Search Results

Search found 66233 results on 2650 pages for 'class method'.

Page 447/2650 | < Previous Page | 443 444 445 446 447 448 449 450 451 452 453 454  | Next Page >

  • OData &ndash; The easiest service I can create

    - by Jon Dalberg
    I wanted to create an OData service with the least amount of code so I fired up Visual Studio and got cracking. I decided to serve up a list of naughty words and make them read-only. Create a new web project. I created an empty MVC 2 application but MVC is not required for OData. Add a new WCF Data Service to the project. I named mine NastyWords.svc since I’m serving up a list of nasty words. Add a class to expose via the service: NastyWord 1: [DataServiceKey("Word")] 2: public class NastyWord 3: { 4: public string Word { get; set; } 5: }   I need to be able to uniquely identify instances of NastyWords for the DataService so I used the DataServiceKey attribute with the “Word” property as the key. I could have added an “ID” property which would have uniquely identified them and would then not need the “DataServiceKey” attribute because the DataService would apply some reflection and heuristics to guess at which property would be the unique identifier. However, the words themselves are unique so adding an “ID” property would be redundantly repetitive. Then I created a data source to expose my NastyWord objects to the service. This is just a simple class with IQueryable<T> properties exposing the entities for my service: 1: public class NastyWordsDataSource 2: { 3: private static IList<NastyWord> words = new List<NastyWord> 4: { 5: new NastyWord{ Word="crap"}, 6: new NastyWord{ Word="darn"}, 7: new NastyWord{ Word="hell"}, 8: new NastyWord{ Word="shucks"} 9: }; 10:   11: public NastyWordsDataSource() 12: { 13: NastyWords = words.AsQueryable(); 14: } 15:   16: public IQueryable<NastyWord> NastyWords { get; private set; } 17: }   Now I can go to the NastyWords.svc class and tell it which data source to use and which entities to expose: 1: public class NastyWords : DataService<NastyWordsDataSource> 2: { 3: // This method is called only once to initialize service-wide policies. 4: public static void InitializeService(DataServiceConfiguration config) 5: { 6: config.SetEntitySetAccessRule("*", EntitySetRights.AllRead); 7: config.DataServiceBehavior.MaxProtocolVersion = DataServiceProtocolVersion.V2; 8: } 9: }   Compile and browse to my NastWords.svc and weep with joy Now I can query my service just like any other OData service. Next time, I’ll modify this service to allow updates to sent so I can build up my list of nasty words. Enjoy!

    Read the article

  • Confusion about inheritance

    - by Samuel Adam
    I know I might get downvoted for this, but I'm really curious. I was taught that inheritance is a very powerful polymorphism tool, but I can't seem to use it well in real cases. So far, I can only use inheritance when the base class is an abstract class. Examples : If we're talking about Product and Inventory, I quickly assumed that a Product is an Inventory because a Product must be inventorized as well. But a problem occured when user wanted to sell their Inventory item. It just doesn't seem to be right to change an Inventory object to it's subtype (Product), it's almost like trying to convert a parent to it's child. Another case is Customer and Member. It is logical (at least for me) to think that a Member is a Customer with some more privileges. Same problem occurred when user wanted to upgrade an existing Customer to become a Member. A very trivial case is the Employee case. Where Manager, Clerk, etc can be derived from Employee. Still, the same upgrading issue. I tried to use composition instead for some cases, but I really wanted to know if I'm missing something for inheritance solution here. My composition solution for those cases : Create a reference of Inventory inside a Product. Here I'm making an assumption about that Product and Inventory is talking in a different context. While Product is in the context of sales (price, volume, discount, etc), Inventory is in the context of physical management (stock, movement, etc). Make a reference of Membership instead inside Customer class instead of previous inheritance solution. Therefor upgrading a Customer is only about instantiating the Customer's Membership property. This example is keep being taught in basic programming classes, but I think it's more proper to have those Manager, Clerk, etc derived from an abstract Role class and make it a property in Employee. I found it difficult to find an example of a concrete class deriving from another concrete class. Is there any inheritance solution in which I can solve those cases? Being new in this OOP thing, I really really need a guidance. Thanks!

    Read the article

  • Which is a better practice - helper methods as instance or static?

    - by Ilian Pinzon
    This question is subjective but I was just curious how most programmers approach this. The sample below is in pseudo-C# but this should apply to Java, C++, and other OOP languages as well. Anyway, when writing helper methods in my classes, I tend to declare them as static and just pass the fields if the helper method needs them. For example, given the code below, I prefer to use Method Call #2. class Foo { Bar _bar; public void DoSomethingWithBar() { // Method Call #1. DoSomethingWithBarImpl(); // Method Call #2. DoSomethingWithBarImpl(_bar); } private void DoSomethingWithBarImpl() { _bar.DoSomething(); } private static void DoSomethingWithBarImpl(Bar bar) { bar.DoSomething(); } } My reason for doing this is that it makes it clear (to my eyes at least) that the helper method has a possible side-effect on other objects - even without reading its implementation. I find that I can quickly grok methods that use this practice and thus help me in debugging things. Which do you prefer to do in your own code and what are your reasons for doing so?

    Read the article

  • Refactoring and Open / Closed principle

    - by Giorgio
    I have recently being reading a web site about clean code development (I do not put a link here because it is not in English). One of the principles advertised by this site is the Open Closed Principle: each software component should be open for extension and closed for modification. E.g., when we have implemented and tested a class, we should only modify it to fix bugs or to add new functionality (e.g. new methods that do not influence the existing ones). The existing functionality and implementation should not be changed. I normally apply this principle by defining an interface I and a corresponding implementation class A. When class A has become stable (implemented and tested), I normally do not modify it too much (possibly, not at all), i.e. If new requirements arrive (e.g. performance, or a totally new implementation of the interface) that require big changes to the code, I write a new implementation B, and keep using A as long as B is not mature. When B is mature, all that is needed is to change how I is instantiated. If the new requirements suggest a change to the interface as well, I define a new interface I' and a new implementation A'. So I, A are frozen and remain the implementation for the production system as long as I' and A' are not stable enough to replace them. So, in view of these observation, I was a bit surprised that the web page then suggested the use of complex refactorings, "... because it is not possible to write code directly in its final form." Isn't there a contradiction / conflict between enforcing the Open / Closed Principle and suggesting the use of complex refactorings as a best practice? Or the idea here is that one can use complex refactorings during the development of a class A, but when that class has been tested successfully it should be frozen?

    Read the article

  • Designing a plug-in system

    - by madflame991
    I'm working on a Java project and I would like to add a plug-in system. More precisely, I would like to let the user design his own module, pack it into a jar, leave it in a "plugins/" subfolder of my application and be done with it. I've managed to get a child classloader to instantiate objects of classes located in external jars, but now I'm facing a design dilemma: Say Joe makes a plug-in and he packs it in joeplugin.jar. I would really like Joe to have a class named "instantiation.Factory" and I would also like everyone to have this class with this exact location and name. (This factory class obviously implements a interface that I provide and through it I get what I want from the plug-in.) If Joe wouldn't be restricted in this way I would have to look into his entire jar for some class that implements my factory interface and I don't want to imagine how complicated things get. So my question is: should I enforce a strict naming convention for this single class? I have no idea how plug-in systems work.

    Read the article

  • Augmenting functionality of subclasses without code duplication in C++

    - by Rob W
    I have to add common functionality to some classes that share the same superclass, preferably without bloating the superclass. The simplified inheritance chain looks like this: Element -> HTMLElement -> HTMLAnchorElement Element -> SVGElement -> SVGAlement The default doSomething() method on Element is no-op by default, but there are some subclasses that need an actual implementation that requires some extra overridden methods and instance members. I cannot put a full implementation of doSomething() in Element because 1) it is only relevant for some of the subclasses, 2) its implementation has a performance impact and 3) it depends on a method that could be overridden by a class in the inheritance chain between the superclass and a subclass, e.g. SVGElement in my example. Especially because of the third point, I wanted to solve the problem using a template class, as follows (it is a kind of decorator for classes): struct Element { virtual void doSomething() {} }; // T should be an instance of Element template<class T> struct AugmentedElement : public T { // doSomething is expensive and uses T virtual void doSomething() override {} // Used by doSomething virtual bool shouldDoSomething() = 0; }; class SVGElement : public Element { /* ... */ }; class SVGAElement : public AugmentedElement<SVGElement> { // some non-trivial check bool shouldDoSomething() { /* ... */ return true; } }; // Similarly for HTMLAElement and others I looked around (in the existing (huge) codebase and on the internet), but didn't find any similar code snippets, let alone an evaluation of the effectiveness and pitfalls of this approach. Is my design the right way to go, or is there a better way to add common functionality to some subclasses of a given superclass?

    Read the article

  • Fixed Sized Buffer or Variable Buffers with C# Sockets

    - by Keagan Ladds
    I am busy designing a TCP Server class in C# that has events and allows the user of the class to define packets that the server can send a receive by registering a class that is derived from my "GenericPacket" class. My TCPListener uses Async methods such as .BeginReceive(..); My issue is that because I am using the .BeginReceive(); I need to specify a buffer size when I call the function. This means I cant read the whole packet if one of my defined packets is too big. I have thought of creating a fixed sized Header that gets read using .BeginRead(); and the read the rest using Stream.Read(); but this will lead to the whole server having to wait for this operation to complete. I would like to know if anyone has come across this before and I would appreciate any suggestions.

    Read the article

  • Spring + JSR 303 Validation group is ignored [closed]

    - by nsideras
    we have a simple bean with JSR annotations public class CustomerDTO { private static final long serialVersionUID = 1L; private Integer id; @NotEmpty(message = "{customer.firstname.empty}") private String firstName; @NotEmpty(message = "{customer.lastname.empty}") private String lastName; @NotEmpty(groups={PasswordChange.class}, message="{password.empty}") private String password; @NotEmpty(groups={PasswordChange.class}, message="{confirmation.password.empty}") private String password2; } and we have a Spring Controller @RequestMapping(value="/changePassword", method = RequestMethod.POST) public String changePassword(@Validated({ PasswordChange.class }) @ModelAttribute("customerdto") CustomerDTO customerDTO, BindingResult result, Locale locale) { logger.debug("Change Password was submitted with information: " + customerDTO.toString()); try { passwordStrengthPolicy.checkPasswordStrength(locale, customerDTO.getPassword()); if (result.hasErrors()) { return "changePassword"; } logger.debug("Calling customer service changePassword: " + customerDTO); customerOnlineNewService.changePassword(customerDTO); } catch (PasswordNotChangedException e) { logger.error("Could not change password PasswordNotChangedException: " + customerDTO.toString()); return "changePassword"; } catch (PasswordNotSecureException e) { return "changePassword"; } return createRedirectViewPath("changePassword"); } Our problem is that when changePassword is invoked the validator ignores the group(PasswordChange.class) and validates only firstName and lastName which are not in the group. Any idea? Thank you very much for your time.

    Read the article

  • Web Services Example - Part 2: Programmatic

    - by Denis T
    In this edition of the ADF Mobile blog we'll tackle part 2 of our Web Service examples.  In this posting we'll take a look at using a SOAP Web Service but calling it programmatically in code and parsing the return into a bean. Getting the sample code: Just click here to download a zip of the entire project.  You can unzip it and load it into JDeveloper and deploy it either to iOS or Android.  Please follow the previous blog posts if you need help getting JDeveloper or ADF Mobile installed.  Note: This is a different workspace than WS-Part1 Defining our Web Service: Just like our first installment, we are using the same public weather forecast web service provided free by CDYNE Corporation.  Sometimes this service goes down so please ensure you know it's up before reporting this example isn't working. We're going to concentrate on the same two web service methods, GetCityForecastByZIP and GetWeatherInformation. Defing the Application: The application setup is identical to the Weather1 version.  There are some improvements to the data that is displayed as part of this example though.  Now we are able to show the associated image along with each forecast line when using the Forecast By Zip feature.  We've also added the temperature Hi/Low values into the UI. Summary of Fundamental Changes In This Application The most fundamental change is that we're binding the UI to the Bean Data Controls instead of directly to the Web Service Data Controls.  This gives us much more flexibility to control the shape of the data and allows us to do caching of the data outside of the Web Service.  This way if your application is, say offline, your bean could still populate with data from a local cache and still show you some UI as opposed to completely failing because you don't have any connectivity. In general we promote this type of programming technique with ADF Mobile to insulate your application from any issues with network connectivity. What's different with this example? We have setup the Web Service DC the same way but now we have managed beans to process the data.  The following classes define the "Model" of our application:  CityInformation-CityForecast-Forecast, WeatherInformation-WeatherDescription.  We use WeatherBean for UI interaction to the model layer.  If you look through this example, we don't really do that much with the java code except use it to grab the image URL from the weather description.  In a more realistic example, you might be using some JDBC classes to persist the data to a local database. To have a good architecture it is always good to keep your model and UI layers separate.  This gets muddied if you start to use bindings on a page invoked from Java code and this java code starts to become your "model" layer.  Since bindings are page specific, your model layer starts to become entwined with your UI.  Not good!  To help with this, we've added some utility functions that let you invoke DC methods without having a binding and thus execute methods from your "model" layer without requiring a binding in your page definition.  We do this with the invokeDataControlMethod of the AdfmfJavaUtilities class.  An example of this method call is available in line 95 of WeatherInformation.java and line 93 of CityInformation.Java. What's a GenericType? Because Web Service Data Controls (and also URL Data Controls AKA REST) use generic name/value pairs to define their structure and don't have strongly typed objects, these are actually stored internally as GenericType objects.  The GenericType class is simply a property map of name/value pairs that can be hierarchical.  There are methods like getAttribute where you supply the index of the attribute or it's string property name.  Why is this important to know?  Because invokeDataControlMethod returns GenericType objects and developers either need to parse these GenericType objects themselves or use one of our helper functions. GenericTypeBeanSerializationHelper This class does exactly what it's name implies.  It's a helper class for developers to aid in serialization of GenericTypes to/from java objects.  This is extremely handy if you have a large GenericType object with many attributes (or you're just lazy like me!) and you just want to parse it out into a real java object you can use more easily.  Here you would use the fromGenericType method.  This method takes the class of the Java object you wish to return and the GenericType as parameters.  The method then parses through each attribute in the GenericType and uses reflection to set that same attribute in the Java class.  Then the method returns that new object of the class you specified.  This is obviously very handy to avoid a lot of shuffling code between GenericType and your own Java classes.  The reverse method, toGenericType is also available when you want to go the other way.  In this case you supply the string that represents the package location in the DataControl definition (Example: "MyDC.myParams.MyCollection") and then pass in the Java object you have that holds the data and a GenericType is returned to you.  Again, it will use reflection to calculate the attributes that match between the java class and the GenericType and call the getters/setters on those. Issues and Possible Improvements: In the next installment we'll show you how to make your web service calls asynchronously so your UI will fill dynamically when the service call returns but in the meantime you show the data you have locally in your bean fed from some local cache.  This gives your users instant delivery of some data while you fetch other data in the background.

    Read the article

  • Confused about implementing Single Responsibility Principle

    - by HichemSeeSharp
    Please bear with me if the question looks not well structured. To put you in the context of my issue: I am building an application that invoices vehicles stay duration in a parking. In addition to the stay service there are some other services. Each service has its own calculation logic. Here is an illustration (please correct me if the design is wrong): public abstract class Service { public int Id { get; set; } public bool IsActivated { get; set; } public string Name { get; set } public decimal Price { get; set; } } public class VehicleService : Service { //MTM : many to many public virtual ICollection<MTMVehicleService> Vehicles { get; set; } } public class StayService : VehicleService { } public class Vehicle { public int Id { get; set; } public string ChassisNumber { get; set; } public DateTime? EntryDate { get; set; } public DateTime? DeliveryDate { get; set; } //... public virtual ICollection<MTMVehicleService> Services{ get; set; } } Now, I am focusing on the stay service as an example: I would like to know at invoicing time which class(es) would be responsible for generating the invoice item for the service and for each vehicle? This should calculate the duration cost knowing that the duration could be invoiced partially so the like is as follows: not yet invoiced stay days * stay price per day. At this moment I have InvoiceItemsGenerator do everything but I am aware that there is a better design.

    Read the article

  • Obscure SPUtility.SendMail Behavior When Manually Passing in Mail Headers

    - by Damon
    There are two ways to send mail in SharePoint: you can either use the mail components from the System.Net namespace, or you can send email using SharePoint's SPUtility.SendMail method.  One of the benefits of the SPUtility.SendMail method is that it uses the mail configuration from SharePoint, so you can manage settings in Central Administration instead of having to go through and modify your web.config file.  SPUtility.SendMail can get the job done, but it's defiantly not as developer friendly as the components from the System.Net namespace.  If you want to CC someone on an email, for example, you do NOT have a nice CC parameter - you have to manually add the CC mail header and pass it into the SPUtility.SendMail method.  I had to do this the other day, and ran into a really obscure issue. If you do NOT pass the headers into the method then SharePoint sends the email using the From Address configured in the Outgoing Mail settings in Central Admin.  If you pass headers into the method, but do not include the from header, then SharePoint sends the mail using the email address of the current user. This can be an issue if your mail server is setup to reject an email from an invalid email address or an email address that is not on your domain.  The way to fix this issue is to always pass in the from header.  If you want to use the configured From address, then you can do the following: SPWebApplication webApp = SPWebApplication.Lookup(new Uri(SPContext.Current.Site.Url)); StringDictionary headers = new StringDictionary(); headers.Add("from", webApp.OutboundMailSenderAddress);

    Read the article

  • Consuming ASMX and WCF Services using jQuery

    - by bipinjoshi
    In the previous part I demonstrated how jQuery animations can add some jazz to your web forms. Now let's see one of the most important feature of jQuery that you will probably use in all data driven websites - accessing server data. In the previous articles you used jQuery methods such as $.get() to make a GET request to the server. More powerful feature, however, is to make AJAX calls to ASP.NET Web Services, Page Methods and WCF services. The $.ajax() method of jQuery allows you to access these services. In fact $.get() method you used earlier internally makes use of $.ajax() method but restricts itself only to GET requests. The $.ajax() method provides more control on how the services are called.http://www.bipinjoshi.net/articles/479571df-7786-4c50-8db6-a798f195471a.aspx

    Read the article

  • Is code like this a "train wreck" (in violation of Law of Demeter)?

    - by Michael Kjörling
    Browsing through some code I've written, I came across the following construct which got me thinking. At a first glance, it seems clean enough. Yes, in the actual code the getLocation() method has a slightly more specific name which better describes exactly which location it gets. service.setLocation(this.configuration.getLocation().toString()); In this case, service is an instance variable of a known type, declared within the method. this.configuration comes from being passed in to the class constructor, and is an instance of a class implementing a specific interface (which mandates a public getLocation() method). Hence, the return type of the expression this.configuration.getLocation() is known; specifically in this case, it is a java.net.URL, whereas service.setLocation() wants a String. Since the two types String and URL are not directly compatible, some sort of conversion is required to fit the square peg in the round hole. However, according to the Law of Demeter as cited in Clean Code, a method f in class C should only call methods on C, objects created by or passed as arguments to f, and objects held in instance variables of C. Anything beyond that (the final toString() in my particular case above, unless you consider a temporary object created as a result of the method invocation itself, in which case the whole Law seems to be moot) is disallowed. Is there a valid reasoning why a call like the above, given the constraints listed, should be discouraged or even disallowed? Or am I just being overly nitpicky? If I were to implement a method URLToString() which simply calls toString() on a URL object (such as that returned by getLocation()) passed to it as a parameter, and returns the result, I could wrap the getLocation() call in it to achieve exactly the same result; effectively, I would just move the conversion one step outward. Would that somehow make it acceptable? (It seems to me, intuitively, that it should not make any difference either way, since all that does is move things around a little. However, going by the letter of the Law of Demeter as cited, it would be acceptable, since I would then be operating directly on a parameter to a function.) Would it make any difference if this was about something slightly more exotic than calling toString() on a standard type? When answering, do keep in mind that altering the behavior or API of the type that the service variable is of is not practical. Also, for the sake of argument, let's say that altering the return type of getLocation() is also impractical.

    Read the article

  • Name user object and user table correctly

    - by Marc
    It's maybe simple but I think about this every time I build a new application. How do you name the class for the current user of the application and for the orm class of the user table? Usually I have something like CurrentUser: Logged-in user, stored in session, info for last activity etc User: ORM Class (C# EF CodeFirst, but it doesn't matter) And yes, they could have the same name in different namespaces, but I don't really like that.

    Read the article

  • Using Unity – Part 4

    - by nmarun
    In this part, I’ll be discussing about constructor and property or setter injection. I’ve created a new class – Product3: 1: public class Product3 : IProduct 2: { 3: public string Name { get; set; } 4: [Dependency] 5: public IDistributor Distributor { get; set; } 6: public ILogger Logger { get; set; } 7:  8: public Product3(ILogger logger) 9: { 10: Logger = logger; 11: Name = "Product 1"; 12: } 13:  14: public string WriteProductDetails() 15: { 16: StringBuilder productDetails = new StringBuilder(); 17: productDetails.AppendFormat("{0}<br/>", Name); 18: productDetails.AppendFormat("{0}<br/>", Logger.WriteLog()); 19: productDetails.AppendFormat("{0}<br/>", Distributor.WriteDistributorDetails()); 20: return productDetails.ToString(); 21: } 22: } This version has a property of type IDistributor and takes a constructor parameter of type ILogger. The IDistributor property has a Dependency attribute (Microsoft.Practices.Unity namespace) applied to it. IDistributor and its implementation are shown below: 1: public interface IDistributor 2: { 3: string WriteDistributorDetails(); 4: } 5:  6: public class Distributor : IDistributor 7: { 8: public List<string> DistributorNames = new List<string>(); 9:  10: public Distributor() 11: { 12: DistributorNames.Add("Distributor1"); 13: DistributorNames.Add("Distributor2"); 14: DistributorNames.Add("Distributor3"); 15: DistributorNames.Add("Distributor4"); 16: } 17: public string WriteDistributorDetails() 18: { 19: StringBuilder distributors = new StringBuilder(); 20: for (int i = 0; i < DistributorNames.Count; i++) 21: { 22: distributors.AppendFormat("{0}<br/>", DistributorNames[i]); 23: } 24: return distributors.ToString(); 25: } 26: } ILogger and the FileLogger have the following definition: 1: public interface ILogger 2: { 3: string WriteLog(); 4: } 5:  6: public class FileLogger : ILogger 7: { 8: public string WriteLog() 9: { 10: return string.Format("Type: {0}", GetType()); 11: } 12: } The Unity container creates an instance of the dependent class (the Distributor class) within the scope of the target object (an instance of Product3 class that will be called by doing a Resolve<IProduct>() in the calling code) and assign this dependent object to the attributed property of the target object. To add to it, property injection is a form of optional injection of dependent objects.The dependent object instance is generated before the container returns the target object. Unlike constructor injection, you must apply the appropriate attribute in the target class to initiate property injection. Let’s see how to change the config file to make this work. The first step is to add all the type aliases: 1: <typeAlias alias="Product3" type="ProductModel.Product3, ProductModel"/> 2: <typeAlias alias="ILogger" type="ProductModel.ILogger, ProductModel"/> 3: <typeAlias alias="FileLogger" type="ProductModel.FileLogger, ProductModel"/> 4: <typeAlias alias="IDistributor" type="ProductModel.IDistributor, ProductModel"/> 5: <typeAlias alias="Distributor" type="ProductModel.Distributor, ProductModel"/> Now define mappings for these aliases: 1: <type type="ILogger" mapTo="FileLogger" /> 2: <type type="IDistributor" mapTo="Distributor" /> Next step is to define the constructor and property injection in the config file: 1: <type type="IProduct" mapTo="Product3" name="ComplexProduct"> 2: <typeConfig extensionType="Microsoft.Practices.Unity.Configuration.TypeInjectionElement, Microsoft.Practices.Unity.Configuration"> 3: <constructor> 4: <param name="logger" parameterType="ILogger" /> 5: </constructor> 6: <property name="Distributor" propertyType="IDistributor"> 7: <dependency /> 8: </property> 9: </typeConfig> 10: </type> There you see a constructor element that tells there’s a property named ‘logger’ that is of type ILogger. By default, the type of ILogger gets resolved to type FileLogger. There’s also a property named ‘Distributor’ which is of type IDistributor and which will get resolved to type Distributor. On the calling side, I’ve added a new button, whose click event does the following: 1: protected void InjectionButton_Click(object sender, EventArgs e) 2: { 3: unityContainer.RegisterType<IProduct, Product3>(); 4: IProduct product3 = unityContainer.Resolve<IProduct>(); 5: productDetailsLabel.Text = product3.WriteProductDetails(); 6: } This renders the following output: This completes the part for constructor and property injection. In the next blog, I’ll talk about Arrays and Generics. Please see the code used here.

    Read the article

  • How do I separate codes with classes?

    - by Trycon
    I have this main class: package javagame; import org.newdawn.slick.GameContainer; import org.newdawn.slick.Graphics; import org.newdawn.slick.SlickException; import org.newdawn.slick.state.BasicGameState; import org.newdawn.slick.state.StateBasedGame; public class tests extends BasicGameState{ public boolean render=false; tests1 test = new tests1(); public tests(int test) { // TODO Auto-generated constructor stub } @Override public void init(GameContainer arg0, StateBasedGame arg1) throws SlickException { // TODO Auto-generated method stub } @Override public void render(GameContainer arg0, StateBasedGame arg1, Graphics g) throws SlickException { // TODO Auto-generated method stub if(render==true) { g.drawString("Hello",100,100); } } @Override public void update(GameContainer gc, StateBasedGame s, int delta) throws SlickException { // TODO Auto-generated method stub test.render=render; test.update(gc, s, delta); } @Override public int getID() { // TODO Auto-generated method stub return 1000; } } and its sub-class: package javagame; import org.newdawn.slick.GameContainer; import org.newdawn.slick.Input; import org.newdawn.slick.state.StateBasedGame; public class tests1 { public boolean render; public void update(GameContainer gc, StateBasedGame s, int delta) { Input input = gc.getInput(); if(input.isKeyPressed(Input.KEY_X)) { render=true; } } } I was finding a way to prevent many codes in one class. I'm new to java. When I try running my game, then when I press X, it does not work. How am I suppose to fix that?

    Read the article

  • Do you leverage the benefits of the open-closed principle?

    - by Kaleb Pederson
    The open-closed principle (OCP) states that an object should be open for extension but closed for modification. I believe I understand it and use it in conjunction with SRP to create classes that do only one thing. And, I try to create many small methods that make it possible to extract out all the behavior controls into methods that may be extended or overridden in some subclass. Thus, I end up with classes that have many extension points, be it through: dependency injection and composition, events, delegation, etc. Consider the following a simple, extendable class: class PaycheckCalculator { // ... protected decimal GetOvertimeFactor() { return 2.0M; } } Now say, for example, that the OvertimeFactor changes to 1.5. Since the above class was designed to be extended, I can easily subclass and return a different OvertimeFactor. But... despite the class being designed for extension and adhering to OCP, I'll modify the single method in question, rather than subclassing and overridding the method in question and then re-wiring my objects in my IoC container. As a result I've violated part of what OCP attempts to accomplish. It feels like I'm just being lazy because the above is a bit easier. Am I misunderstanding OCP? Should I really be doing something different? Do you leverage the benefits of OCP differently? Update: based on the answers it looks like this contrived example is a poor one for a number of different reasons. The main intent of the example was to demonstrate that the class was designed to be extended by providing methods that when overridden would alter the behavior of public methods without the need for changing internal or private code. Still, I definitely misunderstood OCP.

    Read the article

  • Object oriented wrapper around a dll

    - by Tom Davies
    So, I'm writing a C# managed wrapper around a native dll. The dll contains several hundred functions. In most cases, the first argument to each function is an opaque handle to a type internal to the dll. So, an obvious starting point for defining some classes in the wrapper would be to define classes corresponding to each of these opaque types, with each instance holding and managing the opaque handle (passed to its constructor) Things are a little awkward when dealing with callbacks from the dll. Naturally, the callback handlers in my wrapper have to be static, but the callbacks arguments invariable contain an opaque handle. In order to get from the static callback back to an object instance, I've created a static dictionary in each class, associating handles with class instances. In the constructor of each class, an entry is put into the dictionary, and this entry is then removed in the Destructors. When I receive a callback, I can then consult the dictionary to retrieve the class instance corresponding to the opaque reference. Are there any obvious flaws to this? Something that seems to be a problem is that the existence static dictionary means that the garbage collector will not act on my class instances that are otherwise unreachable. As they are never garbage collected, they never get removed from the dictionary, so the dictionary grows. It seems I might have to manually dispose of my objects, which is something absolutely would like to avoid. Can anyone suggest a good design that allows me to avoid having to do this?

    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

  • InvalidProgramException Running Unit Test

    - by Anthony Trudeau
    There is a bug in the unit testing framework in Visual Studio 2010 with unit testing.  The bug appears in a very special circumstance involving an internal generic type. The bug causes the following exception to be thrown: System.InvalidProgramException: JIT Compiler encountered an internal limitation. This occurs under the following circumstances: Type being tested is internal or private Method being tested is generic  Method being tested has an out parameter Type accessor functionality used to access the internal type The exception is not thrown if the InternalsVisibleToAttribute is assigned to the source assembly and the accessor type is not used; nor is it thrown if the method is not a generic method. Bug #635093 has been added through Microsoft Connect

    Read the article

  • how should I design Objects around this business requirement?

    - by brainydexter
    This is the business requirement: " A Holiday Package (e.g. New York NY Holiday Package) can be offered in different ways based on the Origin city: From New Delhi to NY From Bombay to NY NY itself ( Land package ) (Bold implies default selection) a. and b. User can fly from either New Delhi or Bombay to NY. c. NY is a Land package, where a user can reach NY by himself and is a standalone holidayPackage. " Let's say I have a class that represents HolidayPackage, Destination (aka City). public class HolidayPackage{ Destination holidayCity; ArrayList<BaseHolidayPackageVariant> variants; BaseHolidayPackageVariant defaultVariant; } public abstract class BaseHolidayPackageVariant { private Integer variantId; private HolidayPackage holidayPackage; private String holidayPackageType; } public class LandHolidayPackageVariant extends BaseHolidayPackageVariant{ } public class FlightHolidayPackageVariant extends BaseHolidayPackageVariant{ private Destination originCity; } What data structure/objects should I design to support: options a default within those options Sidenote: A HolidayPackage can also be offered in different ways based on Hotel selections. I'd like to follow a design which I can leverage to support that use case in the future. This is the backend design I have in mind.

    Read the article

  • jQuery open and close nested ul nav depending on location

    - by firefusion
    I'm making a sub nav in wordpress and have a nested list style menu. An example of the HTML is below. Whichever is the current item has the li class "current_page_item". I need all child menus collapsed unless there is a current_page_item class on the parent or one of the children. <ul> <li class="current_page_item"><a href="#">Parent Item</a> <ul class="children"> <li><a href="#">Child page</a></li> <li><a href="#">Child page</a></li> <li><a href="#">Child page</a></li> <li><a href="#">Child page</a></li> </ul> </li> <li><a href="#">Parent Item</a> <ul class="children"> <li><a href="#">Child page</a></li> <li><a href="#">Child page</a></li> </ul> </li> <li><a href="#">Parent Item</a> <ul class="children"> <li><a href="#">Child page</a></li> <li><a href="#">Child page</a></li> </ul> </li> <li><a href="#">Parent Item</a></li> <li><a href="#">Parent Item</a></li> </ul> This so far, which works but i wonder if it can be improved as there is some flashing open and then closed again.... jQuery('ul.children').slideUp(); jQuery('li.current_page_item ul.children').slideDown('medium'); jQuery('li.current_page_item').parent().slideDown('medium');

    Read the article

  • Thunderbird cant open due to GLiB Error

    - by Elli
    i recently updated Lubuntu to 13.10 and now after some days Thunderbird stopped working. It just won't open. When i try to open it with the terminal i get the following text: user@user-rechner:~$ thunderbird (process:6231): GLib-CRITICAL **: g_slice_set_config: assertion 'sys_page_size == 0' failed (thunderbird:6231): GLib-GObject-WARNING **: Attempt to add property GnomeProgram::sm-connect after class was initialised (thunderbird:6231): GLib-GObject-WARNING **: Attempt to add property GnomeProgram::show-crash-dialog after class was initialised (thunderbird:6231): GLib-GObject-WARNING **: Attempt to add property GnomeProgram::display after class was initialised (thunderbird:6231): GLib-GObject-WARNING **: Attempt to add property GnomeProgram::default-icon after class was initialised GNOME-Tastaturkürzel-Verzeichnis »/home/user/.gnome2/accels« konnte nicht angelegt werden: Keine Berechtigung (Translation: gnome shortcut-directory could not be created - no permission) Now i reinstalled it once, deleted this .thunderbird folder in my home directory and it still won't work. I hope someone can help me. Thanks.

    Read the article

  • Are long methods always bad?

    - by wobbily_col
    So looking around earlier I noticed some comments about long methods being bad practice. I am not sure I always agree that long methods are bad (and would like opinions from others). For example I have some Django views that do a bit of processing of the objects before sending them to the view, a long method being 350 lines of code. I have my code written so that it deals with the paramaters - sorting / filtering the queryset, then bit by bit does some processing on the objects my query has returned. So the processing is mainly conditional aggregation, that has complex enough rules it can't easily be done in the database, so I have some variables declared outside the main loop then get altered during the loop. varaible_1 = 0 variable_2 = 0 for object in queryset : if object.condition_condition_a and variable_2 > 0 : variable 1+= 1 ..... ... . more conditions to alter the variables return queryset, and context So according to the theory I should factor out all the code into smaller methods, so That I have the view method as being maximum one page long. However having worked on various code bases in the past, I sometimes find it makes the code less readable, when you need to constantly jump from one method to the next figuring out all the parts of it, while keeping the outermost method in your head. I find that having a long method that is well formatted, you can see the logic more easily, as it isn't getting hidden away in inner methods. I could factor out the code into smaller methods, but often there is is an inner loop being used for two or three things, so it would result in more complex code, or methods that don't do one thing but two or three (alternatively I could repeat inner loops for each task, but then there will be a performance hit). So is there a case that long methods are not always bad? Is there always a case for writing methods, when they will only be used in one place?

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 443 444 445 446 447 448 449 450 451 452 453 454  | Next Page >