Search Results

Search found 1449 results on 58 pages for 'oop'.

facebook twitter digg google delicious technorati stumbleupon myspace wordpress linkedin gmail igoogle windows live tumblr viadeo yahoo buzz yahoo mail yahoo bookmarks favorites email print

Page 40/58 | < Previous Page | 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47  | Next Page >

  • AS3 - Can I know if a class implements an interface (or is a subclass of another class) ?

    - by lk
    With this code function someFunction(classParam:Class):Boolean { // how to know if classParam implements some interface? } i.e. Comparing classParam with IEventDispatcher interface: someFunction(EventDispatcher) // returns true someFunction(Object) // returns false I know it can't be done with is operator. But, is there a way to do it? Is there a way to know if a class implements some interface? (or is a subclass of another class?)

    Read the article

  • Help in restructuring a project

    - by mrblah
    I have a commerce application, asp.net mvc. I want it to be extensible in the sense others can create other payment providers, as long as they adhere to the interfaces. /blah.core /blah.web /blah.Authorize.net (Implementation of a payment provider using interfaces Ipaymentconfig and paymentdata class) Now the problem is this: /blah.core - PaymentData /blah.core.interfaces - IPaymentConfig where Payment Data looks like: using blah.core; public class PaymentData { public Order Order {get;set;} } IPayment data contains classes from blah.core like the Order class. Now I want to use the actual Authorize.net implementation, so when I tried to reference it in the blah.core project I got a circular dependency error. How could I solve this problem? Many have said to break out the interfaces into their own project, but the problem is PaymentData references entities that are found in blah.core also, so there doesn't seem to be a way around this (in my head anyhow). How can I redesign this?

    Read the article

  • why can not see my method if i implamented interface to normal class?

    - by Phsika
    i can not see MyLoad.TreeLoader(.... but why i can not see? i implemented iloader to TreeViewLoad. i should see TreeLoader why? namespace Rekursive { public partial class Form1 : Form { public Form1() { InitializeComponent(); } private void Form1_Load(object sender, EventArgs e) { //treeView1.Nodes.Add("Test"); iloader MyLoad = new TreeViewLoad(); MyLoad.loader("test", treeView1, 1); // i can not see MyLoad.TreeLoader(.... but why i can not see? // i implemented iloader to TreeViewLoad. i should see TreeLoader why? //TreeViewLoad myloader = new TreeViewLoad(); } } interface iloader { void loader(string nodeName, TreeView myTre, int id); } class TreeViewLoad : iloader { public void TreeLoader(TreeView tre) { // i will call loader... } public void loader(string nodeName, TreeView myTre, int id) { myTre.Nodes.Add(nodeName + id.ToString()); if (id

    Read the article

  • Can I un-assign (clear) all fields of an instance?

    - by Roman
    Is there a simple way to clear all fields of an instance from a an instance? I mean, I would like to remove all values assigned to the fields of an instance. ADDED From the main thread I start a window and another thread which controls state of the window (the last thread, for example, display certain panels for a certain period of time). I have a class which contains state of the window (on which stage the user is, which buttons he already clicked). In the end, user may want to start the whole process from the beginning (it is a game). So, I decided. So, if everything is executed from the beginning, I would like to have all parameter to be clean (fresh, unassigned). ADDED The main thread, creates the new object which is executed in a new thread (and the old thread is finished). So, I cannot create a new object from the old thread. I just have a loop in the second thread.

    Read the article

  • Mutate an object into an instance of one its subclasses

    - by Gohu
    Hi, Is it possible to mutate an object into an instance of a derived class of the initial's object class? Something like: class Base(): def __init__(self): self.a = 1 def mutate(self): self = Derived() class Derived(Base): def __init__(self): self.b = 2 But that doesn't work. >>> obj = Base() >>> obj.mutate() >>> obj.a 1 >>> obj.b AttributeError... If this isn't possible, how should I do otherwise? My problem is the following: My Base class is like a "summary", and the Derived class is the "whole thing". Of course getting the "whole thing" is a bit expensive so working on summaries as long as it is possible is the point of having these two classes. But you should be able to get it if you want, and then there's no point in having the summary anymore, so every reference to the summary should now be (or contain, at least) the whole thing. I guess I would have to create a class that can hold both, right? class Thing(): def __init__(self): self.summary = Summary() self.whole = None def get_whole_thing(self): self.whole = Whole()

    Read the article

  • Class Inside Structure

    - by Knvn
    Could some one please explain, What happens when a reference type is defined inside the value type. I write the following code: namespace ClassInsideStruct { class ClassInsideStruct { static void Main(string[] args) { ValueType ObjVal = new ValueType(10); ObjVal.Display(); ValueType.ReferenceType ObjValRef = new ValueType.ReferenceType(10); ObjValRef.Display(); Test(ObjVal, ObjValRef); ObjVal.Display(); ObjValRef.Display(); Console.ReadKey(); } private static void Test(ValueType v, ValueType.ReferenceType r) { v.SValue = 50; r.RValue = 50; } } struct ValueType { int StructNum; ReferenceType ObjRef; public ValueType(int i) { StructNum = i; ObjRef = new ReferenceType(i); } public int SValue { get { return StructNum; } set { StructNum = value; ObjRef.RValue = value; } } public void Display() { Console.WriteLine("ValueType: " + StructNum); Console.Write("ReferenceType Inside ValueType Instance: "); ObjRef.Display(); } public class ReferenceType { int ClassNum; public ReferenceType(int i) { ClassNum = i; } public void Display() { Console.WriteLine("Reference Type: " + ClassNum); } public int RValue { get { return ClassNum; } set { ClassNum = value; } } } } } Which outputs: ValueType: 10 ReferenceType Inside ValueType Instance: Reference Type: 10 Reference Type: 10 ValueType: 10 ReferenceType Inside ValueType Instance: Reference Type: 50 Reference Type: 50 I'm curious to know, after calling the method Test(ObjVal, ObjValRef), how the values of ReferenceType is changed to 50 which resides inside the ValueType who's value is not changed?

    Read the article

  • Why is it possible to have an interface without a return type in PHP?

    - by streetparade
    Why is it possible to create an interface without specifying a return type? Why doesn't this make this interface unusable? This makes it more Clear: Interface run { public function getInteger(); } class MyString implements run { public function myNumber() { } public function getInteger() { return "Not a number"; } } In Java every Interface has a return type like Integer, String or Void I know that PHP is unfortunately a loosely typed Language but isn't there a Solution to that Problem? Is it possible to define an Interface with a return type like Integer?

    Read the article

  • What are advantages of using a one-to-one table relationship? (MySQL)

    - by byronh
    What are advantages of using a one-to-one table relationship as opposed to simply storing all the data in one table? I understand and make use of one-to-many, many-to-one, and many-to-many all the time, but implementing a one-to-one relationship seems like a tedious and unnecessary task, especially if you use naming conventions for relating (php) objects to database tables. I couldn't find anything on the net or on this site that could supply a good real-world example of a one-to-one relationship. At first I thought it might be logical to separate 'users', for example, into two tables, one containing public information like an 'about me' for profile pages and one containing private information such as login/password, etc. But why go through all the trouble of using unnecessary JOINS when you can just choose which fields to select from that table anyway? If I'm displaying the user's profile page, obviously I would only SELECT id,username,email,aboutme etc. and not the fields containing their private info. Anyone care to enlighten me with some real-world examples of one-to-one relationships?

    Read the article

  • Path Inclusion/Global variable not working?

    - by Dan LaManna
    Simply put, my config file includes my database class, and the config file has in it: global $db; $db = new database(DB_HOST, DB_NAME, DB_USER, DB_PASS); That file is root/config.php Moving on to root/functions/func.newpage.php doesn't have any includes/requires, and uses $db-classfunction since the file I'm working with: root/newpage.php - requires the config file, as well as func.newpage.php. However I still come up with: Undefined variable db. Anything you guys are seeing I'm not? Thanks! Let me know if more details are needed.

    Read the article

  • Are Interfaces "Object"?

    - by PrashantGupta
    package inheritance; class A{ public String display(){ return "This is A!"; } } interface Workable{ public String work(); } class B extends A implements Workable{ public String work(){ return "B is working!"; } } public class TestInterfaceObject{ public static void main(String... args){ B obj=new B(); Workable w=obj; //System.out.println(w.work()); //invoking work method on Workable type reference System.out.println(w.display()); //invoking display method on Workable type reference //System.out.println(w.hashCode()); // invoking Object's hashCode method on Workable type reference } } As we know that methods which can be invoked depend upon the type of the reference variable on which we are going to invoke. Here, in the code, work() method was invoked on "w" reference (which is Workable type) so method invoking will compile successfully. Then, display() method is invoked on "w" which yields a compilation error which says display method was not found, quite obvious as Workable doesn't know about it. Then we try to invoke the Object class's method i.e. hashCode() which yields a successful compilation and execution. How is it possible? Any logical explanation?

    Read the article

  • Why can a List(Of SomeObject) not be converted to an IEnumerable(Of ISomeInterface) while SomeObject

    - by ropstah
    Please see the last comment in GetListChildren() function. "Why can a List(Of Page) not be converted to an IEnumerable(Of IListHasChildren) ?" Interface IListHasChildren Function GetListChildren() as IEnumerable(Of IListHasChildren) End Interface Public Class Page : Implements IListHasChildren Public Function GetChildren() As List(Of Page) //'return List(Of Page) with children End Function Public Function GetListChildren() : Implements IListHasChildren.GetListChildren Return Me.GetChildren() //'This cannot be converted to IEnumerable(Of IListHasChildren) ?? End Function End Class

    Read the article

  • Accessing current class through $this-> from a function called statically. [PHP]

    - by MQA
    This feels a bit messy, but I'd like to be able to call a member function statically, yet have the rest of the class behave normally... Example: <?php class Email { private $username = 'user'; private $password = 'password'; private $from = '[email protected]'; public $to; public function SendMsg($to, $body) { if (isset($this)) $email &= $this; else $email = new Email(); $email->to = $to; // Rest of function... } } Email::SendMsg('[email protected]'); How best do I allow the static function call in this example? Thanks!

    Read the article

  • How can I communicate with an Object created in another JFrame?

    - by user3093422
    so my program basically consists of two frames. As I click a button on Frame1, Frame2 pops up, and when I click a button on Frame2, and Object is created and the window closes. Now, I need to be able to use the methods of Object in my Frame1, how can this be achieved? I am kind of new to Object-Oriented Programming, sorry, but it's hard to me to explain the situation. Thanks! I will try to put a random code for pure example below. JFrame 1: public class JFrame1 extends JFrame{ variables.. public JFrame1(){ GUIcomponents.... } public static void main(String[] args) { JFrame1 aplicacion = new JFrame1(); aplicacion.setDefaultCloseOperation(JFrame.EXIT_ON_CLOSE); } private class ActList implements ActionListener { public void actionPerformed(ActionEvent event) { new JFrame2(); } } } JFrame 2: public class JFrame2 extends JFrame{ variables.. public JFrame2(){ GUIcomponents.... } private class ActList implements ActionListener { public void actionPerformed(ActionEvent event) { Object object = new Object(); setVisible(false); } } } Sorry if it's messy, I made it in the moment. So yeah, basically I want to JFrame1 to be able to use the getters and settes from Object, which was created in JFrame2. What should I do? Once again, thanks!

    Read the article

  • Use of .apply() with 'new' operator. Is this possible?

    - by Premasagar
    In JavaScript, I want to create an object instance (via the new operator), but pass an arbitrary number of arguments to the constructor. Is this possible? What I want to do is something like this (but the code below does not work): function Something(){ // init stuff } function createSomething(){ return new Something.apply(null, arguments); } var s = createSomething(a,b,c); // 's' is an instance of Something The Answer From the responses here, it became clear that there's no in-built way to call .apply() with the new operator. However, people suggested a number of really interesting solutions to the problem. My preferred solution was this one from Matthew Crumley (I've modified it to pass the arguments property): var createSomething = (function() { function F(args) { return Something.apply(this, args); } F.prototype = Something.prototype; return function() { return new F(arguments); } })();

    Read the article

  • Which one of the following is NOT a pitfall of inheritance?

    - by Difficult PEOPLE
    Which one of the following is NOT a pitfall of inheritance? Base-derive classes should be totally separate and do not have an is-a relationship. Base-derive classes should have been aggregate classes instead. Inheritance may be inverted, example: Truck<-Vehicle should be Vehicle<-Truck. Incompatible class hierarchies may be connected because of multiple inheritance. Aggregation should have been used instead. Functionality is transferred from a base class to a derived one. In my opinion, NOT a pitfall of inheritance meas can use inheritance. 1 seems do without inheritance 2 aggregate substitute Base-derive I don't know So, I think 5 is the answer.

    Read the article

  • What Functional features are worth a little OOP confusion for the benefits they bring?

    - by bonomo
    After learning functional programming in Haskell and F#, the OOP paradigm seems ass-backwards with classes, interfaces, objects. Which aspects of FP can I bring to work that my co-workers can understand? Are any FP styles worth talking to my boss about retraining my team so that we can use them? Possible aspects of FP: Immutability Partial Application and Currying First Class Functions (function pointers / Functional Objects / Strategy Pattern) Lazy Evaluation (and Monads) Pure Functions (no side effects) Expressions (vs. Statements - each line of code produces a value instead of, or in addition to causing side effects) Recursion Pattern Matching Is it a free-for-all where we can do whatever the programming language supports to the limit that language supports it? Or is there a better guideline?

    Read the article

  • Should I limit my type name suffix vocabulary when using OOP?

    - by Den
    My co-workers tend to think that it is better to limit non-domain type suffixes to a small fixed set of OOP-pattern inspired words, e.g.: *Service *Repository *Factory *Manager *Provider I believe there is no reason to not extend that set with more names, e.g. (some "translation" to the previous vocabulary is given in brackets): *Distributor (= *DistributionManager or *SendingService) *Generator *Browser (= *ReadonlyRepositoryService) *Processor *Manipulator (= *StateMachineManager) *Enricher (= *EnrichmentService) (*) denotes some domain word, e.g. "Order", "Student", "Item" etc. The domain is probably not complex enough to use specialized approaches such as DDD which could drive the naming.

    Read the article

  • Should a new programmer nowadays start with C/C++ or OOP language? [closed]

    - by deviDave
    I've been a programmer for 15+ years. In my time, we all started with C or C++ and then moved to C# or Java. At that time it was a usual practice. Now, my brother wants to follow my steps and I am not sure what advice to give him. So, I am asking the community for an opinion. Should nowadays new programmer with zero programming knowledge start with functional languages (C, C++, etc.) or he should start directly with OOP languages (Java, C#, etc.)? The reply should be considered in the context of my brother's future assignments. He will mainly work on Java mobile applications as well as ASP.NET web apps. He will have to touch with desktop apps, low level programming, drivers, etc. This is the reason I am not sure if he should ever need to learn functional languages.

    Read the article

  • Why is an anemic domain model considered bad in C#/OOP, but very important in F#/FP?

    - by Danny Tuppeny
    In a blog post on F# for fun and profit, it says: In a functional design, it is very important to separate behavior from data. The data types are simple and "dumb". And then separately, you have a number of functions that act on those data types. This is the exact opposite of an object-oriented design, where behavior and data are meant to be combined. After all, that's exactly what a class is. In a truly object-oriented design in fact, you should have nothing but behavior -- the data is private and can only be accessed via methods. In fact, in OOD, not having enough behavior around a data type is considered a Bad Thing, and even has a name: the "anemic domain model". Given that in C# we seem to keep borrowing from F#, and trying to write more functional-style code; how come we're not borrowing the idea of separating data/behavior, and even consider it bad? Is it simply that the definition doesn't with with OOP, or is there a concrete reason that it's bad in C# that for some reason doesn't apply in F# (and in fact, is reversed)? (Note: I'm specifically interested in the differences in C#/F# that could change the opinion of what is good/bad, rather than individuals that may disagree with either opinion in the blog post).

    Read the article

facebook twitter digg google delicious technorati stumbleupon myspace wordpress linkedin gmail igoogle windows live tumblr viadeo yahoo buzz yahoo mail yahoo bookmarks favorites email print

< Previous Page | 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47  | Next Page >