Search Results

Search found 22098 results on 884 pages for 'service oriented architec'.

Page 45/884 | < Previous Page | 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52  | Next Page >

• Inheritance vs containment while extending a large legacy project

  - by Flot2011

  I have got a legacy Java project with a lot of code. The code uses MVC pattern and is well structured and well written. It also has a lot of unit tests and it is still actively maintained (bug fixing, minor features adding). Therefore I want to preserve the original structure and code style as much as possible. The new feature I am going to add is a conceptual one, so I have to make my changes all over the code. In order to minimize changes I decided not to extend existing classes but to use containment: class ExistingClass { // .... existing code // my code adding new functionality private ExistingClassExtension extension = new ExistingClassExtension(); public ExistingClassExtension getExtension() {return extension;} } ... // somewhere in code ExistingClass instance = new ExistingClass(); ... // when I need a new functionality instance.getExtension().newMethod1(); All functionality that I am adding is inside a new ExistingClassExtension class. Actually I am adding only these 2 lines to each class that needs to be extended. By doing so I also do not need to instantiate new, extended classes all over the code and I may use existing tests to make sure there is no regression. However my colleagues argue that in this situation doing so isn't a proper OOP approach, and I need to inherit from ExistingClass in order to add a new functionality. What do you think? I am aware of numerous inheritance/containment questions here, but I think my question is different.

  Read the article

• Do delegates defy OOP

  - by Dave Rook

  I'm trying to understand OOP so I can write better OOP code and one thing which keeps coming up is this concept of a delegate (using .NET). I could have an object, which is totally self contained (encapsulated); it knows nothing of the outside world... but then I attach a delegate to it. In my head, this is still quite well separated as the delegate only knows what to reference, but this by itself means it has to know about something else outside it's world! That a method exists within another class! Have I got myself it total muddle here, or is this a grey area, or is this actually down to interpretation (and if so, sorry as that will be off topic I'm sure). My question is, do delegates defy/muddy the OOP pattern?

  Read the article

• How can a collection class instantiate many objects with one database call?

  - by Buttle Butkus

  I have a baseClass where I do not want public setters. I have a load($id) method that will retrieve the data for that object from the db. I have been using static class methods like getBy($property,$values) to return multiple class objects using a single database call. But some people say that static methods are not OOP. So now I'm trying to create a baseClassCollection that can do the same thing. But it can't, because it cannot access protected setters. I don't want everyone to be able to set the object's data. But it seems that it is an all-or-nothing proposition. I cannot give just the collection class access to the setters. I've seen a solution using debug_backtrace() but that seems inelegant. I'm moving toward just making the setters public. Are there any other solutions? Or should I even be looking for other solutions?

  Read the article

• Are first-class functions a substitute for the Strategy pattern?

  - by Prog

  The Strategy design pattern is often regarded as a substitute for first-class functions in languages that lack them. So for example say you wanted to pass functionality into an object. In Java you'd have to pass in the object another object which encapsulates the desired behavior. In a language such as Ruby, you'd just pass the functionality itself in the form of an annonymous function. However I was thinking about it and decided that maybe Strategy offers more than a plain annonymous function does. This is because an object can hold state that exists independently of the period when it's method runs. However an annonymous function by itself can only hold state that ceases to exist the moment the function finishes execution. So my question is: when using a language that features first-class functions, would you ever use the Strategy pattern (i.e. encapsulate the functionality you want to pass around in an explicit object), or would you always use an annonymous function? When would you decide to use Strategy when you can use a first-class function?

  Read the article

• Object construction design

  - by James

  I recently started to use c# to interface with a database, and there was one part of the process that appeared odd to me. When creating a SqlCommand, the method I was lead to took the form: SqlCommand myCommand = new SqlCommand("Command String", myConnection); Coming from a Java background, I was expecting something more similar to SqlCommand myCommand = myConnection.createCommand("Command String"); I am asking, in terms of design, what is the difference between the two? The phrase "single responsibility" has been used to suggest that a connection should not be responsible for creating SqlCommands, but I would also say that, in my mind, the difference between the two is partly a mental one of the difference between a connection executing a command and a command acting on a connection, the latter of which seems less like what I have been lead to believe OOP should be. There is also a part of me wondering if the two should be completely separate, and should only come together in some sort of connection.execute(command) method. Can anyone help clear up these differences? Are any of these methods "more correct" than the others from an OO point of view? (P.S. the fact that c# is used is completely irrelevant. It just highlighted to me that different approaches were used)

  Read the article

• Java word scramble game [closed]

  - by Dan

  I'm working on code for a word scramble game in Java. I know the code itself is full of bugs right now, but my main focus is getting a vector of strings broken into two separate vectors containing hints and words. The text file that the strings are taken from has a colon separating them. So here is what I have so far. public WordApp() { inputRow = new TextInputBox(); inputRow.setLocation(200,100); phrases = new Vector <String>(FileUtilities.getStrings()); v_hints = new Vector<String>(); v_words = new Vector<String>(); textBox = new TextBox(200,100); textBox.setLocation(200,200); textBox.setText(scrambled + "\n\n Time Left: \t" + seconds/10 + "\n Score: \t" + score); hintBox = new TextBox(200,200); hintBox.setLocation(300,400); hintBox.hide(); Iterator <String> categorize = phrases.iterator(); while(categorize.hasNext()) { int index = phrases.indexOf(":"); String element = categorize.next(); v_words.add(element.substring(0,index)); v_hints.add(element.substring(index +1)); phrases.remove(index); System.out.print(index); } The FileUtilities file was given to us by the pofessor, here it is. import java.util.*; import java.io.*; public class FileUtilities { private static final String FILE_NAME = "javawords.txt"; //------------------ getStrings ------------------------- // // returns a Vector of Strings // Each string is of the form: word:hint // where word contains no spaces. // The words and hints are read from FILE_NAME // // public static Vector<String> getStrings ( ) { Vector<String> words = new Vector<String>(); File file = new File( FILE_NAME ); Scanner scanFile; try { scanFile = new Scanner( file); } catch ( IOException e) { System.err.println( "LineInput Error: " + e.getMessage() ); return null; } while ( scanFile.hasNextLine() ) { // read the word and follow it by a colon String s = scanFile.nextLine().trim().toUpperCase() + ":"; if( s.length()>1 && scanFile.hasNextLine() ) { // append the hint and add to collection s+= scanFile.nextLine().trim(); words.add(s); } } // shuffle Collections.shuffle(words); return words; } }

  Read the article

• Instantiate proper class based on some input

  - by Adam Backstrom

  I'm attempting to understand how "switch as a code smell" applies when the proper code path is determined by some observable piece of data. My Webapp object sets an internal "host" object based on the hostname of the current request. Each Host subclass corresponds to one possible hostname and application configuration: WwwHost, ApiHost, etc. What is an OOP way for a host subclass to accept responsibility for a specific hostname, and for Webapp to get an instance of the appropriate subclass? Currently, the hostname check and Host instantiation exists within the Webapp object. I could move the test into a static method within the Host subclasses, but I would still need to explicitly list those subclasses in Webapp unless I restructure further. It seems like any solution will require new subclasses to be added to some centralized list.

  Read the article

• Is having 'Util' classes a cause for concern? [closed]

  - by Matt Fenwick

  I sometimes create 'Util' classes which primarily serve to hold methods and values that don't really seem to belong elsewhere. But every time I create one of these classes, I think "uh-oh, I'm gonna regret this later ...", because I read somewhere that it's bad. But on the other hand, there seem to be two compelling (at least for me) cases for them: implementation secrets that are used in multiple classes within a package providing useful functionality to augment a class, without cluttering its interface Am I on the way to destruction? What you say !! Should I refactor?

  Read the article

• How to deal with data on the model specific to the technology being used?

  - by user1620696

  There are some cases where some of the data on a class of the domain model of an application seems to be dependent on the technology being used. One example of this is the following: suppose we are building one application in .NET such that there's the need of an Employee class. Suppose further that we are going to implement relational database, then the Employee has a primary key right? So that the classe would be something like public class Employee { public int EmployeeID { get; set; } public string Name { get; set; } ... } Now, that EmployeeID is dependent on the technology right? That's something that has to do with the way we've choose to persist our data. Should we write down a class independent of such things? If we do it this way, how should we work? I think I would need to map all the time between domain model and persistence specific types, but I'm not sure.

  Read the article

• What if globals make sense?

  - by Greg

  I've got a value that many objects need. For example, a financial application with different investments as objects, and most of them need the current interest rate. I was hoping to encapsulate my "financial environment" as an object, with the interest rate as a property. But, sibling objects that need that value can't get to it. So how do I share values among many objects without over-coupling my design? Obviously I'm thinking about this wrong.

  Read the article

• Service layer coupling

  - by Justin

  I am working on writing a service layer for an order system in php. It's the typical scenario, you have an Order that can have multiple Line Items. So lets say a request is received to store a line item with pictures and comments. I might receive a json request such as { 'type': 'Bike', 'color': 'Red', 'commentIds': [3193,3194] 'attachmentIds': [123,413] } My idea was to have a Service_LineItem_Bike class that knows how to take the json data and store an entity for a bike. My question is, the Service_LineItem class now needs to fetch comments and file attachments, and store the relationships. Service_LineItem seems like it should interact with a Service_Comment and a Service_FileUpload. Should instances of these two other services be instantiated and passed to the Service_LineItem constructor,or set by getters and setters? Dependency injection seems like the right solution, allowing a service access to a 'service fetching helper' seems wrong, and this should stay at the application level. I am using Doctrine 2 as a ORM, and I can technically write a dql query inside Service_LineItem to fetch the comments and file uploads necessary for the association, but this seems like it would have a tighter coupling, rather then leaving this up to the right service object.

  Read the article

• How to verify the Liskov substitution principle in an inheritance hierarchy?

  - by Songo

  Inspired by this answer: Liskov Substitution Principle requires that Preconditions cannot be strengthened in a subtype. Postconditions cannot be weakened in a subtype. Invariants of the supertype must be preserved in a subtype. History constraint (the "history rule"). Objects are regarded as being modifiable only through their methods (encapsulation). Since subtypes may introduce methods that are not present in the supertype, the introduction of these methods may allow state changes in the subtype that are not permissible in the supertype. The history constraint prohibits this. I was hoping if someone would post a class hierarchy that violates these 4 points and how to solve them accordingly. I'm looking for an elaborate explanation for educational purposes on how to identify each of the 4 points in the hierarchy and the best way to fix it. Note: I was hoping to post a code sample for people to work on, but the question itself is about how to identify the faulty hierarchies :)

  Read the article

• What type of pattern would be used in this case

  - by Admiral Kunkka

  I want to know how to tackle this type of scenario. We are building a person's background, from scratch, and I want to know, conceptually, how to proceed with a secure object pattern in both design and execution... I've been reading on Factory patterns, Model-View-Controller types, Dependency injection, Singleton approaches... and I can't seem to grasp or 'fit' these types of designs decisions into what I'm trying to do.. First and foremost, I started with having a big jack-of-all-trades class, then I read some more, and some tips were to make sure your classes only have a single purpose.. which makes sense and I started breaking down certain things into other classes. Okay, cool. Now I'm looking at dependency injection and kind of didn't really know what's going on. Example/insight of what kind of heirarchy I need to accomplish... class Person needs to access and build from a multitude of different classes. class Culture needs to access a sub-class for culture benefits class Social needs to access class Culture, and other sub-classes class Birth needs to access Social, Culture, and other sub-classes class Childhood/Adolescence/Adulthood need to access everything. Also, depending on different rolls, this class heirarchy needs to create multiple people as well, such as Family, and their backgrounds using some, if not all, of these same classes. Think of it as a people generator, all random, with backgrounds and things that happen to them. Ageing, death of loved ones, military careers, e.t.c. Most of the generation is done randomly, making calls to a mt_rand function to pick from most of the selections inside the classes, guaranteeing the data to be absolutely random. I have most of the bulk-data down, and was looking for some insight from fellow programmers, what do you think?

  Read the article

• Easy to use JSON Web Service Hosts?

  - by Serguei Fedorov

  I saw this being used by someone in a college class once and cannot find anything that is analogous to it. I am not sure if this is the right place to ask about something like this, but hopefully I can get some direction. I want to write an app which uses web services that can obtain and push data back to the client apps. Right now I am gathering up the design and documentation of this app. Not having to code the web service myself would reduce development time by a lot; instead using an easy to setup web service that will be easy to setup and manage. Either XML based on JSON based is totally fine; though I would prefer JSON for its reduced overhead. Like I said I have seen this demonstrated before; you define the data structure to be stored and how it is treated. I cannot find the person who demonstrated this; hopefully maybe someone can suggest something? The service he used was free with a limited amount of requests allowed. EDIT: He was using an online service to do this not a script which is installed onto an existing web hosting account. Thank you!

  Read the article

• How to improve programming skills?

  - by Mike

  I'm very new to programming. I started learning PHP about half a year ago, so I do know something. I can write small functions, I can export and import information from a database and I can make a website. I don't know OOP principles and I don't know about objects and classes. Should I move to OOP principles and learn about classes, methods and objects? If not, what should I do? Continue writing simple code? How can a programmer write his/her own API? Is OOP necessary to do this? So how can i improve my skills? I love programming. I spend my 24/7 on it, so any help will be appreciated.

  Read the article

• Paradigms fit for UI programming

  - by Inca

  This is a more specific question (or actually two, but they are related) coming from the comments of OOP technology death where someone stated that OOP is not the right paradigm for GUI programming. Reading the comments there and here I still have the feeling there are things to learn: which programming paradigms are considered good fits and why are they better than others (perhaps with examples to illustrate?) I removed the tk-example from the title and question

  Read the article

• Law of Demeter confusion [duplicate]

  - by user2158382

  This question already has an answer here: Rails: Law of Demeter Confusion 4 answers I am reading a book called Rails AntiPatterns and they talk about using delegation to to avoid breaking the Law of Demeter. Here is their prime example: They believe that calling something like this in the controller is bad (and I agree) @street = @invoice.customer.address.street Their proposed solution is to do the following: class Customer has_one :address belongs_to :invoice def street address.street end end class Invoice has_one :customer def customer_street customer.street end end @street = @invoice.customer_street They are stating that since you only use one dot, you are not breaking the Law of Demeter here. I think this is incorrect, because you are still going through customer to go through address to get the invoice's street. I primarily got this idea from a blog post I read: http://www.dan-manges.com/blog/37 In the blog post the prime example is class Wallet attr_accessor :cash end class Customer has_one :wallet # attribute delegation def cash @wallet.cash end end class Paperboy def collect_money(customer, due_amount) if customer.cash < due_ammount raise InsufficientFundsError else customer.cash -= due_amount @collected_amount += due_amount end end end The blog post states that although there is only one dot customer.cash instead of customer.wallet.cash, this code still violates the Law of Demeter. Now in the Paperboy collect_money method, we don't have two dots, we just have one in "customer.cash". Has this delegation solved our problem? Not at all. If we look at the behavior, a paperboy is still reaching directly into a customer's wallet to get cash out. Can somebody help me clear the confusion. I have been searching for the past 2 days trying to let this topic sink in, but it is still confusing.

  Read the article

• Handling Types for Real and Complex Matrices in a BLAS Wrapper

  - by mga

  I come from a C background and I'm now learning OOP with C++. As an exercise (so please don't just say "this already exists"), I want to implement a wrapper for BLAS that will let the user write matrix algebra in an intuitive way (e.g. similar to MATLAB) e.g.: A = B*C*D.Inverse() + E.Transpose(); My problem is how to go about dealing with real (R) and complex (C) matrices, because of C++'s "curse" of letting you do the same thing in N different ways. I do have a clear idea of what it should look like to the user: s/he should be able to define the two separately, but operations would return a type depending on the types of the operands (R*R = R, C*C = C, R*C = C*R = C). Additionally R can be cast into C and vice versa (just by setting the imaginary parts to 0). I have considered the following options: As a real number is a special case of a complex number, inherit CMatrix from RMatrix. I quickly dismissed this as the two would have to return different types for the same getter function. Inherit RMatrix and CMatrix from Matrix. However, I can't really think of any common code that would go into Matrix (because of the different return types). Templates. Declare Matrix<T> and declare the getter function as T Get(int i, int j), and operator functions as Matrix *(Matrix RHS). Then specialize Matrix<double> and Matrix<complex>, and overload the functions. Then I couldn't really see what I would gain with templates, so why not just define RMatrix and CMatrix separately from each other, and then overload functions as necessary? Although this last option makes sense to me, there's an annoying voice inside my head saying this is not elegant, because the two are clearly related. Perhaps I'm missing an appropriate design pattern? So I guess what I'm looking for is either absolution for doing this, or advice on how to do better.

  Read the article

• Do objects maintain identity under all non-cloning conditions in PHP?

  - by Buttle Butkus

  PHP 5.5 I'm doing a bunch of passing around of objects with the assumption that they will all maintain their identities - that any changes made to their states from inside other objects' methods will continue to hold true afterwards. Am I assuming correctly? I will give my basic structure here. class builder { protected $foo_ids = array(); // set in construct protected $foo_collection; protected $bar_ids = array(); // set in construct protected $bar_collection; protected function initFoos() { $this->foo_collection = new FooCollection(); foreach($this->food_ids as $id) { $this->foo_collection->addFoo(new foo($id)); } } protected function initBars() { // same idea as initFoos } protected function wireFoosAndBars(fooCollection $foos, barCollection $bars) { // arguments are passed in using $this->foo_collection and $this->bar_collection foreach($foos as $foo_obj) { // (foo_collection implements IteratorAggregate) $bar_ids = $foo_obj->getAssociatedBarIds(); if(!empty($bar_ids) ) { $bar_collection = new barCollection(); // sub-collection to be a component of each foo foreach($bar_ids as $bar_id) { $bar_collection->addBar(new bar($bar_id)); } $foo_obj->addBarCollection($bar_collection); // now each foo_obj has a collection of bar objects, each of which is also in the main collection. Are they the same objects? } } } } What has me worried is that foreach supposedly works on a copy of its arrays. I want all the $foo and $bar objects to maintain their identities no matter which $collection object they become of a part of. Does that make sense?

  Read the article

• How to make a queue switches from FIFO mode to priority mode?

  - by enzom83

  I would like to implement a queue capable of operating both in the FIFO mode and in the priority mode. This is a message queue, and the priority is first of all based on the message type: for example, if the messages of A type have higher priority than the messages of the B type, as a consequence all messages of A type are dequeued first, and finally the messages of B type are dequeued. Priority mode: my idea consists of using multiple queues, one for each type of message; in this way, I can manage a priority based on the message type: just take first the messages from the queue at a higher priority and progressively from lower priority queues. FIFO mode: how to handle FIFO mode using multiple queues? In other words, the user does not see multiple queues, but it uses the queue as if it were a single queue, so that the messages leave the queue in the order they arrive when the priority mode is disabled. In order to achieve this second goal I have thought to use a further queue to manage the order of arrival of the types of messages: let me explain better with the following code snippet. int NUMBER_OF_MESSAGE_TYPES = 4; int CAPACITY = 50; Queue[] internalQueues = new Queue[NUMBER_OF_MESSAGE_TYPES]; Queue<int> queueIndexes = new Queue<int>(CAPACITY); void Enqueue(object message) { int index = ... // the destination queue (ie its index) is chosen according to the type of message. internalQueues[index].Enqueue(message); queueIndexes.Enqueue(index); } object Dequeue() { if (fifo_mode_enabled) { // What is the next type that has been enqueued? int index = queueIndexes.Dequeue(); return internalQueues[index].Dequeue(); } if (priority_mode_enabled) { for(int i=0; i < NUMBER_OF_MESSAGE_TYPES; i++) { int currentQueueIndex = i; if (!internalQueues[currentQueueIndex].IsEmpty()) { object result = internalQueues[currentQueueIndex].Dequeue(); // The following statement is fundamental to a subsequent switching // from priority mode to FIFO mode: the messages that have not been // dequeued (since they had lower priority) remain in the order in // which they were queued. queueIndexes.RemoveFirstOccurrence(currentQueueIndex); return result; } } } } What do you think about this idea? Are there better or more simple implementations?

  Read the article

• Breaking up classes and methods into smaller units

  - by micahhoover

  During code reviews a couple devs have recommended I break up my methods into smaller methods. Their justification was (1) increased readability and (2) the back trace that comes back from production showing the method name is more specific to the line of code that failed. There may have also been some colorful words about functional programming. Additionally I think I may have failed an interview a while back because I didn't give an acceptable answer about when to break things up. My inclination is that when I see a bunch of methods in a class or across a bunch of files, it isn't clear to me how they flow together, and how many times each one gets called. I don't really have a good feel for the linearity of it as quickly just by eye-balling it. The other thing is a lot of people seem to place a premium of organization over content (e.g. 'Look at how organized my sock drawer is!' Me: 'Overall, I think I can get to my socks faster if you count the time it took to organize them'). Our business requirements are not very stable. I'm afraid that if the classes/methods are very granular it will take longer to refactor to requirement changes. I'm not sure how much of a factor this should be. Anyway, computer science is part art / part science, but I'm not sure how much this applies to this issue.

  Read the article

• Is OOP hard because it is not natural?

  - by zvrba

  One can often hear that OOP naturally corresponds to the way people think about the world. But I would strongly disagree with this statement: We (or at least I) conceptualize the world in terms of relationships between things we encounter, but the focus of OOP is designing individual classes and their hierarchies. Note that, in everyday life, relationships and actions exist mostly between objects that would have been instances of unrelated classes in OOP. Examples of such relationships are: "my screen is on top of the table"; "I (a human being) am sitting on a chair"; "a car is on the road"; "I am typing on the keyboard"; "the coffee machine boils water", "the text is shown in the terminal window." We think in terms of bivalent (sometimes trivalent, as, for example in, "I gave you flowers") verbs where the verb is the action (relation) that operates on two objects to produce some result/action. The focus is on action, and the two (or three) [grammatical] objects have equal importance. Contrast that with OOP where you first have to find one object (noun) and tell it to perform some action on another object. The way of thinking is shifted from actions/verbs operating on nouns to nouns operating on nouns -- it is as if everything is being said in passive or reflexive voice, e.g., "the text is being shown by the terminal window". Or maybe "the text draws itself on the terminal window". Not only is the focus shifted to nouns, but one of the nouns (let's call it grammatical subject) is given higher "importance" than the other (grammatical object). Thus one must decide whether one will say terminalWindow.show(someText) or someText.show(terminalWindow). But why burden people with such trivial decisions with no operational consequences when one really means show(terminalWindow, someText)? [Consequences are operationally insignificant -- in both cases the text is shown on the terminal window -- but can be very serious in the design of class hierarchies and a "wrong" choice can lead to convoluted and hard to maintain code.] I would therefore argue that the mainstream way of doing OOP (class-based, single-dispatch) is hard because it IS UNNATURAL and does not correspond to how humans think about the world. Generic methods from CLOS are closer to my way of thinking, but, alas, this is not widespread approach. Given these problems, how/why did it happen that the currently mainstream way of doing OOP became so popular? And what, if anything, can be done to dethrone it?

  Read the article

• Fitting an established site into a CI framework

  - by David

  I manage a rather large, feature full nightmare of a site which has no end of feature creep settings/options/etc. Up to now its been coded in a procedural/functional way and would like to move to an OO,MVC setup. I'm quite new to it all but have done alot of research and feel that CodeIgniter is a code choice of framework to use to help quicken the transfer. Before looking at a framework, I started constructing a list of objects to create classes out of: photos users forum topics forums blogs blog posts comments The trouble I have now, is I do understand where these generic/universal objects fall into the CI MVC setup. What is the best way to organise this kind of stuff? These classes can generally be used on multiple models/views/controllers.

  Read the article

• Are injectable classes allowed to have constructor parameters in DI?

  - by Songo

  Given the following code: class ClientClass{ public function print(){ //some code to calculate $inputString $parser= new Parser($inputString); $result= $parser->parse(); } } class Parser{ private $inputString; public __construct($inputString){ $this->inputString=$inputString; } public function parse(){ //some code } } Now the ClientClass has dependency on class Parser. However, if I wanted to use Dependency Injection for unit testing it would cause a problem because now I can't send the input string to the parser constructor like before as its calculated inside ClientCalss itself: class ClientClass{ private $parser; public __construct(Parser $parser){ $this->parser=$parser; } public function print(){ //some code to calculate $inputString $result= $this->parser->parse(); //--> will throw an exception since no string was provided } } The only solution I found was to modify all my classes that took parameters in their constructors to utilize Setters instead (example: setInputString()). However, I think there might be a better solution than this because sometimes modifying existing classes can cause much harm than benefit. So, Are injectable classes not allowed to have input parameters? If a class must take input parameters in its constructor, what would be the way to inject it properly? UPDATE Just for clarification, the problem happens when in my production code I decide to do this: $clientClass= new ClientClass(new Parser($inputString));//--->I have no way to predict $inputString as it is calculated inside `ClientClass` itself. UPDATE 2 Again for clarification, I'm trying to find a general solution to the problem not for this example code only because some of my classes have 2, 3 or 4 parameters in their constructors not only one.

  Read the article

• Handling array passed to object at creation

  - by cecilli0n

  When creating my object I pass it an array of a row from my database. (everything in the array we will need, disregarding unnecessary elements at sql query level) When I need to access certain array elements from within my class, I do so like $this->row['element'] However, As I continue development, I sometimes forget what exactly is in this passed array.(this itself doesn't seem good) I am wondering if their is a professional approach to dealing with this, Or am I the only one who has these "I wonder whats in the array" thoughts. One approach to tackling this could be that when we originally pass the array, in the constructor, we assign each element of the array to its own variable, but is this considered professional practice? Additionally by doing this, we could make those variables constants, in a attempt at immutability. Overall I am trying to adhere to good software craftsmanship. Regards.

  Read the article

< Previous Page | 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52  | Next Page >