Search Results

Search found 37088 results on 1484 pages for 'object element'.

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

Page 46/1484 | < Previous Page | 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53  | Next Page >

  • Positioned element adding to total div height [migrated]

    - by Max
    I have a 800 x 600 rotatable image with forward and back buttons repositioned to the sides. The height of the div is suppose to be 600px, but the actual height of the div was pushed to 690, including the height of the button image. And the div was blocking a row of clickable menu on top. So I made the div height to 518px and moved top -75px to get the real dimension I want. But I feel dirty doing this... Is there a correct way to do this? Or is this workaround more or less correct? Below is the code. Thanks! <div class="Content Wide" id="LayoutColumn1"> <div style=" width: 980px; height: 518px; display: block; position: relative; float: left;"> <a href="#" onClick="prev();"><img src="/template/img/next_button.png" style="position: relative; top: 200px; left: 5px; z-index: 2;"></a> <a href="/chef-special/" id="mainLink"><img src="/template/img/chef_special_large.png" id="main" style="margin: 0 0 0 50px; position: relative; float: left; top: -75px; z-index: 1;"></a> <a href="#" onClick="next();"><img src="/template/img/next_button.png" style="position: relative; top: 200px; left: 787px; z-index: 2;"></a> </div> </div>

    Read the article

  • XML and XSD - use element name as replacement of xsi:type for polymorphism

    - by disown
    Taking the W3C vehicle XSD as an example: <schema xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema" targetNamespace="http://cars.example.com/schema" xmlns:target="http://cars.example.com/schema"> <complexType name="Vehicle" abstract="true"/> <complexType name="Car"> <complexContent> <extension base="target:Vehicle"/> ... </complexContent> </complexType> <complexType name="Plane"> <complexContent> <extension base="target:Vehicle"/> <sequence> <element name="wingspan" type="integer"/> </sequence> </complexContent> </complexType> </schema> , and the following definition of 'meansOfTravel': <complexType name="MeansOfTravel"> <complexContent> <sequence> <element name="transport" type="target:Vehicle"/> </sequence> </complexContent> </complexType> <element name="meansOfTravel" type="target:MeansOfTravel"/> With this definition you need to specify the type of your instance using xsi:type, like this: <meansOfTravel> <transport xsi:type="Plane"> <wingspan>3</wingspan> </transport> </meansOfTravel> I would just like to acheive a 'name of type' - 'name of element' mapping so that this could be replaced with just <meansOfTravel> <plane> <wingspan>3</wingspan> </plane> </meansOfTravel> The only way I could do this until now is by making it explicit: <complexType name="MeansOfTravel"> <sequence> <choice> <element name="plane" type="target:Plane"/> <element name="car" type="target:Car"/> </choice> </sequence> </complexType> <element name="meansOfTravel" type="target:MeansOfTravel"/> But this means that I have to list all possible sub-types in the 'MeansOfTravel' complex type. Is there no way of making the XML parser assume that you mean a 'Plane' if you call the element 'plane'? Or do I have to make the choice explicit? I would just like to keep my design DRY - if you have any other suggestions (like groups or so) - i would love to hear them.

    Read the article

  • How to check if JavaScript object is JSON

    - by Wei Hao
    I have a nested JSON object that I need to loop through, and the value of each key could be a String, JSON array or another JSON object. Depending on the type of object, I need to carry out different operations. Is there any way I can check the type of the object to see if it is a String, JSON object or JSON array? I tried using typeof and instanceof but both didn't seem to work, as typeof will return an object for both JSON object and array, and instanceof gives an error when I do obj instanceof JSON. To be more specific, after parsing the JSON into a JS object, is there any way I can check if it is a normal string, or an object with keys and values (from a JSON object), or an array (from a JSON array)? For example: JSON var data = {"hi": {"hello": ["hi1","hi2"] }, "hey":"words" } JavaScript var jsonObj = JSON.parse(data); var level1 = jsonObj.hi; var text = jsonObj.hey; var arr = level1.hello; //how to check if level1 was formerly a JSON object? //how to check if arr was formerly a JSON array? //how to check if text is a string?

    Read the article

  • Help with Java Generics: Cannot use "Object" as argument for "? extends Object"

    - by AniDev
    Hello, I have the following code: import java.util.*; public class SellTransaction extends Transaction { private Map<String,? extends Object> origValueMap; public SellTransaction(Map<String,? extends Object> valueMap) { super(Transaction.Type.Sell); assignValues(valueMap); this.origValueMap=valueMap; } public SellTransaction[] splitTransaction(double splitAtQuantity) { Map<String,? extends Object> valueMapPart1=origValueMap; valueMapPart1.put(nameMappings[3],(Object)new Double(splitAtQuantity)); Map<String,? extends Object> valueMapPart2=origValueMap; valueMapPart2.put(nameMappings[3],((Double)origValueMap.get(nameMappings[3]))-splitAtQuantity); return new SellTransaction[] {new SellTransaction(valueMapPart1),new SellTransaction(valueMapPart2)}; } } The code fails to compile when I call valueMapPart1.put and valueMapPart2.put, with the error: The method put(String, capture#5-of ? extends Object) in the type Map is not applicable for the arguments (String, Object) I have read on the Internet about generics and wildcards and captures, but I still don't understand what is going wrong. My understanding is that the value of the Map's can be any class that extends Object, which I think might be redundant, because all classes extend Object. And I cannot change the generics to something like ? super Object, because the Map is supplied by some library. So why is this not compiling? Also, if I try to cast valueMap to Map<String,Object>, the compiler gives me that 'Unchecked conversion' warning. Thanks!

    Read the article

  • Is it true that in most Object Oriented Programming Languages, an "i" in an instance method always r

    - by Jian Lin
    In the following code: <script type="text/javascript"> var i = 10; function Circle(radius) { this.r = radius; this.i = radius; } Circle.i = 123; Circle.prototype.area = function() { alert(i); } var c = new Circle(1); var a = c.area(); </script> What is being alerted? The answer is at the end of this question. I found that the i in the alert call either refers to any local (if any), or the global variable. There is no way that it can be the instance variable or the class variable even when there is no local and no global defined. To refer to the instance variable i, we need this.i, and to the class variable i, we need Circle.i. Is this actually true for almost all Object oriented programming languages? Any exception? Are there cases that when there is no local and no global, it will look up the instance variable and then the class variable scope? (or in this case, are those called scope?) the answer is: 10 is being alerted.

    Read the article

  • Convert enumerated records to php object

    - by Matt H
    I have a table containing a bunch of records like this: +-----------+--------+----------+ | extension | fwd_to | type | +-----------+--------+----------+ | 800 | 11111 | noanswer | | 800 | 12345 | uncond | | 800 | 22222 | unavail | | 800 | 54321 | busy | | 801 | 123 | uncond | +-----------+--------+----------+ etc The query looks like this: select fwd_to, type from forwards where extension='800'; Now I get back an array containing objects which look like the following when printed with Kohana::debug: (object) stdClass Object ( [fwd_to] => 11111 [type] => noanswer ) (object) stdClass Object ( [fwd_to] => 12345 [type] => uncond ) (object) stdClass Object ( [fwd_to] => 22222 [type] => unavail ) (object) stdClass Object ( [fwd_to] => 54321 [type] => busy ) What I'd like to do is convert this to an object of this form: (object) stdClass Object ( [busy] => 54321 [uncond] => 12345 [unavail] => 22222 [noanswer] => 11111 ) The reason being I want to then call json_encode on it. This will allow me to use jquery populate to populate a form. Is there a suggested way I can do this nicely? I'm fairly new to PHP and I'm sure this is easy but it's eluding me at the moment.

    Read the article

  • Simple form validation. Object-oriented.

    - by kalininew
    Problem statement: It is necessary for me to write a code, whether which before form sending will check all necessary fields are filled. If not all fields are filled, it is necessary to allocate with their red colour and not to send the form. Now the code exists in such kind: function formsubmit(formName, reqFieldArr){ var curForm = new formObj(formName, reqFieldArr); if(curForm.valid) curForm.send(); else curForm.paint(); } function formObj(formName, reqFieldArr){ var filledCount = 0; var fieldArr = new Array(); for(i=reqFieldArr.length-1; i>=0; i--){ fieldArr[i] = new fieldObj(formName, reqFieldArr[i]); if(fieldArr[i].filled == true) filledCount++; } if(filledCount == fieldArr.length) this.valid = true; else this.valid = false; this.paint = function(){ for(i=fieldArr.length-1; i>=0; i--){ if(fieldArr[i].filled == false) fieldArr[i].paintInRed(); else fieldArr[i].unPaintInRed(); } } this.send = function(){ document.forms[formName].submit(); } } function fieldObj(formName, fName){ var curField = document.forms[formName].elements[fName]; if(curField.value != '') this.filled = true; else this.filled = false; this.paintInRed = function(){ curField.addClassName('red'); } this.unPaintInRed = function(){ curField.removeClassName('red'); } } Function is caused in such a way: <input type="button" onClick="formsubmit('orderform', ['name', 'post', 'payer', 'recipient', 'good'])" value="send" /> Now the code works. But I would like to add "dynamism" in it. That it is necessary for me: to keep an initial code essentially, to add listening form fields (only necessary for filling). For example, when the field is allocated by red colour and the user starts it to fill, it should become white. As a matter of fact I need to add listening of events: onChange, blur for the blank fields of the form. As it to make within the limits of an initial code. If all my code - full nonsense, let me know about it. As to me it to change using object-oriented the approach.

    Read the article

  • Serialize JavaScript's navigator object

    - by kappa
    Hi, I'm creating a page to help diagnose the problem our users are experiencing with our web pages (you know, asking a user "What browser are you using?" usually leads to "Internet"). This page already submits to me all the HTTP headers and now I'm trying to have JavaScript give some more informations, so I thought it would be great to have the user's navigator JavaScript object and I started looking how to serialize it so I can submit it through a form. The problem is I'm not able to serialize the navigator object using any JSON library I know of, everyone returns an empty object (?!), so I decided to write an ad-hoc serializer. You can find the code here: <!DOCTYPE html> <html> <head> <script src="https://ajax.googleapis.com/ajax/libs/jquery/1.5.0/jquery.min.js" type="text/javascript"></script> <script type="text/javascript"> function serialize (object) { var type = typeof object; if (object === null) { return '"nullValue"'; } if (type == 'string' || type === 'number' || type === 'boolean') { return '"' + object + '"'; } else if (type === 'function') { return '"functionValue"'; } else if (type === 'object') { var output = '{'; for (var item in object) { if (item !== 'enabledPlugin') { output += '"' + item + '":' + serialize(object[item]) + ','; } } return output.replace(/\,$/, '') + '}'; } else if (type === 'undefined') { return '"undefinedError"'; } else { return '"unknownTypeError"'; } }; $(document).ready(function () { $('#navigator').text(serialize(navigator)); }); </script> <style type="text/css"> #navigator { font-family: monospaced; } </style> <title>Serialize</title> </head> <body> <h1>Serialize</h1> <p id="navigator"></p> </body> </html> This code seems to work perfectly in Firefox, Opera, Chrome and Safari but (obviously) doesn't work in Internet Explorer (at least version 8.0), it complains that "Property or method not supported by the object" at line for (var item in object) {. Do you have any hint on how to fix the code or how to reach the goal (serialize the navigator object) by other means?

    Read the article

  • C#: Object having two constructors: how to limit which properties are set together?

    - by Dr. Zim
    Say you have a Price object that accepts either an (int quantity, decimal price) or a string containing "4/$3.99". Is there a way to limit which properties can be set together? Feel free to correct me in my logic below. The Test: A and B are equal to each other, but the C example should not be allowed. Thus the question How to enforce that all three parameters are not invoked as in the C example? AdPrice A = new AdPrice { priceText = "4/$3.99"}; // Valid AdPrice B = new AdPrice { qty = 4, price = 3.99m}; // Valid AdPrice C = new AdPrice { qty = 4, priceText = "2/$1.99", price = 3.99m};// Not The class: public class AdPrice { private int _qty; private decimal _price; private string _priceText; The constructors: public AdPrice () : this( qty: 0, price: 0.0m) {} // Default Constructor public AdPrice (int qty = 0, decimal price = 0.0m) { // Numbers only this.qty = qty; this.price = price; } public AdPrice (string priceText = "0/$0.00") { // String only this.priceText = priceText; } The Methods: private void SetPriceValues() { var matches = Regex.Match(_priceText, @"^\s?((?<qty>\d+)\s?/)?\s?[$]?\s?(?<price>[0-9]?\.?[0-9]?[0-9]?)"); if( matches.Success) { if (!Decimal.TryParse(matches.Groups["price"].Value, out this._price)) this._price = 0.0m; if (!Int32.TryParse(matches.Groups["qty"].Value, out this._qty)) this._qty = (this._price > 0 ? 1 : 0); else if (this._price > 0 && this._qty == 0) this._qty = 1; } } private void SetPriceString() { this._priceText = (this._qty > 1 ? this._qty.ToString() + '/' : "") + String.Format("{0:C}",this.price); } The Accessors: public int qty { get { return this._qty; } set { this._qty = value; this.SetPriceString(); } } public decimal price { get { return this._price; } set { this._price = value; this.SetPriceString(); } } public string priceText { get { return this._priceText; } set { this._priceText = value; this.SetPriceValues(); } } }

    Read the article

  • facebook open graph meta property og:type of 'website'. The property 'object-name' requires an object of og:type 'object-name'

    - by chinmayahd
    in cake php 1.3 in view ctp i have follow code: $url = 'http://example.com/exmp/explus/books/view/'.$book['Book']['id']; echo $this->Html->meta(array('property' => 'fb:app_id', 'content' => '*******'),'',array('inline'=>false)); echo $this->Html->meta(array('property' => 'og:type', 'content' => 'book'),'',array('inline'=>false)); echo $this->Html->meta(array('property' => 'og:url', 'content' => $url ),'',array('inline'=>false)); echo $this->Html->meta(array('property' => 'og:title', 'content' => $book['Book']['title']),'',array('inline'=>false)); echo $this->Html->meta(array('property' => 'og:description', 'content' => $book['Book']['title']),'',array('inline'=>false)); $imgurl = '../image/'.$book['Book']['id']; echo $this->Html->meta(array('property' => 'og:image', 'content' => $imgurl ),'',array('inline'=>false)); ?> and it gives the following error when i am posting it' { "error": { "message": "(#3502) Object at URL http://example.com/exmp/explus/books/view/234' has og:type of 'website'. The property 'book' requires an object of og:type 'book'. ", "type": "OAuthException", "code": 3502 } } is any one know how to solve it?

    Read the article

  • Web workflow solution - how should I approach the design?

    - by Tom Pickles
    We've been tasked with creating a web based workflow tool to track change management. It has a single workflow with multiple synchronous tasks for the most part, but branch out at a point to tasks running in parallel which meet up later on. There will be all sorts of people using the application, and all of them will need to see their outstanding tasks for each change, but only theirs, not others. There will also be a high level group of people who oversee all changes, so need to see everything. They will need to see tasks which have not been done in the specified time, who's responsible etc. The data will be persisted to a SQL database. It'll all be put together using .Net. I've been trying to learn and implement OOP into my designs of late, but I'm wondering if this is moot in this instance as it may be better to have the business logic for this in stored procedures in the DB. I could use POCO's, a front end layer and a data access layer for the web application and just use it as a mechanism for CRUD actions on the DB, then use SP's fired in the DB to apply the business rules. On the other hand, I could use an object oriented design within the web app, but as the data in the app is state-less, is this a bad idea? I could try and model out the whole application into a class structure, implementing interfaces, base classes and all that good stuff. So I would create a change class, which contained a list of task classes/types, which defined each task, and implement an ITask interface etc. Put end-user types into the tasks to identify who should be doing what task. Then apply all the business logic in the respective class methods etc. What approach do you guys think I should be using for this solution?

    Read the article

  • When too much encapsulation was reached

    - by Samuel
    Recently, I read a lot of gook articles about how to do a good encapsulation. And when I say "good encapsulation", I don't talk about hiding private fields with public properties; I talk about preventing users of your Api to do wrong things. Here is two good articles about this subject: http://blog.ploeh.dk/2011/05/24/PokayokeDesignFromSmellToFragrance.aspx http://lostechies.com/derickbailey/2011/03/28/encapsulation-youre-doing-it-wrong/ At my job, the majority a our applications are not destined to other programmers but rather to the customers. About 80% of the application code is at the top of the structure (Not used by other code). For this reason, there is probably no chance ever that this code will be used by other application. An example of encapsulation that prevent user to do wrong thing with your Api is to return an IEnumerable instead of IList when you don't want to give the ability to the user to add or remove items in the list. My question is: When encapsulation could be considered like too much of purism object oriented programming while keeping in mind that each hour of programming is charged to the customer? I want to do good code that is maintainable, easy to read and to use but when this is not a public Api (Used by other programmer), where could we put the line between perfect code and not so perfect code? Thank you.

    Read the article

  • Manager/Container class vs static class methods

    - by Ben
    Suppose I a have a Widget class that is part of a framework used independently by many applications. I create Widget instances in many situations and their lifetimes vary. In addition to Widget's instance specified methods, I would like to be able to perform the follow class wide operations: Find a single Widget instance based on a unique id Iterate over the list of all Widgets Remove a widget from the set of all widgets In order support these operations, I have been considering two approaches: Container class - Create some container or manager class, WidgetContainer, which holds a list of all Widget instances, support iteration and provides methods for Widget addition, removal and lookup. For example in C#: public class WidgetContainer : IEnumerable<Widget { public void AddWidget(Widget); public Widget GetWidget(WidgetId id); public void RemoveWidget(WidgetId id); } Static class methods - Add static class methods to Widget. For example: public class Widget { public Widget(WidgetId id); public static Widget GetWidget(WidgetId id); public static void RemoveWidget(WidgetId id); public static IEnumerable<Widget AllWidgets(); } Using a container class has the added problem of how to access the container class. Make it a singleton?..yuck! Create some World object that provides access to all such container classes? I have seen many frameworks that use the container class approach, so what is the general consensus?

    Read the article

  • Is comparing an OO compiler to a SQL compiler/optimizer valid?

    - by Brad
    I'm now doing a lot of SQL development at my new job where as before I was doing Object Oriented desktop app stuff. I keep running across very large scripts (thousands of lines) and wanting to refactor in some way. I am seeing that SQL is a different sort of beast and it's probably fine to have these big scripts for the most part but while explaining this to me people are also insisting that the whole idea of refactoring is bad. That stuff like the .NET compiler are actually burdened by refactored code and that a big wall of code is more efficient and better design than code designed for reuse, readability and scalability. The other argument is that OO compilers are almost dangerously inefficient and don't have efficient memory management or runs too many CPU instructions compared to older "simpler" compilers and compared to SQL. Are these valid complaints? Even if some compiler like a C compiler is modestly more "efficient" (whatever that means on this high of a level without seeing code) would you want to write applications in C over C# or Java? Is comparing an OO compiler to a SQL compiler/optimizer even valid?

    Read the article

  • jQuery addClass to a tag problem

    - by lander
    I have this in my html code: <ul id="navlist" <li id="tabItem1"><a href="#">Item one</a></li> <li id="tabItem2"><a href="#">Item two</a></li> <li id="tabItem3"><a href="#">Item three</a></li> <li id="tabItem4"><a href="#">Item four</a></li> </ul> I want to add a class to the a element with jquery like this: (its not working) var currentTab = 1; $(document).ready(function() { $("li#tabItem" + currentTab + ":has(a)").addClass("navlistHover"); //console.log("li#tabItem" + currentTab + ":has(a)"); }); When a delete the a element and do it like the next example, than there is no problem. $("li#tabItem" + currentTab).addClass("navlistHover");

    Read the article

  • Getting rid of Massive View Controller in iOS?

    - by Earl Grey
    I had a discussion with my colleague about the following problem. We have an application where we need filtering functionality. On any main screen within the upper navigation bar, there is a button in the upper right corner. Once you touch that button, an custom written Alert View like view will pop up modally, behind it a semitransparent black overlay view. In that modal view, there is a table view of options, and you can choose one exclusively. Based on your selection, once this modal view is closed, the list of items in the main view is filtered. It is simply a modally presented filter to filter the main table view.This UI design is dictated by the design department, I cannot do anything about it so let accept this as a premise. Also the main filter button in the navbar will change colours to indicate that the filter is active. The question I have is about implementation. I suggested to my colleague that we create a separate XYZFilter class that will be an instance created by the main view controller acquire the filtering options handle saving and restoration of its state - i.e. last filter selected provide its two views - the overlay view and the modal view be the datasource for the table in its modal view. For some unknown reason, my colleague was not impressed by that approach at all. He simply wants to do these functionalities in the main view controller, maybe out of being used to do this in the past like that :-/ Is there any fundamental problem with my approach? I want to keep the view controller small, not to have spaghetti code create a reusable component (for use outside the project) have more object oriented, decoupled approach. prevent duplication of code as we need the filtering in two different places but it looks the same in both.. Any advice?

    Read the article

  • Architectural Composition Languages

    - by C. Lawrence Wenham
    Recently stumbled upon this paper (PDF) talking about ACLs, or Architectural Composition Languages. They're a fusion of two earlier lines of research: Architectural Definition Languages (such as UML) and Object Composition Languages (such as XAML, WWF, or scripting languages). The goal of an ACL is to have a high-level description of a program's architecture which can also be compiled into a runnable program. The high-level description assists automated analysis, while the 'executability' means changes can be tested immediately. You would still author the components of the program in a conventional programming language (C, Java, Python, etc), but they would be composed into a complete program by the ACL. One of the expected benefits is that a program can be ported to a different platform by swapping in "similar but different" components. I've been hankering for something like this for a long time (see this answer I gave on a StackOverflow question a few years ago). The paper mentions that the researchers were working on a language called ACL/1 that initially targeted Java, but would be ported to support .Net as well. However, I can't find any more mention of ACL/1 anywhere. Has there been any more work done on this? Are there any other implementations of the ACL concept that are available for use or experimentation?

    Read the article

  • What is the ideal length of a method?

    - by iPhoneDeveloper
    In object-oriented programming, there is no exact rule on the maximum length of a method , but I still found these two qutes somewhat contradicting each other, so I would like to hear what you think. In Clean Code: A Handbook of Agile Software Craftsmanship, Robert Martin says: The first rule of functions is that they should be small. The second rule of functions is that they should be smaller than that. Functions should not be 100 lines long. Functions should hardly ever be 20 lines long. and he gives an example from Java code he sees from Kent Beck: Every function in his program was just two, or three, or four lines long. Each was transparently obvious. Each told a story. And each led you to the next in a compelling order. That’s how short your functions should be! This sounds great, but on the other hand, in Code Complete, Steve McConnell says something very different: The routine should be allowed to grow organically up to 100-200 lines, decades of evidence say that routines of such length no more error prone then shorter routines. And he gives a reference to a study that says routines 65 lines or long are cheaper to develop. So while there are diverging opinions about the matter, is there a functional best-practice towards determining the ideal length of a method for you?

    Read the article

  • How to drastically improve code coverage?

    - by Peter Kofler
    I'm tasked with getting a legacy application under unit test. First some background about the application: It's a 600k LOC Java RCP code base with these major problems massive code duplication no encapsulation, most private data is accessible from outside, some of the business data also made singletons so it's not just changeable from outside but also from everywhere. no business model, business data is stored in Object[] and double[][], so no OO. There is a good regression test suite and an efficient QA team is testing and finding bugs. I know the techniques how to get it under test from classic books, e.g. Michael Feathers, but that's too slow. As there is a working regression test system I'm not afraid to aggressively refactor the system to allow unit tests to be written. How should I start to attack the problem to get some coverage quickly, so I'm able to show progress to management (and in fact to start earning from safety net of JUnit tests)? I do not want to employ tools to generate regression test suites, e.g. AgitarOne, because these tests do not test if something is correct.

    Read the article

  • Teaching OO to VBA developers [closed]

    - by Eugene
    I work with several developers that come from less object oriented background like (VB6, VBA) and are mostly self-taught. As part of moving away from those technologies we recently we started having weekly workshops to go over the features of C#.NET and OO practices and design principles. After a couple of weeks of basic introduction I noticed that they had a lot of problems implementing even basic code. For instance it took probably 15 minutes to implement a Stack.push() and a full hour to implement a simple Stack fully. These developers were trying to do things like passing top index as a parameter to the method, not creating an private array, using variables out of scope. But most of all not going through the "design (dia/mono)log" (I need something to do X, so maybe I'll make an array, or put it here). I am a little confused because they are smart people and are able to produce functional code in their traditional environments. I'm curious if anybody else has encountered a similar thing and if there are any particular resources, exercises, books, ideas that would be helpful in this circumstance.

    Read the article

  • Inheritance vs composition in this example

    - by Gerenuk
    I'm wondering about the differences between inheritance and composition examined with concrete code relevant arguments. In particular my example was Inheritance: class Do: def do(self): self.doA() self.doB() def doA(self): pass def doB(self): pass class MyDo(Do): def doA(self): print("A") def doB(self): print("B") x=MyDo() vs Composition: class Do: def __init__(self, a, b): self.a=a self.b=b def do(self): self.a.do() self.b.do() x=Do(DoA(), DoB()) (Note for composition I'm missing code so it's not actually shorter) Can you name particular advantages of one or the other? I'm think of: composition is useful if you plan to reuse DoA() in another context inheritance seems easier; no additional references/variables/initialization method doA can access internal variable (be it a good or bad thing :) ) inheritance groups logic A and B together; even though you could equally introduce a grouped delegate object inheritance provides a preset class for the users; with composition you'd have to encapsule the initialization in a factory so that the user does have to assemble the logic and the skeleton ... Basically I'd like to examine the implications of inheritance vs composition. I heard often composition is prefered, but I'd like to understand that by example. Of course I can always start with one and refactor later to the other.

    Read the article

  • Is creating a separate pool for each individual image created from a png appropriate?

    - by Panzercrisis
    I'm still possibly a little green about object-pooling, and I want to make sure something like this is a sound design pattern before really embarking upon it. Take the following code (which uses the Starling framework in ActionScript 3): [Embed(source = "/../assets/images/game/misc/red_door.png")] private const RED_DOOR:Class; private const RED_DOOR_TEXTURE:Texture = Texture.fromBitmap(new RED_DOOR()); private const m_vRedDoorPool:Vector.<Image> = new Vector.<Image>(50, true); . . . public function produceRedDoor():Image { // get a Red Door image } public function retireRedDoor(pImage:Image):void { // retire a Red Door Image } Except that there are four colors: red, green, blue, and yellow. So now we have a separate pool for each color, a separate produce function for each color, and a separate retire function for each color. Additionally there are several items in the game that follow this 4-color pattern, so for each of them, we have four pools, four produce functions, and four retire functions. There are more colors involved in the images themselves than just their predominant one, so trying to throw all the doors, for instance, in a single pool, and then changing their color properties around isn't going to work. Also the nonexistence of the static keyword is due to its slowness in AS3. Is this the right way to do things?

    Read the article

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

< Previous Page | 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53  | Next Page >