Search Results

Search found 3283 results on 132 pages for 'aspect oriented'.

Page 41/132 | < Previous Page | 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48  | Next Page >

• Could a derived-class object treated as if it's the same type of a bases class? <noobieQ/>

  - by M4design

  Say I got: class X_ { public: void do() { } } class Y_ : public X_ { } And I have this function: void foo(X_ whatever) { whatever.do(); } Can I send a "Y_" object to the foo function, would this work? I just realized that I could have tested this myself :)

  Read the article

• Using enums or a set of classes when I know I have a finite set of different options?

  - by devoured elysium

  Let's say I have defined the following class: public abstract class Event { public DateTime Time { get; protected set; } protected Event(DateTime time) { Time = time; } } What would you prefer between this: public class AsleepEvent : Event { public AsleepEvent(DateTime time) : base(time) { } } public class AwakeEvent : Event { public AwakeEvent(DateTime time) : base(time) { } } and this: public enum StateEventType { NowAwake, NowAsleep } public class StateEvent : Event { protected StateEventType stateType; public MealEvent(DateTime time, StateEventType stateType) : base(time) { stateType = stateType; } } and why? I am generally more inclined to the first option, but I can't explain why. Is it totally the same or are any advantages in using one instead of the other? Maybe with the first method its easier to add more "states", altough in this case I am 100% sure I will only want two states: now awake, and now asleep (they signal the moments when one awakes and one falls asleep).

  Read the article

• How would I create an object that uses String type behaviour for creation?

  - by Zachary Spencer

  I'd like to be able to create an object that is created like a String object, and when created verifies that the String value is an appropriate option. I.E. SpecificString can be "Bob" or "Jim". SpecificString BadName = "Sam" //Throws exception SpecificString GoodName = "Bob" //Does not throw exception. Is this possible?

  Read the article

• Where to start when doing a Domain Model?

  - by devoured elysium

  Let's say I've made a list of concepts I'll use to draw my Domain Model. Furthermore, I have a couple of Use Cases from which I did a couple of System Sequence Diagrams. When drawing the Domain Model, I never know where to start from: Designing the model as I believe the system to be. This is, if I am modelling a the human body, I start by adding the class concepts of Heart, Brain, Bowels, Stomach, Eyes, Head, etc. Start by designing what the Use Cases need to get done. This is, if I have a Use Case which is about making the human body swallow something, I'd first draw the class concepts for Mouth, Throat, Stomatch, Bowels, etc. The order in which I do things is irrelevant? I'd say probably it'd be best to try to design from the Use Case concepts, as they are generally what you want to work with, not other kind of concepts that although help describe the whole system well, much of the time might not even be needed for the current project. Is there any other approach that I am not taking in consideration here? How do you usually approach this? Thanks

  Read the article

• Make Java parent class not part of the interface

  - by Bart van Heukelom

  (This is a hypothetical question for discussion, I have no actual problem). Say that I'm making an implementation of SortedSet by extending LinkedHashMap: class LinkedHashSortedMapThing extends LinkedHashMap implements SortedSet { ... } Now programmers who use this class may do LinkedHashMap x = new LinkedHashSortedMapThing(); But what if I consider the extending of LinkedHashMap an implementation detail, and do not want it to be a part of the class' contract? If people use the line above, I can no longer freely change this detail without worrying about breaking existing code. Is there any way to prevent this sort of thing, other than favouring composition over inheritance (which is not always possible due to private/protected members)?

  Read the article

• Is there anything bad in declaring nested class inside interface in java?

  - by Roman

  I have an interface ProductService with method findByCriteria. This method had a long list of nullable parameters, like productName, maxCost, minCost, producer and so on. I refactored this method by introducing Parameter Object. I created class SearchCriteria and now method signature looks like this: findByCriteria (SearchCriteria criteria) I thought that instances of SearchCriteria are only created by method callers and are only used inside findByCriteria method, i.e.: void processRequest() { SearchCriteria criteria = new SearchCriteria () .withMaxCost (maxCost) ....... .withProducer (producer); List<Product> products = productService.findByCriteria (criteria); .... } and List<Product> findByCriteria(SearchCriteria criteria) { return doSmthAndReturnResult(criteria.getMaxCost(), criteria.getProducer()); } So I did not want to create a separate public class for SearchCriteria and put it inside ProductServiceInterface: public interface ProductService { List<Product> findByCriteria (SearchCriteria criteria); static class SearchCriteria { ... } } Is there anything bad with this interface? Where whould you place SearchCriteria class?

  Read the article

• How do I correct feature envy in this case?

  - by RMorrisey

  I have some code that looks like: class Parent { private Intermediate intermediateContainer; public Intermediate getIntermediate(); } class Intermediate { private Child child; public Child getChild() {...} public void intermediateOp(); } class Child { public void something(); public void somethingElse(); } class Client { private Parent parent; public void something() { parent.getIntermediate().getChild().something(); } public void somethingElse() { parent.getIntermediate().getChild().somethingElse(); } public void intermediate() { parent.getIntermediate().intermediateOp(); } } I understand that is an example of the "feature envy" code smell. The question is, what's the best way to fix it? My first instinct is to put the three methods on parent: parent.something(); parent.somethingElse(); parent.intermediateOp(); ...but I feel like this duplicates code, and clutters the API of the Parent class (which is already rather busy). Do I want to store the result of getIntermediate(), and/or getChild(), and keep my own references to these objects?

  Read the article

• 'Static/Constant' business ojects

  - by UpTheCreek

  I don't quite know how to ask this question, so I'll phase it as an example: Imagine in an application you have a Country object. There are two properties of this object: Name, and a 'Bordering Countries' collection. More properties might be added later, but it will be the kind of information that would change very rarely (e.g. changes of country names/borders) Lets say this application needs to know about all of the countries in the world. Where would you store these object's state? How would you new them up? It seems silly to store all this state in the DB, since it won't change very often. One option might be to have an abstract 'country' base object, and have a class for each country inheriting from this with the details of each country. But this doesn't seem quite right to me. What is the proper way of dealing with these kinds of objects?

  Read the article

• How to properly name classes inside a domain namespace?

  - by devoured elysium

  Let's say I'm trying to implement a Chess Game. I'd create my Chess classes in a Chess namespace. Now, should I prefix all my Chess related classes with the Chess word, or as they are already inside that namespace, should I just call them by what they are? Example: ChessGame vs Game ChessPiece vs Piece

  Read the article

• When should I use a struct instead of a class?

  - by Esteban Araya

  MSDN says that you should use structs when you need lightweight objects. Are there any other scenarios when a struct is preferable over a class? Edit: Some people have forgotten that: 1. structs can have methods! 2. structs have no inheritance capabilites. Another Edit: I understand the technical differences, I just don't have a good feel for WHEN to use a struct.

  Read the article

• a completely decoupled OO system ?

  - by shrini1000

  To make an OO system as decoupled as possible, I'm thinking of the following approach: 1) we run an RMI/directory like service where objects can register and discover each other. They talk to this service through an interface 2) we run a messaging service to which objects can publish messages, and register subscription callbacks. Again, this happens through interfaces 3) when object A wants to invoke a method on object B, it discovers the target object's unique identity through #1 above, and publishes a message on the message service for object B 4) message services invokes B's callback to give it the message 5) B processes the request and sends the response for A on message service 6) A's callback is called and it gets the response. I feel this system is as decoupled as practically possible, but it has the following problems: 1) communication is typically asynchronous 2) hence it's non real time 3) the system as a whole is less efficient. Are there any other practical problems where this design obviously won't be applicable ? What are your thoughts on this design in general ?

  Read the article

• Compromising design & code quality to integrate with existing modules

  - by filip-fku

  Greetings! I inherited a C#.NET application I have been extending and improving for a while now. Overall it was obviously a rush-job (or whoever wrote it was seemingly less competent than myself). The app pulls some data from an embedded device & displays and manipulates it. At the core is a communications thread in the main application form which executes a 600+ lines of code method which calls functions all over the place, implementing a state machine - lots of if-state-then-do type code. Interaction with the device is done by setting the state/mode globally and letting the thread do it's thing. (This is just one example of the badness of the code - overall it is not very OO-like, it reminds of the style of embedded C code the device firmware is written in). My problem is that this piece of code is central to the application. The software, communications protocol or device firmware are not documented at all. Obviously to carry on with my work I have to interact with this code. What I would like some guidance on, is whether it is worth scrapping this code & trying to piece together something more reasonable from the information I can reverse engineer? I can't decide! The reason I don't want to refactor is because the code already works, and changing it will surely be a long, laborious and unpleasant task. On the flip side, not refactoring means I have to sometimes compromise the design of other modules so that I may call my code from this state machine! I've heard of "If it ain't broke don't fix it!", so I am wondering if it should apply when "it" is influencing the design of future code! Any advice would be appreciated! Thanks!

  Read the article

• Does OOP make sense for small scripts?

  - by Fabian

  I mostly write small scripts in python, about 50 - 250 lines of code. I usually don't use any objects, just straightforward procedural programming. I know OOP basics and I have used object in other programming languages before, but for small scripts I don't see how objects would improve them. But maybe that is just my limited experience with OOP. Am I missing something by not trying harder to use objects, or does OOP just not make a lot of sense for small scripts?

  Read the article

• Modules vs. Classes and their influence on descendants of ActiveRecord::Base

  - by Chris

  Here's a Ruby OO head scratcher for ya, brought about by this Rails scenario: class Product < ActiveRecord::Base has_many(:prices) # define private helper methods end module PrintProduct attr_accessor(:isbn) # override methods in ActiveRecord::Base end class Book < Product include PrintProduct end Product is the base class of all products. Books are kept in the products table via STI. The PrintProduct module brings some common behavior and state to descendants of Product. Book is used inside fields_for blocks in views. This works for me, but I found some odd behavior: After form submission, inside my controller, if I call a method on a book that is defined in PrintProduct, and that method calls a helper method defined in Product, which in turn calls the prices method defined by has_many, I'll get an error complaining that Book#prices is not found. Why is that? Book is a direct descendant of Product! More interesting is the following.. As I developed this hierarchy PrintProduct started to become more of an abstract ActiveRecord::Base, so I thought it prudent to redefine everything as such: class Product < ActiveRecord::Base end class PrintProduct < Product end class Book < PrintProduct end All method definitions, etc. are the same. In this case, however, my web form won't load because the attributes defined by attr_accessor (which are "virtual attributes" referenced by the form but not persisted in the DB) aren't found. I'll get an error saying that there is no method Book#isbn. Why is that?? I can't see a reason why the attr_accessor attributes are not found inside my form's fields_for block when PrintProduct is a class, but they are found when PrintProduct is a Module. Any insight would be appreciated. I'm dying to know why these errors are occurring!

  Read the article

• PHP string to object name.

  - by Smickie

  Ok I have a string... $a_string = "Product"; and I want to use this string in a call to a object like this: $this->$a_string->some_function(); How the dickens do I dynamically call that object? (don't think Im on php 5 mind)

  Read the article

• C#: is there way for a class to 'remove' methods that it has inherited

  - by Craig Johnston

  Is there way for a class to 'remove' methods that it has inherited? eg. If I don't want my class to have a ToString() method can I do something so that it is no longer available?

  Read the article

• Designing a chain of states

  - by devoured elysium

  I want to model a kind of FSM(Finite State Machine). I have a sequence of states (let's say, from StateA to StateZ). This sequence is called a Chain and is implemented internally as a List. I will add states by the order I want them to run. My purpose is to be able to make a sequence of actions in my computer (for example, mouse clicks). (I know this has been done a zillion times). So a state is defined as a: boolean Precondition() <- Checks to see if for this state, some condition is true. For example, if I want to click in the Record button of a program, in this method I would check if the program's process is running or not. If it is, go to the next state in the chain list, otherwise, go to what was defined as the fail state (generally is the first state of them all). IState GetNextState() <- Returns the next state to evaluate. If Precondition() was sucessful, it should yield the next state in the chain otherwise it should yield the fail state. Run() Simply checks the Precondition() and sets the internal data so GetNextState() works as expected. So, a naive approach to this would be something like this: Chain chain = new Chain(); //chain.AddState(new State(Precondition, FailState, NextState) <- Method structure chain.AddState(new State(new WinampIsOpenCondition(), null, new <problem here, I want to referr to a state that still wasn't defined!>); The big problem is that I want to make a reference to a State that at this point still wasn't defined. I could circumvent the problem by using strings when refrering to states and using an internal hashtable, but isn't there a clearer alternative? I could just pass only the pre-condition and failure states in the constructor, having the chain just before execution put in each state the correct next state in a public property but that seems kind of awkward.

  Read the article

• Rails architecture questions

  - by justinbach

  I'm building a Rails site that, among other things, allows users to build their own recipe repository. Recipes are entered either manually or via a link to another site (think epicurious, cooks.com, etc). I'm writing scripts that will scrape a recipe from these sites given a link from a user, and so far (legal issues notwithstanding) that part isn't giving me any trouble. However, I'm not sure where to put the code that I'm writing for these scraper scripts. My first thought was to put it in the recipes model, but it seems a bit too involved to go there; would a library or a helper be more appropriate? Also, as I mentioned, I'm building several different scrapers for different food websites. It seems to me that the elegant way to do this would be to define an interface (or abstract base class) that determines a set of methods for constructing a recipe object given a link, but I'm not sure what the best approach would be here, either. How might I build out these OO relationships, and where should the code go?

  Read the article

• How do i free objects in C#

  - by assassin

  Hi, Can anyone please tell me how I can free objects in C#? For example, I have an object: Object obj1 = new Object(); //Some code using obj1 //Here I would like to free obj1, after it is no longer required and also more importantly its scope is the full run time of the program. Thanks for all your help

  Read the article

• Inheritence and usage of dynamic_cast

  - by Mewzer

  Hello, Suppose I have 3 classes as follows (as this is an example, it will not compile!): class Base { public: Base(){} virtual ~Base(){} virtual void DoSomething() = 0; virtual void DoSomethingElse() = 0; }; class Derived1 { public: Derived1(){} virtual ~Derived1(){} virtual void DoSomething(){ ... } virtual void DoSomethingElse(){ ... } virtual void SpecialD1DoSomething{ ... } }; class Derived2 { public: Derived2(){} virtual ~Derived2(){} virtual void DoSomething(){ ... } virtual void DoSomethingElse(){ ... } virtual void SpecialD2DoSomething{ ... } }; I want to create an instance of Derived1 or Derived2 depending on some setting that is not available until run-time. As I cannot determine the derived type until run-time, then do you think the following is bad practice?... class X { public: .... void GetConfigurationValue() { .... // Get configuration setting, I need a "Derived1" b = new Derived1(); // Now I want to call the special DoSomething for Derived1 (dynamic_cast<Derived1*>(b))->SpecialD1DoSomething(); } private: Base* b; }; I have generally read that usage of dynamic_cast is bad, but as I said, I don't know which type to create until run-time. Please help!

  Read the article

• When to define SDD operations System->Actor?

  - by devoured elysium

  I am having some trouble understanding how to make SDDs, as I don't fully grasp why in some cases one should define operations for System - Actor and in others don't. Here is an example: 1) The User tells the System that wants to buy some tickets, stating his client number. 2) The System confirms that the given client number is valid. 3) The User tells the System the movie that wants to see. 4) The System shows the set of available sessions and seats for that movie. 5) The System asks the user which session/seat he wants. 6) The user tells the System the chosen session/seat. This would be converted to: a) -----> tellClientNumber(clientNumber) b) <----- validClientNumber c) -----> tellMovieToSee(movie) d) <----- showsAvailableSeatsHours e) -----> tellSystemChosenSessionSeat(session, seat) I know that when we are dealing with SDD's we are still far away from coding. But I can't help trying to imagine how it how it would have been had I to convert it right away to code: I can understand 1) and 2). It's like if it was a C#/Java method with the following signature: boolean tellClientNumber(clientNumber) so I put both on the SDD. Then, we have the pair 3) 4). I can imagine that as something as: SomeDataStructureThatHoldsAvailableSessionsSeats tellSystemMovieToSee(movie) Now, the problem: From what I've come to understand, my lecturer says that we shouldn't make an operation on the SDD for 5) as we should only show operations from the Actor to the System and when the System is either presenting us data (as in c)) or validating sent data (such as in b)). I find this odd, as if I try to imagine this like a DOS app where you have to put your input sequencially, it makes sense to make an arrow even for 5). Why is this wrong? How should I try to visualize this? Thanks

  Read the article

• Replace singletons with what?

  - by fig-gnuton

  Singletons are so often said to be a bad design choice, so how should you design an application when you want to avoid them?

  Read the article

• Is it possible to create an enum whose object can't be created but can be used for readonly purpose

  - by Shantanu Gupta

  I created an enum where I stored some table names. I want it to be used to get the name of the table like ds.Tables[BGuestInfo.TableName.L_GUEST_TYPE.ToString()]. public enum TableName : byte { L_GUEST_TYPE = 0 ,L_AGE_GROUP = 1 ,M_COMPANY = 2 ,L_COUNTRY = 3 ,L_EYE_COLOR = 4 ,L_GENDER = 5 ,L_HAIR_COLOR = 6 ,L_STATE_PROVINCE = 7 ,L_STATUS = 8 ,L_TITLE = 9 ,M_TOWER = 10 ,L_CITY = 11 ,L_REGISTER_TYPE = 12 } This is my enum. Now I have not created any object of this enum so that no one can use it for other than read only purpose. For this enum to be accessible in outer classes as well I have to make it public which means some outer class can create its object as well. So what can i do so as to restrict its object creation.

  Read the article

• Stupid java question: Is it a method?

  - by Stefan

  Hello, I'm no Java guy, so I ask myself what this means: public Button(Light light) { this.light = light; } Is Button a method? I ask myself, because it takes an input parameter light. But if it was a method, why would it begin with a capital letter and has no return data type? Here comes the full example: public class Button { private Light light; public Button(Light light) { this.light = light; } public void press() { light.turnOn(); } } I know, this question is really trivial. However, I have nothing to do with Java and haven't found a description for the Button thing above. I'm just interested.

  Read the article

• How to amend return value design in OO manner?

  - by FrontierPsycho

  Hello. I am no newb on OO programming, but I am faced with a puzzling situation. I have been given a program to work on and extend, but the previous developers didn't seem that comfortable with OO, it seems they either had a C background or an unclear understanding of OO. Now, I don't suggest I am a better developer, I just think that I can spot some common OO errors. The difficult task is how to amend them. In my case, I see a lot of this: if (ret == 1) { out.print("yadda yadda"); } else if (ret == 2) { out.print("yadda yadda"); } else if (ret == 3) { out.print("yadda yadda"); } else if (ret == 0) { out.print("yadda yadda"); } else if (ret == 5) { out.print("yadda yadda"); } else if (ret == 6) { out.print("yadda yadda"); } else if (ret == 7) { out.print("yadda yadda"); } ret is a value returned by a function, in which all Exceptions are swallowed, and in the catch blocks, the above values are returned explicitly. Oftentimes, the Exceptions are simply swallowed, with empty catch blocks. It's obvious that swalllowing exceptions is wrong OO design. My question concerns the use of return values. I believe that too is wrong, however I think that using Exceptions for control flow is equally wrong, and I can't think of anything to replace the above in a correct, OO manner. Your input, please?

  Read the article

< Previous Page | 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48  | Next Page >