Search Results

Search found 386 results on 16 pages for 'subclasses'.

Page 4/16 | < Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >

  • Is this a good way to expose generic base class methods through an interface?

    - by Nate Heinrich
    I am trying to provide an interface to an abstract generic base class. I want to have a method exposed on the interface that consumes the generic type, but whose implementation is ultimately handled by the classes that inherit from my abstract generic base. However I don't want the subclasses to have to downcast to work with the generic type (as they already know what the type should be). Here is a simple version of the only way I can see to get it to work at the moment. public interface IFoo { void Process(Bar_base bar); } public abstract class FooBase<T> : IFoo where T : Bar_base { abstract void Process(T bar); // Explicit IFoo Implementation void IFoo.Process(Bar_base bar) { if (bar == null) throw new ArgumentNullException(); // Downcast here in base class (less for subclasses to worry about) T downcasted_bar = bar as T; if (downcasted_bar == null) { throw new InvalidOperationException( string.Format("Expected type '{0}', not type '{1}'", T.ToString(), bar.GetType().ToString()); } //Process downcasted object. Process(downcasted_bar); } } Then subclasses of FooBase would look like this... public class Foo_impl1 : FooBase<Bar_impl1> { void override Process(Bar_impl1 bar) { //No need to downcast here! } } Obviously this won't provide me compile time Type Checking, but I think it will get the job done... Questions: 1. Will this function as I think it will? 2. Is this the best way to do this? 3. What are the issues with doing it this way? 4. Can you suggest a different approach? Thanks!

    Read the article

  • Passing IDisposable objects through constructor chains

    - by Matt Enright
    I've got a small hierarchy of objects that in general gets constructed from data in a Stream, but for some particular subclasses, can be synthesized from a simpler argument list. In chaining the constructors from the subclasses, I'm running into an issue with ensuring the disposal of the synthesized stream that the base class constructor needs. Its not escaped me that the use of IDisposable objects this way is possibly just dirty pool (plz advise?) for reasons I've not considered, but, this issue aside, it seems fairly straightforward (and good encapsulation). Codes: abstract class Node { protected Node (Stream raw) { // calculate/generate some base class properties } } class FilesystemNode : Node { public FilesystemNode (FileStream fs) : base (fs) { // all good here; disposing of fs not our responsibility } } class CompositeNode : Node { public CompositeNode (IEnumerable some_stuff) : base (GenerateRaw (some_stuff)) { // rogue stream from GenerateRaw now loose in the wild! } static Stream GenerateRaw (IEnumerable some_stuff) { var content = new MemoryStream (); // molest elements of some_stuff into proper format, write to stream content.Seek (0, SeekOrigin.Begin); return content; } } I realize that not disposing of a MemoryStream is not exactly a world-stopping case of bad CLR citizenship, but it still gives me the heebie-jeebies (not to mention that I may not always be using a MemoryStream for other subtypes). It's not in scope, so I can't explicitly Dispose () it later in the constructor, and adding a using statement in GenerateRaw () is self-defeating since I need the stream returned. Is there a better way to do this? Preemptive strikes: yes, the properties calculated in the Node constructor should be part of the base class, and should not be calculated by (or accessible in) the subclasses I won't require that a stream be passed into CompositeNode (its format should be irrelevant to the caller) The previous iteration had the value calculation in the base class as a separate protected method, which I then just called at the end of each subtype constructor, moved the body of GenerateRaw () into a using statement in the body of the CompositeNode constructor. But the repetition of requiring that call for each constructor and not being able to guarantee that it be run for every subtype ever (a Node is not a Node, semantically, without these properties initialized) gave me heebie-jeebies far worse than the (potential) resource leak here does.

    Read the article

  • How can I make a family of singletons?

    - by Jay
    I want to create a set of classes that share a lot of common behavior. Of course in OOP when you think that you automatically think "abstract class with subclasses". But among the things I want these classes to do is to each have a static list of instances of the class. The list should function as sort of a singleton within the class. I mean each of the sub-classes has a singleton, not that they share one. "Singleton" to that subclass, not a true singleton. But if it's a static, how can I inherit it? Of course code like this won't work: public abstract A { static List<A> myList; public static List getList() { if (myList==null) myList=new ArrayList<A>(10); return myList; } public static A getSomethingFromList() { List listInstance=getList(); ... do stuff with list ... } public int getSomethingFromA() { ... regular code acting against current instance ... } } public class A1 extends A { ... } public class A2 extends A { ... } A1 somethingfromA1List=(A1) A1.getSomethingFromList(); A2 somethingfromA2List=(A2) A2.getSomethingFromList(); The contents of the list for each subclass would be different, but all the code to work on the lists would be the same. The problem with the above code is that I'd only have one list for all the subclasses, and I want one for each. Yes, I could replicate the code to declare the static list in each of the subclasses, but then I'd also have to replicate all the code that adds to the lists and searches the list, etc, which rather defeats the purpose of subclassing. Any ideas on how to do this without replicating code?

    Read the article

  • Objective-C subclass and base class casting

    - by ryanjm.mp
    I'm going to create a base class that implements very similar functions for all of the subclasses. This was answered in a different question. But what I need to know now is if/how I can cast various functions (in the base class) to return the subclass object. This is both for a given function but also a function call in it. (I'm working with CoreData by the way) As a function within the base class (this is from a class that is going to become my subclass) +(Structure *)fetchStructureByID:(NSNumber *)structureID inContext:(NSManagedObjectContext *)managedObjectContext {...} And as a function call within a given function: Structure *newStructure = [Structure fetchStructureByID:[currentDictionary objectForKey:@"myId"]]; inContext:managedObjectContext]; Structure is one of my subclasses, so I need to rewrite both of these so that they are "generic" and can be applied to other subclasses (whoever is calling the function). How do I do that? Update: I just realized that in the second part there are actually two issues. You can't change [Structure fetch...] to [self fetch...] because it is a class method, not an instance method. How do I get around that too?

    Read the article

  • Which of these design patterns is superior?

    - by durron597
    I find I tend to design class structures where several subclasses have nearly identical functionality, but one piece of it is different. So I write nearly all the code in the abstract class, and then create several subclasses to do the one different thing. Does this pattern have a name? Is this the best way for this sort of scenario? Option 1: public interface TaxCalc { String calcTaxes(); } public abstract class AbstractTaxCalc implements TaxCalc { // most constructors and fields are here public double calcTaxes(UserFinancials data) { // code double diffNumber = getNumber(data); // more code } abstract protected double getNumber(UserFinancials data); protected double initialTaxes(double grossIncome) { // code return initialNumber; } } public class SimpleTaxCalc extends AbstractCalc { protected double getNumber(UserFinancials data) { double temp = intialCalc(data.getGrossIncome()); // do other stuff return temp; } } public class FancyTaxCalc extends AbstractTaxCalc { protected double getNumber(UserFinancials data) { int temp = initialCalc(data.getGrossIncome()); // Do fancier math return temp; } } Option 2: This version is more like the Strategy pattern, and should be able to do essentially the same sorts of tasks. public class TaxCalcImpl implements TaxCalc { private final TaxMath worker; public DummyImpl(TaxMath worker) { this.worker = worker; } public double calcTaxes(UserFinancials data) { // code double analyzedDouble = initialNumber; int diffNumber = worker.getNumber(data, initialNumber); // more code } protected int initialTaxes(double grossIncome) { // code return initialNumber; } } public interface TaxMath { double getNumber(UserFinancials data, double initial); } Then I could do: TaxCalc dum = new TaxCalcImpl(new TaxMath() { @Override public double getNumber(UserFinancials data, double initial) { double temp = data.getGrossIncome(); // do math return temp; }); And I could make specific implementations of TaxMath for things I use a lot, or I could make a stateless singleton for certain kinds of workers I use a lot. So the question I'm asking is: Which of these patterns is superior, when, and why? Or, alternately, is there an even better third option?

    Read the article

  • How do you encode Algebraic Data Types in a C#- or Java-like language?

    - by Jörg W Mittag
    There are some problems which are easily solved by Algebraic Data Types, for example a List type can be very succinctly expressed as: data ConsList a = Empty | ConsCell a (ConsList a) consmap f Empty = Empty consmap f (ConsCell a b) = ConsCell (f a) (consmap f b) l = ConsCell 1 (ConsCell 2 (ConsCell 3 Empty)) consmap (+1) l This particular example is in Haskell, but it would be similar in other languages with native support for Algebraic Data Types. It turns out that there is an obvious mapping to OO-style subtyping: the datatype becomes an abstract base class and every data constructor becomes a concrete subclass. Here's an example in Scala: sealed abstract class ConsList[+T] { def map[U](f: T => U): ConsList[U] } object Empty extends ConsList[Nothing] { override def map[U](f: Nothing => U) = this } final class ConsCell[T](first: T, rest: ConsList[T]) extends ConsList[T] { override def map[U](f: T => U) = new ConsCell(f(first), rest.map(f)) } val l = (new ConsCell(1, new ConsCell(2, new ConsCell(3, Empty))) l.map(1+) The only thing needed beyond naive subclassing is a way to seal classes, i.e. a way to make it impossible to add subclasses to a hierarchy. How would you approach this problem in a language like C# or Java? The two stumbling blocks I found when trying to use Algebraic Data Types in C# were: I couldn't figure out what the bottom type is called in C# (i.e. I couldn't figure out what to put into class Empty : ConsList< ??? >) I couldn't figure out a way to seal ConsList so that no subclasses can be added to the hierarchy What would be the most idiomatic way to implement Algebraic Data Types in C# and/or Java? Or, if it isn't possible, what would be the idiomatic replacement?

    Read the article

  • Transform data in FMPXMLRESULT grammar into a "Content Standard for Digital Geospatial Metadata (CS

    - by Andrew Igbo
    I have a problem in FileMaker; I wish to link the METADATA element/FIELD element “NAME” attribute to its corresponding data in the RESULTSET element/COL element. However, I also wish to map the METADATA element/FIELD element “NAME” to "Content Standard for Digital Geospatial Metadata (CSDGM)" metadata elements Sample XML Metadata Record with CSDGM Essential Elements Louisiana State University Coastal Studies Institute 20010907 Geomorphology and Processes of Land Loss in Coastal Louisiana, 1932 – 1990 A raster GIS file that identifies the land loss process and geomorphology associated with each 12.5 meter pixel of land loss between 1932 and 1990. Land loss processes are organized into a hierarchical classification system that includes subclasses for erosion, submergence, direct removal, and undetermined. Land loss geomorphology is organized into a hierarchical classification system that includes subclasses for both shoreline and interior loss. The objective of the study was to determine the land loss geomorphologies associated with specific processes of land loss in coastal Louisiana.

    Read the article

  • Two models, one STI and a Validation

    - by keruilin
    Let's say I have two tables -- Products and Orders. For the sake of simplicity assume that only one product can be purchased at a time so there is no join table like order_items. So the relationship is that Product has many orders, and Order belongs to product. Therefore, product_id is a fk in the Order table. The product table is STI -- with the subclasses being A, B, C. When the user orders subclass Product C, two special validations must be checked on the Order model fields order_details and order_status. These two fields can be nil for all other Product subclasses (ie A and B). In other words, no validation needs to run for these two fields when a user purchases A and B. My question is: How do I write validations (perhaps custom?) in the Order model so that the Order model knows to only run the validations for the two fields -- order_details and order_status -- when Product subclass C is being saved to the orders table?

    Read the article

  • Inherit static properties in subclass without redeclaration?

    - by David
    Hi, I'm having the same problem as this guy with the application I'm writing right now. The problem is that static properties are not being inherited in subclasses, and so if I use the static:: keyword in my main class, it sets the variable in my main class as well. It works if I redeclare the static variables in my subclass, but I expect to have a large number of static properties and subclasses and wish to avoid code duplication. The top-rated response on the page I linked has a link to a few "workarounds", but it seems to have 404'd. Can anyone lend me some help or perhaps point me in the direction of said workarounds?

    Read the article

  • Why is the C# SerializedAttribute is sealed?

    - by ahmet alp balkan
    I was trying to create an attribute that implies [Serializable] but I noticed that this SerializableAttribute class is sealed. In Java it was possible to create an interface (say, MyInterface) that is inherited from Serializable interface and so all the subclasses of MyInterface would also be serializable, even its sub-sub classes would be so. Let's say I am creating an ORM and I want customers to annotate their entity classes as [DatabaseEntity] but in order to make sure that entities are serializable, I also need to ask them to attribute their classes with extra [Serializable] which does not look quite compact and neat. I am wondering why SerializableAttribute class is sealed and why has Inherited=false which implies that subclasses of serializable class will not be serializable unless it is explicitly stated. What motives are behind these design choices?

    Read the article

  • How to perform a non-polymorphic HQL query in Hibernate?

    - by Eli Acherkan
    Hi all, I'm using Hibernate 3.1.1, and in particular, I'm using HQL queries. According to the documentation, Hibernate's queries are polymorphic: A query like: from Cat as cat returns instances not only of Cat, but also of subclasses like DomesticCat. How can I query for instances of Cat, but not of any of its subclasses? I'd like to be able to do it without having to explicitly mention each subclass. I'm aware of the following options, and don't find them satisfactory: Manually filtering the instances after the query, OR: Manually adding a WHERE clause on the discriminator column. It would make sense for Hibernate to allow the user to decide whether a query should be polymorphic or not, but I can't find such an option. Thanks in advance!

    Read the article

  • Automatically decorating every instance method in a class

    - by max
    I want to apply the same decorator to every method in a given class, other than those that start and end with __. It seems to me it should be doable using a class decorator. Are there any pitfalls to be aware of? Ideally, I'd also like to be able to: disable this mechanism for some methods by marking them with a special decorator enable this mechanism for subclasses as well enable this mechanism even for methods that are added to this class in runtime [Note: I'm using Python 3.2, so I'm fine if this relies on features added recently.] Here's my attempt: _methods_to_skip = {} def apply(decorator): def apply_decorator(cls): for method_name, method in get_all_instance_methods(cls): if (cls, method) in _methods_to_skip: continue if method_name[:2] == `__` and method_name[-2:] == `__`: continue cls.method_name = decorator(method) return apply_decorator def dont_decorate(method): _methods_to_skip.add((get_class_from_method(method), method)) return method Here are things I have problems with: how to implement get_all_instance_methods function not sure if my cls.method_name = decorator(method) line is correct how to do the same to any methods added to a class in runtime how to apply this to subclasses how to implement get_class_from_method

    Read the article

  • "Overriding" instance variables in subtype: Possible risks?

    - by sebastiangeiger
    Say I had a class SuperClass and two subclasses SubClassA and SubClassB that inherit from SuperClass. abstract class SuperClass{ ... List someList; ... } class SubClassA extends SuperClass{ ... List<String> someList; ... } class SubClassB extends SuperClass{ ... List<Integer> someList; ... } That way it is convenient because I can get someList.size() in Superclass and have Typesafety in the Subclasses. The problem is that it does not "feel" right, can you think of potential hazards this apporach has that I am not aware of?

    Read the article

  • C# private (hidden) base class

    - by Loadmaster
    It is possible to make a C# base class accessible only within the library assembly it's compiled into, while making other subclasses that inherit from it public? For example: using System.IO; class BaseOutput: Stream // Hidden base class { protected BaseOutput(Stream o) { ... } ...lots of common methods... } public class MyOutput: BaseOutput // Public subclass { public BaseOutput(Stream o): base(o) { ... } public override int Write(int b) { ... } } Here I'd like the BaseOutput class to be inaccessible to clients of my library, but allow the subclass MyOutput to be completely public. I know that C# does not allow base classes to have more restrictive access than subclasses, but is there some other legal way of achieving the same effect?

    Read the article

  • factory class, wrong number of arguments being passed to subclass constructor

    - by Hugh Bothwell
    I was looking at Python: Exception in the separated module works wrong which uses a multi-purpose GnuLibError class to 'stand in' for a variety of different errors. Each sub-error has its own ID number and error format string. I figured it would be better written as a hierarchy of Exception classes, and set out to do so: class GNULibError(Exception): sub_exceptions = 0 # patched with dict of subclasses once subclasses are created err_num = 0 err_format = None def __new__(cls, *args): print("new {}".format(cls)) # DEBUG if len(args) and args[0] in GNULibError.sub_exceptions: print(" factory -> {} {}".format(GNULibError.sub_exceptions[args[0]], args[1:])) # DEBUG return super(GNULibError, cls).__new__(GNULibError.sub_exceptions[args[0]], *(args[1:])) else: print(" plain {} {}".format(cls, args)) # DEBUG return super(GNULibError, cls).__new__(cls, *args) def __init__(self, *args): cls = type(self) print("init {} {}".format(cls, args)) # DEBUG self.args = args if cls.err_format is None: self.message = str(args) else: self.message = "[GNU Error {}] ".format(cls.err_num) + cls.err_format.format(*args) def __str__(self): return self.message def __repr__(self): return '{}{}'.format(type(self).__name__, self.args) class GNULibError_Directory(GNULibError): err_num = 1 err_format = "destination directory does not exist: {}" class GNULibError_Config(GNULibError): err_num = 2 err_format = "configure file does not exist: {}" class GNULibError_Module(GNULibError): err_num = 3 err_format = "selected module does not exist: {}" class GNULibError_Cache(GNULibError): err_num = 4 err_format = "{} is expected to contain gl_M4_BASE({})" class GNULibError_Sourcebase(GNULibError): err_num = 5 err_format = "missing sourcebase argument: {}" class GNULibError_Docbase(GNULibError): err_num = 6 err_format = "missing docbase argument: {}" class GNULibError_Testbase(GNULibError): err_num = 7 err_format = "missing testsbase argument: {}" class GNULibError_Libname(GNULibError): err_num = 8 err_format = "missing libname argument: {}" # patch master class with subclass reference # (TO DO: auto-detect all available subclasses instead of hardcoding them) GNULibError.sub_exceptions = { 1: GNULibError_Directory, 2: GNULibError_Config, 3: GNULibError_Module, 4: GNULibError_Cache, 5: GNULibError_Sourcebase, 6: GNULibError_Docbase, 7: GNULibError_Testbase, 8: GNULibError_Libname } This starts out with GNULibError as a factory class - if you call it with an error number belonging to a recognized subclass, it returns an object belonging to that subclass, otherwise it returns itself as a default error type. Based on this code, the following should be exactly equivalent (but aren't): e = GNULibError(3, 'missing.lib') f = GNULibError_Module('missing.lib') print e # -> '[GNU Error 3] selected module does not exist: 3' print f # -> '[GNU Error 3] selected module does not exist: missing.lib' I added some strategic print statements, and the error seems to be in GNULibError.__new__: >>> e = GNULibError(3, 'missing.lib') new <class '__main__.GNULibError'> factory -> <class '__main__.GNULibError_Module'> ('missing.lib',) # good... init <class '__main__.GNULibError_Module'> (3, 'missing.lib') # NO! ^ why? I call the subclass constructor as subclass.__new__(*args[1:]) - this should drop the 3, the subclass type ID - and yet its __init__ is still getting the 3 anyway! How can I trim the argument list that gets passed to subclass.__init__?

    Read the article

  • C++ Iterators and inheritance

    - by jomnis
    Have a quick question about what would be the best way to implement iterators in the following: Say I have a templated base class 'List' and two subclasses "ListImpl1" and "ListImpl2". The basic requirement of the base class is to be iterable i.e. I can do: for(List<T>::iterator it = list->begin(); it != list->end(); it++){ ... } I also want to allow iterator addition e.g.: for(List<T>::iterator it = list->begin()+5; it != list->end(); it++){ ... } So the problem is that the implementation of the iterator for ListImpl1 will be different to that for ListImpl2. I got around this by using a wrapper ListIterator containing a pointer to a ListIteratorImpl with subclasses ListIteratorImpl2 and ListIteratorImpl2, but it's all getting pretty messy, especially when you need to implement operator+ in the ListIterator. Any thoughts on a better design to get around these issues?

    Read the article

  • @MustOverride annotation?

    - by Harrypotter2k5
    In .NET, one can specify a "mustoverride" attribute to a method in a particular superclass to ensure that subclasses override that particular method. I was wondering whether anybody has a custom java annotation that could achieve the same effect. Essentially what i want is to push for subclasses to override a method in a superclass that itself has some logic that must be run-through. I dont want to use abstract methods or interfaces, because i want some common functionality to be run in the super method, but more-or-less produce a compiler warning/error denoting that derivative classes should override a given method.

    Read the article

  • How to refactor a Python “god class”?

    - by Zearin
    Problem I’m working on a Python project whose main class is a bit “God Object”. There are so friggin’ many attributes and methods! I want to refactor the class. So Far… For the first step, I want to do something relatively simple; but when I tried the most straightforward approach, it broke some tests and existing examples. Basically, the class has a loooong list of attributes—but I can clearly look over them and think, “These 5 attributes are related…These 8 are also related…and then there’s the rest.” getattr I basically just wanted to group the related attributes into a dict-like helper class. I had a feeling __getattr__ would be ideal for the job. So I moved the attributes to a separate class, and, sure enough, __getattr__ worked its magic perfectly well… At first. But then I tried running one of the examples. The example subclass tries to set one of these attributes directly (at the class level). But since the attribute was no longer “physically located” in the parent class, I got an error saying that the attribute did not exist. @property I then read up about the @property decorator. But then I also read that it creates problems for subclasses that want to do self.x = blah when x is a property of the parent class. Desired Have all client code continue to work using self.whatever, even if the parent’s whatever property is not “physically located” in the class (or instance) itself. Group related attributes into dict-like containers. Reduce the extreme noisiness of the code in the main class. For example, I don’t simply want to change this: larry = 2 curly = 'abcd' moe = self.doh() Into this: larry = something_else('larry') curly = something_else('curly') moe = yet_another_thing.moe() …because that’s still noisy. Although that successfully makes a simply attribute into something that can manage the data, the original had 3 variables and the tweaked version still has 3 variables. However, I would be fine with something like this: stooges = Stooges() And if a lookup for self.larry fails, something would check stooges and see if larry is there. (But it must also work if a subclass tries to do larry = 'blah' at the class level.) Summary Want to replace related groups of attributes in a parent class with a single attribute that stores all the data elsewhere Want to work with existing client code that uses (e.g.) larry = 'blah' at the class level Want to continue to allow subclasses to extend, override, and modify these refactored attributes without knowing anything has changed Is this possible? Or am I barking up the wrong tree?

    Read the article

  • Inheritance Mapping Strategies with Entity Framework Code First CTP5: Part 2 – Table per Type (TPT)

    - by mortezam
    In the previous blog post you saw that there are three different approaches to representing an inheritance hierarchy and I explained Table per Hierarchy (TPH) as the default mapping strategy in EF Code First. We argued that the disadvantages of TPH may be too serious for our design since it results in denormalized schemas that can become a major burden in the long run. In today’s blog post we are going to learn about Table per Type (TPT) as another inheritance mapping strategy and we'll see that TPT doesn’t expose us to this problem. Table per Type (TPT)Table per Type is about representing inheritance relationships as relational foreign key associations. Every class/subclass that declares persistent properties—including abstract classes—has its own table. The table for subclasses contains columns only for each noninherited property (each property declared by the subclass itself) along with a primary key that is also a foreign key of the base class table. This approach is shown in the following figure: For example, if an instance of the CreditCard subclass is made persistent, the values of properties declared by the BillingDetail base class are persisted to a new row of the BillingDetails table. Only the values of properties declared by the subclass (i.e. CreditCard) are persisted to a new row of the CreditCards table. The two rows are linked together by their shared primary key value. Later, the subclass instance may be retrieved from the database by joining the subclass table with the base class table. TPT Advantages The primary advantage of this strategy is that the SQL schema is normalized. In addition, schema evolution is straightforward (modifying the base class or adding a new subclass is just a matter of modify/add one table). Integrity constraint definition are also straightforward (note how CardType in CreditCards table is now a non-nullable column). Another much more important advantage is the ability to handle polymorphic associations (a polymorphic association is an association to a base class, hence to all classes in the hierarchy with dynamic resolution of the concrete class at runtime). A polymorphic association to a particular subclass may be represented as a foreign key referencing the table of that particular subclass. Implement TPT in EF Code First We can create a TPT mapping simply by placing Table attribute on the subclasses to specify the mapped table name (Table attribute is a new data annotation and has been added to System.ComponentModel.DataAnnotations namespace in CTP5): public abstract class BillingDetail {     public int BillingDetailId { get; set; }     public string Owner { get; set; }     public string Number { get; set; } } [Table("BankAccounts")] public class BankAccount : BillingDetail {     public string BankName { get; set; }     public string Swift { get; set; } } [Table("CreditCards")] public class CreditCard : BillingDetail {     public int CardType { get; set; }     public string ExpiryMonth { get; set; }     public string ExpiryYear { get; set; } } public class InheritanceMappingContext : DbContext {     public DbSet<BillingDetail> BillingDetails { get; set; } } If you prefer fluent API, then you can create a TPT mapping by using ToTable() method: protected override void OnModelCreating(ModelBuilder modelBuilder) {     modelBuilder.Entity<BankAccount>().ToTable("BankAccounts");     modelBuilder.Entity<CreditCard>().ToTable("CreditCards"); } Generated SQL For QueriesLet’s take an example of a simple non-polymorphic query that returns a list of all the BankAccounts: var query = from b in context.BillingDetails.OfType<BankAccount>() select b; Executing this query (by invoking ToList() method) results in the following SQL statements being sent to the database (on the bottom, you can also see the result of executing the generated query in SQL Server Management Studio): Now, let’s take an example of a very simple polymorphic query that requests all the BillingDetails which includes both BankAccount and CreditCard types: projects some properties out of the base class BillingDetail, without querying for anything from any of the subclasses: var query = from b in context.BillingDetails             select new { b.BillingDetailId, b.Number, b.Owner }; -- var query = from b in context.BillingDetails select b; This LINQ query seems even more simple than the previous one but the resulting SQL query is not as simple as you might expect: -- As you can see, EF Code First relies on an INNER JOIN to detect the existence (or absence) of rows in the subclass tables CreditCards and BankAccounts so it can determine the concrete subclass for a particular row of the BillingDetails table. Also the SQL CASE statements that you see in the beginning of the query is just to ensure columns that are irrelevant for a particular row have NULL values in the returning flattened table. (e.g. BankName for a row that represents a CreditCard type) TPT ConsiderationsEven though this mapping strategy is deceptively simple, the experience shows that performance can be unacceptable for complex class hierarchies because queries always require a join across many tables. In addition, this mapping strategy is more difficult to implement by hand— even ad-hoc reporting is more complex. This is an important consideration if you plan to use handwritten SQL in your application (For ad hoc reporting, database views provide a way to offset the complexity of the TPT strategy. A view may be used to transform the table-per-type model into the much simpler table-per-hierarchy model.) SummaryIn this post we learned about Table per Type as the second inheritance mapping in our series. So far, the strategies we’ve discussed require extra consideration with regard to the SQL schema (e.g. in TPT, foreign keys are needed). This situation changes with the Table per Concrete Type (TPC) that we will discuss in the next post. References ADO.NET team blog Java Persistence with Hibernate book a { text-decoration: none; } a:visited { color: Blue; } .title { padding-bottom: 5px; font-family: Segoe UI; font-size: 11pt; font-weight: bold; padding-top: 15px; } .code, .typeName { font-family: consolas; } .typeName { color: #2b91af; } .padTop5 { padding-top: 5px; } .padTop10 { padding-top: 10px; } p.MsoNormal { margin-top: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-bottom: 10.0pt; margin-left: 0in; line-height: 115%; font-size: 11.0pt; font-family: "Calibri" , "sans-serif"; }

    Read the article

  • Does my use of the strategy pattern violate the fundamental MVC pattern in iOS?

    - by Goodsquirrel
    I'm about to use the 'strategy' pattern in my iOS app, but feel like my approach violates the somehow fundamental MVC pattern. My app is displaying visual "stories", and a Story consists (i.e. has @properties) of one Photo and one or more VisualEvent objects to represent e.g. animated circles or moving arrows on the photo. Each VisualEvent object therefore has a eventType @property, that might be e.g. kEventTypeCircle or kEventTypeArrow. All events have things in common, like a startTime @property, but differ in the way they are being drawn on the StoryPlayerView. Currently I'm trying to follow the MVC pattern and have a StoryPlayer object (my controller) that knows about both the model objects (like Story and all kinds of visual events) and the view object StoryPlayerView. To chose the right drawing code for each of the different visual event types, my StoryPlayer is using a switch statement. @implementation StoryPlayer // (...) - (void)showVisualEvent:(VisualEvent *)event onStoryPlayerView:storyPlayerView { switch (event.eventType) { case kEventTypeCircle: [self showCircleEvent:event onStoryPlayerView:storyPlayerView]; break; case kEventTypeArrow: [self showArrowDrawingEvent:event onStoryPlayerView:storyPlayerView]; break; // (...) } But switch statements for type checking are bad design, aren't they? According to Uncle Bob they lead to tight coupling and can and should almost always be replaced by polymorphism. Having read about the "Strategy"-Pattern in Head First Design Patterns, I felt this was a great way to get rid of my switch statement. So I changed the design like this: All specialized visual event types are now subclasses of an abstract VisualEvent class that has a showOnStoryPlayerView: method. @interface VisualEvent : NSObject - (void)showOnStoryPlayerView:(StoryPlayerView *)storyPlayerView; // abstract Each and every concrete subclass implements a concrete specialized version of this drawing behavior method. @implementation CircleVisualEvent - (void)showOnStoryPlayerView:(StoryPlayerView *)storyPlayerView { [storyPlayerView drawCircleAtPoint:self.position color:self.color lineWidth:self.lineWidth radius:self.radius]; } The StoryPlayer now simply calls the same method on all types of events. @implementation StoryPlayer - (void)showVisualEvent:(VisualEvent *)event onStoryPlayerView:storyPlayerView { [event showOnStoryPlayerView:storyPlayerView]; } The result seems to be great: I got rid of the switch statement, and if I ever have to add new types of VisualEvents in the future, I simply create new subclasses of VisualEvent. And I won't have to change anything in StoryPlayer. But of cause this approach violates the MVC pattern since now my model has to know about and depend on my view! Now my controller talks to my model and my model talks to the view calling methods on StoryPlayerView like drawCircleAtPoint:color:lineWidth:radius:. But this kind of calls should be controller code not model code, right?? Seems to me like I made things worse. I'm confused! Am I completely missing the point of the strategy pattern? Is there a better way to get rid of the switch statement without breaking model-view separation?

    Read the article

  • How should I plan the inheritance structure for my game?

    - by Eric Thoma
    I am trying to write a platform shooter in C++ with a really good class structure for robustness. The game itself is secondary; it is the learning process of writing it that is primary. I am implementing an inheritance tree for all of the objects in my game, but I find myself unsure on some decisions. One specific issue that it bugging me is this: I have an Actor that is simply defined as anything in the game world. Under Actor is Character. Both of these classes are abstract. Under Character is the Philosopher, who is the main character that the user commands. Also under Character is NPC, which uses an AI module with stock routines for friendly, enemy and (maybe) neutral alignments. So under NPC I want to have three subclasses: FriendlyNPC, EnemyNPC and NeutralNPC. These classes are not abstract, and will often be subclassed in order to make different types of NPC's, like Engineer, Scientist and the most evil Programmer. Still, if I want to implement a generic NPC named Kevin, it would nice to be able to put him in without making a new class for him. I could just instantiate a FriendlyNPC and pass some values for the AI machine and for the dialogue; that would be ideal. But what if Kevin is the one benevolent Programmer in the whole world? Now we must make a class for him (but what should it be called?). Now we have a character that should inherit from Programmer (as Kevin has all the same abilities but just uses the friendly AI functions) but also should inherit from FriendlyNPC. Programmer and FriendlyNPC branched away from each other on the inheritance tree, so inheriting from both of them would have conflicts, because some of the same functions have been implemented in different ways on the two of them. 1) Is there a better way to order these classes to avoid these conflicts? Having three subclasses; Friendly, Enemy and Neutral; from each type of NPC; Engineer, Scientist, and Programmer; would amount to a huge number of classes. I would share specific implementation details, but I am writing the game slowly, piece by piece, and so I haven't implemented past Character yet. 2) Is there a place where I can learn these programming paradigms? I am already trying to take advantage of some good design patterns, like MVC architecture and Mediator objects. The whole point of this project is to write something in good style. It is difficult to tell what should become a subclass and what should become a state (i.e. Friendly boolean v. Friendly class). Having many states slows down code with if statements and makes classes long and unwieldy. On the other hand, having a class for everything isn't practical. 3) Are there good rules of thumb or resources to learn more about this? 4) Finally, where does templating come in to this? How should I coordinate templates into my class structure? I have never actually taken advantage of templating honestly, but I hear that it increases modularity, which means good code.

    Read the article

  • fluent nHibernate mapping of subclassed structure

    - by Codezy
    I have a workflow class that has a collection of phases, each phase has a collection of tasks. You can design a workflow that will be used by many engagements. When used in engagement I want to be able to add properties to each class (workflow, phase, and task). For example a task in the designer does not have people assigned, but a task in an engagement would need extra properties like who is assigned to it. I have tried many different approaches using subclasses or interfaces but I just can't get it to map the way I want. Currently I have the engagement level versions as subclasses, but I can't get Engagement phases to map to engagement workflows. Public Class WorkflowMapping Inherits ClassMap(Of Workflow) Sub New() Id(Function(x As Workflow) x.Id).Column("Workflow_Id").GeneratedBy.Identity() Map(Function(x As Workflow) x.Description) Map(Function(x As Workflow) x.Generation) Map(Function(x As Workflow) x.IsActive) HasMany(Function(x As Workflow) x.Phases).Cascade.All() End Sub End Class Public Class EngagementWorkflowMapping Inherits SubclassMap(Of EngagementWorkflow) Sub New() Map(Function(x As EngagementWorkflow) x.ClientNo) Map(Function(x As EngagementWorkflow) x.EngagementNo) End Sub End Class How would you approach mapping this in fluent (or hbm) so that you could load just the workflow base class when designing the flow, or the engagement subclass versions of each when being used by an engagement?

    Read the article

  • Best practices on using URIs as parameter value in REST calls.

    - by dafmetal
    I am designing a REST API where some resources can be filtered through query parameters. In some cases, these filter values would be resources from the same REST API. This makes for longish and pretty unreadable URIs. While this is not too much of a problem in itself because the URIs are meant to be created and manipulated programmatically, it makes for some painful debugging. I was thinking of allowing shortcuts to URIs used as filter values and I wonder if this is allowed according to the REST architecture and if there are any best practices. For example: I have a resource that gets me Java classes. Then the following request would give me all Java classes: GET http://example.org/api/v1/class Suppose I want all subclasses of the Collection Java class, then I would use the following request: GET http://example.org/api/v1/class?has-supertype=http://example.org/api/v1/class/collection That request would return me Vector, ArrayList and all other subclasses of the Collection Java class. That URI is quite long though. I could already shorten it by allowing hs as an alias for has-supertype. This would give me: GET http://example.org/api/v1/class?hs=http://example.org/api/v1/class/collection Another way to allow shorter URIs would be to allow aliases for URI prefixes. For example, I could define class as an alias for the URI prefix http://example.org/api/v1/class/. Which would give me the following possibility: GET http://example.org/api/v1/class?hs=class:collection Another possibility would be to remove the class alias entirely and always prefix the parameter value with http://example.org/api/v1/class/ as this is the only thing I would support. This would turn the request for all subtypes of Collection into: GET http://example.org/api/v1/class?hs=collection Do these "simplifications" of the original request URI still conform to the principles of a REST architecture? Or did I just go off the deep end?

    Read the article

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