice in this scenario? Is the whole idea of restricting access to a class's public functions in different ways for other different classes just silly altogether? One could imagine a language that explicitly allows for this sort of encapsulation (e.g. instead of declaring a function public, one could specify exactly which classes it is visible to); Since this is not a feature of C++, maybe it's misguided to try to do it through the back door with interaces?

  Read the article

• VBA + Polymorphism: Override worksheet functions from 3rd party

  - by phi

  my company makes extensive use of a data provider using a (closed source) VBA plugin. In principal, every query follows follows a certain structure: Fill one cell with a formula, where arguments to the formula specify the query the range of that formula is extended (not an arrray formula!) and cells below/right are filled with data For this to work, however, a user has to have a terminal program installed on the machine, as well as a com-plugin referenced in VBA/Excel. My Problem These Excelsheets are used and extended by multiple users, and not all of them have access to the data provider. While they can open the sheet, it will recalculate and the data will be gone. However, frequent recalculation is required. I would like every user to be able to use the sheets, without executing a very specific set of formulas. Attempts remove the reference on those computers where I do not have terminal access. This generates a NAME error i the cell containing the query (acceptable), but this query overrides parts of the data (not acceptable) If you allow the program to refresh, all data will be gone after a failed query Replace all formulas with the plain-text result in the respective cells (press a button and loop over every cell...). Obviously destroys any refresh-capabilities the querys offer for all subsequent users, so pretty bad, too. A theoretical idea, and I'm not sure how to implement it: Replace the functions offered by the plugin with something that will be called either first (and relay the query through to the original function, if thats available) or instead of the original function (by only deploying the solution on non-terminal machines), which just returns the original value. More specifically, if my query function is used like this: =GETALLDATA(Startdate, Enddate, Stockticker, etc) I would like to transparently swap the function behind the call. Do you see any hope, or am I lost? I appreciate your help. PS: Of course I'm talking about Bloomberg... Some additional points to clarify issues raise by Frank: The formula in the sheets may not be changed. This is mission-critical software, and its way too complex for any sane person to try and touch it. Only excel and VBA may be used (which is the reason for the previous point...) It would be sufficient to prevent execution of these few specific formulas/functions on a specific machine for all excel sheets to come This looks more and more like a problem for stackoverflow ;-)

  Read the article

• Is multi-level polymorphism possible in SQLAlchemy?

  - by Jace

  Is it possible to have multi-level polymorphism in SQLAlchemy? Here's an example: class Entity(Base): __tablename__ = 'entities' id = Column(Integer, primary_key=True) created_at = Column(DateTime, default=datetime.utcnow, nullable=False) entity_type = Column(Unicode(20), nullable=False) __mapper_args__ = {'polymorphic_on': entity_type} class File(Entity): __tablename__ = 'files' id = Column(None, ForeignKey('entities.id'), primary_key=True) filepath = Column(Unicode(255), nullable=False) file_type = Column(Unicode(20), nullable=False) __mapper_args__ = {'polymorphic_identity': u'file', 'polymorphic_on': file_type) class Image(File): __mapper_args__ = {'polymorphic_identity': u'image'} __tablename__ = 'images' id = Column(None, ForeignKey('files.id'), primary_key=True) width = Column(Integer) height = Column(Integer) When I call Base.metadata.create_all(), SQLAlchemy raises the following error: NotImplementedError: Can't generate DDL for the null type IntegrityError: (IntegrityError) entities.entity_type may not be NULL. This error goes away if I remove the Image model and the polymorphic_on key in File. What gives? (Edited: the exception raised was wrong.)

  Read the article

• ADT-like polymorphism in Java (without altering class)

  - by ffriend

  In Haskell I can define following data type: data Tree = Empty | Leaf Int | Node Tree Tree and then write polymorphic function like this: depth :: Tree -> Int depth Empty = 0 depth (Leaf n) = 1 depth (Node l r) = 1 + max (depth l) (depth r) In Java I can emulate algebraic data types with interfaces: interface Tree {} class Empty implements Tree {} class Leaf implements Tree { int n; } class Node implements Tree { Tree l; Tree r; } But if I try to use Haskell-like polymorphism, I get an error: int depth(Empty node) { return 0; } int depth(Leaf node) { return 1; } int depth(Node node) { return 1 + Math.max(depth(node.l), depth(node.r)); // ERROR: Cannot resolve method 'depth(Tree)' } Correct way to overcome this is to put method depth() to each class. But what if I don't want to put it there? For example, method depth() may be not directly related to Tree and adding it to class would break business logic. Or, even worse, Tree may be written in 3rd party library that I don't have access to. In this case, what is the simplest way to implement ADT-like polymorpism? Just in case, for the moment I'm using following syntax, which is obviously ill-favored: int depth(Tree tree) { if (tree instanceof Empty) depth((Empty)tree) if (tree instanceof Leaf) depth((Leaf)tree); if (tree instanceof Node) depth((Node)tree); else throw new RuntimeException("Don't know how to find depth of " + tree.getClass()); }

  Read the article

• I'm confused about Polymorphism

  - by Vtanathip

  I'm know polymorphism rule that we can send it via parameter like this code interface Animal { void whoAmI(); } class A implements Animal{ @Override public void whoAmI() { // TODO Auto-generated method stub System.out.println("A"); } } class B implements Animal{ @Override public void whoAmI() { // TODO Auto-generated method stub System.out.println("B"); } } class RuntimePolymorphismDemo { public void WhoRU(List t){ System.out.println(t.getClass()); } public static void main(String[] args) { A a = new A(); B b = new B(); RuntimePolymorphismDemo rp = new RuntimePolymorphismDemo(); rp.WhoRU(a); rp.WhoRU(b); } } but List<Example> examples = new ArrayList<Example>(); This code,I'm don't understand why we must use List. why we can't use like this? ArrayList<Example> examples = new ArrayList<Example>(); Because when we use List we can't use method that only have in ArrayList class like trimToSize() and How I know when to use or not use?

  Read the article

• Is `List<Dog>` a subclass of `List<Animal>`? Why aren't Java's generics implicitly polymorphic?

  - by froadie

  I'm a bit confused about how Java generics handle inheritance / polymorphism. Assume the following hierarchy - Animal (Parent) Dog - Cat (Children) So suppose I have a method doSomething(List<Animal> animals). By all the rules of inheritance and polymorphism, I would assume that a List<Dog> is a List<Animal> and a List<Cat> is a List<Animal> - and so either one could be passed to this method. Not so. If I want to achieve this behavior, I have to explicitly tell the method to accept a list of any subset of Animal by saying doSomething(List<? extends Animal> animals). I understand that this is Java's behavior. My question is why? Why is polymorphism generally implicit, but when it comes to generics it must be specified?

  Read the article

• Why aren't Java's generics implicitly polymorphic?

  - by froadie

  I'm a bit confused about how Java generics handle inheritance / polymorphism. Assume the following hierarchy - Animal (Parent) Dog - Cat (Children) So suppose I have a method doSomething(List<Animal> animals). By all the rules of inheritance and polymorphism, I would assume that a List<Dog> is a List<Animal> and a List<Cat> is a List<Animal> - and so either one could be passed to this method. Not so. If I want to achieve this behavior, I have to explicitly tell the method to accept a list of any subset of Animal by saying doSomething(List<? extends Animal> animals). I understand that this is Java's behavior. My question is why? Why is polymorphism generally implicit, but when it comes to generics it must be specified?

  Read the article

• Fluent NHibermate and Polymorphism and a Newbie!

  - by Andy Baker

  I'm a fluent nhibernate newbie and I'm struggling mapping a hierarchy of polymorhophic objects. I've produced the following Model that recreates the essence of what I'm doing in my real application. I have a ProductList and several specialised type of products; public class MyProductList { public virtual int Id { get; set; } public virtual string Name {get;set;} public virtual IList<Product> Products { get; set; } public MyProductList() { Products = new List<Product>(); } } public class Product { public virtual int Id { get; set; } public virtual string ProductDescription {get;set;} } public class SizedProduct : Product { public virtual decimal Size {get;set;} } public class BundleProduct : Product { public virtual Product BundleItem1 {get;set;} public virtual Product BundleItem2 {get;set;} } Note that I have a specialised type of Product called BundleProduct that has two products attached. I can add any of the specialised types of product to MyProductList and a bundle Product can be made up of any of the specialised types of product too. Here is the fluent nhibernate mapping that I'm using; public class MyListMap : ClassMap<MyList> { public MyListMap() { Id(ml => ml.Id); Map(ml => ml.Name); HasManyToMany(ml => ml.Products).Cascade.All(); } } public class ProductMap : ClassMap<Product> { public ProductMap() { Id(prod => prod.Id); Map(prod => prod.ProductDescription); } } public class SizedProductMap : SubclassMap<SizedProduct> { public SizedProductMap() { Map(sp => sp.Size); } } public class BundleProductMap : SubclassMap<BundleProduct> { public BundleProductMap() { References(bp => bp.BundleItem1).Cascade.All(); References(bp => bp.BundleItem2).Cascade.All(); } } I haven't configured have any reverse mappings, so a product doesn't know which Lists it belongs to or which bundles it is part of. Next I add some products to my list; MyList ml = new MyList() { Name = "Example" }; ml.Products.Add(new Product() { ProductDescription = "PSU" }); ml.Products.Add(new SizedProduct() { ProductDescription = "Extension Cable", Size = 2.0M }); ml.Products.Add(new BundleProduct() { ProductDescription = "Fan & Cable", BundleItem1 = new Product() { ProductDescription = "Fan Power Cable" }, BundleItem2 = new SizedProduct() { ProductDescription = "80mm Fan", Size = 80M } }); When I persist my list to the database and reload it, the list itself contains the items I expect ie MyList[0] has a type of Product, MyList[1] has a type of SizedProduct, and MyList[2] has a type of BundleProduct - great! If I navigate to the BundleProduct, I'm not able to see the types of Product attached to the BundleItem1 or BundleItem2 instead they are always proxies to the Product - in this example BundleItem2 should be a SizedProduct. Is there anything I can do to resove this either in my model or the mapping? Thanks in advance for your help.

  Read the article

• Polymorphism in SQL database tables?

  - by Patrick Daryll Glandien

  I currently have multiple tables in my database which consist of the same 'basic fields' like: name character varying(100), description text, url character varying(255) But I have multiple specializations of that basic table, which is for example that tv_series has the fields season, episode, airing, while the movies table has release_date, budget etc. Now at first this is not a problem, but I want to create a second table, called linkgroups with a Foreign Key to these specialized tables. That means I would somehow have to normalize it within itself. One way of solving this I have heard of is to normalize it with a key-value-pair-table, but I do not like that idea since it is kind of a 'database-within-a-database' scheme, I do not have a way to require certain keys/fields nor require a special type, and it would be a huge pain to fetch and order the data later. So I am looking for a way now to 'share' a Primary Key between multiple tables or even better: a way to normalize it by having a general table and multiple specialized tables.

  Read the article

• Creating self-referential tables with polymorphism in SQLALchemy

  - by Jace

  I'm trying to create a db structure in which I have many types of content entities, of which one, a Comment, can be attached to any other. Consider the following: from datetime import datetime from sqlalchemy import create_engine from sqlalchemy import Column, ForeignKey from sqlalchemy import Unicode, Integer, DateTime from sqlalchemy.orm import relation, backref from sqlalchemy.ext.declarative import declarative_base Base = declarative_base() class Entity(Base): __tablename__ = 'entities' id = Column(Integer, primary_key=True) created_at = Column(DateTime, default=datetime.utcnow, nullable=False) edited_at = Column(DateTime, default=datetime.utcnow, onupdate=datetime.utcnow, nullable=False) type = Column(Unicode(20), nullable=False) __mapper_args__ = {'polymorphic_on': type} # <...insert some models based on Entity...> class Comment(Entity): __tablename__ = 'comments' __mapper_args__ = {'polymorphic_identity': u'comment'} id = Column(None, ForeignKey('entities.id'), primary_key=True) _idref = relation(Entity, foreign_keys=id, primaryjoin=id == Entity.id) attached_to_id = Column(Integer, ForeignKey('entities.id'), nullable=False) #attached_to = relation(Entity, remote_side=[Entity.id]) attached_to = relation(Entity, foreign_keys=attached_to_id, primaryjoin=attached_to_id == Entity.id, backref=backref('comments', cascade="all, delete-orphan")) text = Column(Unicode(255), nullable=False) engine = create_engine('sqlite://', echo=True) Base.metadata.bind = engine Base.metadata.create_all(engine) This seems about right, except SQLAlchemy doesn't like having two foreign keys pointing to the same parent. It says ArgumentError: Can't determine join between 'entities' and 'comments'; tables have more than one foreign key constraint relationship between them. Please specify the 'onclause' of this join explicitly. How do I specify onclause?

  Read the article

• c++ - strange problem with polymorphism - cellular automaton

  - by Green

  Hello, I am making "game of life" implementation that, when cell has: two live neighbours I make object of class CCellB two live neighbours I make object of class CCellA when has 3 or <2 I make object of class CCellX (dead) Class CCell is base of CCellA, CCellB, CCellX My problem is: That works fine, until I change new CCell(); to new CCellB();: CCell ***temp = allocateArray(); for(int i = 0; i < n; i++) { for(int j = 0; j < m; j++) { c = arr[i][j]->countAliveNeighbor(); if(c == 3) { temp[i][j] = new CCellA(); temp[i][j]->alive = 1; }else if(c == 2) { temp[i][j] = new CCell(); // HERE, WHEN I CHANGE IT TO CCELLB IT DON'T WORKS temp[i][j]->alive = tab[i][j]->alive; }else if((c >= 4)||(c < 2)) { temp[i][j] = new CCellX(); } } } Then it seems don't work properly... Seems like neighbours are not count properly, Cell with 4,5 neighbours still alive alive var is member of base class - CCell, all is public, please help!

  Read the article

• How to model has_many with polymorphism?

  - by Daniel Abrahamsson

  I've run into a situation that I am not quite sure how to model. Suppose I have a User class, and a user has many services. However, these services are quite different, for example a MailService and a BackupService, so single table inheritance won't do. Instead, I am thinking of using polymorphic associations together with an abstract base class: class User < ActiveRecord::Base has_many :services end class Service < ActiveRecord::Base validates_presence_of :user_id, :implementation_id, :implementation_type belongs_to :user belongs_to :implementation, :polymorphic = true delegate :common_service_method, :name, :to => :implementation end #Base class for service implementations class ServiceImplementation < ActiveRecord::Base validates_presence_of :user_id, :on => :create has_one :service, :as => :implementation has_one :user, :through => :service after_create :create_service_record #Tell Rails this class does not use a table. def self.abstract_class? true end #Default name implementation. def name self.class.name end protected #Sets up a service object def create_service_record service = Service.new(:user_id => user_id) service.implementation = self service.save! end end class MailService < ServiceImplementation #validations, etc... def common_service_method puts "MailService implementation of common service method" end end #Example usage MailService.create(..., :user_id => user.id) BackupService.create(...., :user_id => user.id) user.services.each do |s| puts "#{user.name} is using #{s.name}" end #Daniel is using MailService, Daniel is using BackupService So, is this the best solution? Or even a good one? How have you solved this kind of problem?

  Read the article

• Replace conditional with polymorphism refactoring or similar?

  - by Anders Svensson

  Hi, I have tried to ask a variant of this question before. I got some helpful answers, but still nothing that felt quite right to me. It seems to me this shouldn't really be that hard a nut to crack, but I'm not able to find an elegant simple solution. (Here's my previous post, but please try to look at the problem stated here as procedural code first so as not to be influenced by the earlier explanation which seemed to lead to very complicated solutions: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/2772858/design-pattern-for-cost-calculator-app ) Basically, the problem is to create a calculator for hours needed for projects that can contain a number of services. In this case "writing" and "analysis". The hours are calculated differently for the different services: writing is calculated by multiplying a "per product" hour rate with the number of products, and the more products are included in the project, the lower the hour rate is, but the total number of hours is accumulated progressively (i.e. for a medium-sized project you take both the small range pricing and then add the medium range pricing up to the number of actual products). Whereas for analysis it's much simpler, it is just a bulk rate for each size range. How would you be able to refactor this into an elegant and preferably simple object-oriented version (please note that I would never write it like this in a purely procedural manner, this is just to show the problem in another way succinctly). I have been thinking in terms of factory, strategy and decorator patterns, but can't get any to work well. (I read Head First Design Patterns a while back, and both the decorator and factory patterns described have some similarities to this problem, but I have trouble seeing them as good solutions as stated there. The decorator example seems very complicated for just adding condiments, but maybe it could work better here, I don't know. And the factory pattern example with the pizza factory...well it just seems to create such a ridiculous explosion of classes, at least in their example. I have found good use for factory patterns before, but I can't see how I could use it here without getting a really complicated set of classes) The main goal would be to only have to change in one place (loose coupling etc) if I were to add a new parameter (say another size, like XSMALL, and/or another service, like "Administration"). Here's the procedural code example: public class Conditional { private int _numberOfManuals; private string _serviceType; private const int SMALL = 2; private const int MEDIUM = 8; public int GetHours() { if (_numberOfManuals <= SMALL) { if (_serviceType == "writing") return 30 * _numberOfManuals; if (_serviceType == "analysis") return 10; } else if (_numberOfManuals <= MEDIUM) { if (_serviceType == "writing") return (SMALL * 30) + (20 * _numberOfManuals - SMALL); if (_serviceType == "analysis") return 20; } else //i.e. LARGE { if (_serviceType == "writing") return (SMALL * 30) + (20 * (MEDIUM - SMALL)) + (10 * _numberOfManuals - MEDIUM); if (_serviceType == "analysis") return 30; } return 0; //Just a default fallback for this contrived example } } All replies are appreciated! I hope someone has a really elegant solution to this problem that I actually thought from the beginning would be really simple... Regards, Anders

  Read the article

• Error handling and polymorphism

  - by Neeraj

  I have an application with some bunch of code like this: errCode = callMainSystem(); switch (errCode){ case FailErr: error("Err corresponding to val1\n"); case IgnoreErr: error("Err corresponding to val2\n"); ... ... default: error("Unknown error\n"); } The values are enum constants. Will it make some sense to have something like: // Error* callMainSystem() ... Some code return FaileErr(); // or some other error // handling code Error* err = callMainSystem(); err->toString(); The Error class may be made singleton as it only has to print error messages. What are the pros and cons of above methods,size is an important criteria as the application needs to be supported on embedded devices as well. P.S: I don't want to use exception handling because of portability issues and associated overheads.

  Read the article

• Rails Model for Playlist that can contain tracks and albums using polymorphism

  - by philk

  I struggle to find a model how to store a playlist with different type of items on it in Rails. Consider I have class Track end class Album has_many :tracks end class PlaylistItem belongs_to :playable belongs_to :playlist end class Playable belongs_to :playable, :polymorph => true end class Playlist has_many :playlist_items end I think I can use a polymorphic model "Playable" here since the Playlist can contain Tracks, Albums and maybe in the future also Movies. Also I would like to use STI for Track and Albums since they share some common attributes like title and length but also have totally different attributes. I modeled it like described here but it does not work. Anybody any idea how to model a Playlist that can contain many items of different kind?

  Read the article

• rails: has_many :through + polymorphism validation?

  - by ramonrails

  I am trying to achieve this. Any hints? A project has many users through join model A user has many projects through join model Admin class inherits User class. It also has some Admin specific stuff. Admin like inheritance for Supervisor and Operator Project has one Admin, One supervisor and many operators. Now I want to 1. submit data for project, admin, supervisor and operator in a single project form 2. validate all and show errors on the project form. Project has_many :users, :through = :projects_users User has_many :projects, :through = :projects_users ProjectsUser = :id integer, :user_id :integer, :project_id :integer, :user_type :string ProjectUser belongs_to :project, belongs_to :user, :polymorphic = true Admin < User Supervisor < User Operator < User Is the approach correct? Any and all suggestions are welcome.

  Read the article

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