Search Results

Search found 185180 results on 7408 pages for 'object not callable'.

Page 47/7408 | < Previous Page | 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54  | Next Page >

• OOP - Composition, Components and Composites Example?

  - by coder3

  I've been reading a bit about OOP in relation to Composition, Components and Composites. I believe I understand the fundamental principle (not sure). Can some one please provide a code example of a person or car (both have many properties) using Composition, Components and Composites. I think seeing it in code would clear up the confusion I have regarding this pattern. Preferably in Java or PHP - many thanks!

  Read the article

• Basis of definitions

  - by Yttrill

  Let us suppose we have a set of functions which characterise something: in the OO world methods characterising a type. In mathematics these are propositions and we have two kinds: axioms and lemmas. Axioms are assumptions, lemmas are easily derived from them. In C++ axioms are pure virtual functions. Here's the problem: there's more than one way to axiomatise a system. Given a set of propositions or methods, a subset of the propositions which is necessary and sufficient to derive all the others is called a basis. So too, for methods or functions, we have a desired set which must be defined, and typically every one has one or more definitions in terms of the others, and we require the programmer to provide instance definitions which are sufficient to allow all the others to be defined, and, if there is an overspecification, then it is consistent. Let me give an example (in Felix, Haskell code would be similar): class Eq[t] { virtual fun ==(x:t,y:t):bool => eq(x,y); virtual fun eq(x:t, y:t)=> x == y; virtual fun != (x:t,y:t):bool => not (x == y); axiom reflex(x:t): x == x; axiom sym(x:t, y:t): (x == y) == (y == x); axiom trans(x:t, y:t, z:t): implies(x == y and y == z, x == z); } Here it is clear: the programmer must define either == or eq or both. If both are defined, the definitions must be equivalent. Failing to define one doesn't cause a compiler error, it causes an infinite loop at run time. Defining both inequivalently doesn't cause an error either, it is just inconsistent. Note the axioms specified constrain the semantics of any definition. Given a definition of == either directly or via a definition of eq, then != is defined automatically, although the programmer might replace the default with something more efficient, clearly such an overspecification has to be consistent. Please note, == could also be defined in terms of !=, but we didn't do that. A characterisation of a partial or total order is more complex. It is much more demanding since there is a combinatorial explosion of possible bases. There is an reason to desire overspecification: performance. There also another reason: choice and convenience. So here, there are several questions: one is how to check semantics are obeyed and I am not looking for an answer here (way too hard!). The other question is: How can we specify, and check, that an instance provides at least a basis? And a much harder question: how can we provide several default definitions which depend on the basis chosen?

  Read the article

• Turning your code inside out (functional style) compared to a OO paradigm

  - by Acaz Souza

  I have find this article Turning Your Code Inside Out and I want to know how this approach described in article is for OO programmers/languages. Is this style of design used in OO programmers/languages? What's downsides and goodsides of this approach in a OO language? Update: OO objects have state and behavior, the design explained in article is stateless. Is not only Single Responsability Principle. (If I'm talking shit, please explain to me instead of only downside/close votes)

  Read the article

• How did you get good practices for your OOP designs?

  - by Darf Zon

  I realized I have a difficulty creating OOP designs. I spent many time deciding if this property is correctly set it to X class. For example, this is a post which has a few days: http://codereview.stackexchange.com/questions/8041/how-to-improve-my-factory-design I'm not convinced of my code. So I want to improve my designs, take less time creating it. How did you learn creating good designs? Some books that you can recommend me?

  Read the article

• Liskov principle: violation by type-hinting

  - by Elias Van Ootegem

  According to the Liskov principle, a construction like the one below is invalid, as it strengthens a pre-condition. I know the example is pointless/nonsense, but when I last asked a question like this, and used a more elaborate code sample, it seemed to distract people too much from the actual question. //Data models abstract class Argument { protected $value = null; public function getValue() { return $this->value; } abstract public function setValue($val); } class Numeric extends Argument { public function setValue($val) { $this->value = $val + 0;//coerce to number return $this; } } //used here: abstract class Output { public function printValue(Argument $arg) { echo $this->format($arg); return $this; } abstract public function format(Argument $arg); } class OutputNumeric extends Output { public function format(Numeric $arg)//<-- VIOLATION! { $format = is_float($arg->getValue()) ? '%.3f' : '%d'; return sprintf($format, $arg->getValue()); } } My question is this: Why would this kind of "violation" be considered harmful? So much so that some languages, like the one I used in this example (PHP), don't even allow this? I'm not allowed to strengthen the type-hint of an abstract method but, by overriding the printValue method, I am allowed to write: class OutputNumeric extends Output { final public function printValue(Numeric $arg) { echo $this->format($arg); } public function format(Argument $arg) { $format = is_float($arg->getValue()) ? '%.3f' : '%d'; return sprintf($format, $arg->getValue()); } } But this would imply repeating myself for each and every child of Output, and makes my objects harder to reuse. I understand why the Liskov principle exists, don't get me wrong, but I find it somewhat difficult to fathom why the signature of an abstract method in an abstract class has to be adhered to so much stricter than a non-abstract method. Could someone explain to me why I'm not allowed to hind at a child class, in a child class? The way I see it, the child class OutputNumeric is a specific use-case of Output, and thus might need a specific instance of Argument, namely Numeric. Is it really so wrong of me to write code like this?

  Read the article

• As a tooling/automation developer, can I be making better use of OOP?

  - by Tom Pickles

  My time as a developer (~8 yrs) has been spent creating tooling/automation of one sort or another. The tools I develop usually interface with one or more API's. These API's could be win32, WMI, VMWare, a help-desk application, LDAP, you get the picture. The apps I develop could be just to pull back data and store/report. It could be to provision groups of VM's to create live like mock environments, update a trouble ticket etc. I've been developing in .Net and I'm currently reading into design patterns and trying to think about how I can improve my skills to make better use of and increase my understanding of OOP. For example, I've never used an interface of my own making in anger (which is probably not a good thing), because I honestly cannot identify where using one would benefit later on when modifying my code. My classes are usually very specific and I don't create similar classes with similar properties/methods which could use a common interface (like perhaps a car dealership or shop application might). I generally use an n-tier approach to my apps, having a presentation layer, a business logic/manager layer which interfaces with layer(s) that make calls to the API's I'm working with. My business entities are always just method-less container objects, which I populate with data and pass back and forth between my API interfacing layer using static methods to proxy/validate between the front and the back end. My code by nature of my work, has few common components, at least from what I can see. So I'm struggling to see how I can better make use of OOP design and perhaps reusable patterns. Am I right to be concerned that I could be being smarter about how I work, or is what I'm doing now right for my line of work? Or, am I missing something fundamental in OOP? EDIT: Here is some basic code to show how my mgr and api facing layers work. I use static classes as they do not persist any data, only facilitate moving it between layers. public static class MgrClass { public static bool PowerOnVM(string VMName) { // Perform logic to validate or apply biz logic // call APIClass to do the work return APIClass.PowerOnVM(VMName); } } public static class APIClass { public static bool PowerOnVM(string VMName) { // Calls to 3rd party API to power on a virtual machine // returns true or false if was successful for example } }

  Read the article

• Should I use JavaFx properties?

  - by Mike G

  I'm usually very careful to keep my Model, View, and Controller code separate. The thing is JavaFx properties are so convenient to bind them all together. The issue is that it makes my entire code design dependent on JavaFx, which I feel I should not being doing. I should be able to change the view without changing too much of the model and controller. So should I ignore the convenience of JavaFx properties, or should I embrace them and the fact that it reduces my codes flexibility.

  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

• Updating an Entity through a Service

  - by GeorgeK

  I'm separating my software into three main layers (maybe tiers would be a better term): Presentation ('Views') Business logic ('Services' and 'Repositories') Data access ('Entities' (e.g. ActiveRecords)) What do I have now? In Presentation, I use read-only access to Entities, returned from Repositories or Services, to display data. $banks = $banksRegistryService->getBanksRepository()->getBanksByCity( $city ); $banksViewModel = new PaginatedList( $banks ); // some way to display banks; // example, not real code I find this approach quite efficient in terms of performance and code maintanability and still safe as long as all write operations (create, update, delete) are preformed through a Service: namespace Service\BankRegistry; use Service\AbstractDatabaseService; use Service\IBankRegistryService; use Model\BankRegistry\Bank; class Service extends AbstractDatabaseService implements IBankRegistryService { /** * Registers a new Bank * * @param string $name Bank's name * @param string $bik Bank's Identification Code * @param string $correspondent_account Bank's correspondent account * * @return Bank */ public function registerBank( $name, $bik, $correspondent_account ) { $bank = new Bank(); $bank -> setName( $name ) -> setBik( $bik ) -> setCorrespondentAccount( $correspondent_account ); if( null === $this->getBanksRepository()->getDefaultBank() ) $this->setDefaultBank( $bank ); $this->getEntityManager()->persist( $bank ); return $bank; } /** * Makes the $bank system's default bank * * @param Bank $bank * @return IBankRegistryService */ public function setDefaultBank( Bank $bank ) { $default_bank = $this->getBanksRepository()->getDefaultBank(); if( null !== $default_bank ) $default_bank->setDefault( false ); $bank->setDefault( true ); return $this; } } Where am I stuck? I'm struggling about how to update certain fields in Bank Entity. Bad solution #1: Making a series of setters in Service for each setter in Bank; - seems to be quite reduntant, increases Service interface complexity and proportionally decreases it's simplicity - something to avoid if you care about code maitainability. I try to follow KISS and DRY principles. Bad solution #2: Modifying Bank directly through it's native setters; - really bad. If you'll ever need to move modification into the Service, it will be pain. Business logic should remain in Business logic layer. Plus, there are plans on logging all of the actions and maybe even involve user permissions (perhaps, through decorators) in future, so all modifications should be made only through the Service. Possible good solution: Creating an updateBank( Bank $bank, $array_of_fields_to_update) method; - makes the interface as simple as possible, but there is a problem: one should not try to manually set isDefault flag on a Bank, this operation should be performed through setDefaultBank method. It gets even worse when you have relations that you don't want to be directly modified. Of course, you can just limit the fields that can be modified by this method, but how do you tell method's user what they can and cannot modify? Exceptions?

  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

• How far should an entity take care of its properties values by itself?

  - by Kharlos Dominguez

  Let's consider the following example of a class, which is an entity that I'm using through Entity Framework. - InvoiceHeader - BilledAmount (property, decimal) - PaidAmount (property, decimal) - Balance (property, decimal) I'm trying to find the best approach to keep Balance updated, based on the values of the two other properties (BilledAmount and PaidAmount). I'm torn between two practices here: Updating the balance amount every time BilledAmount and PaidAmount are updated (through their setters) Having a UpdateBalance() method that the callers would run on the object when appropriate. I am aware that I can just calculate the Balance in its getter. However, it isn't really possible because this is an entity field that needs to be saved back to the database, where it has an actual column, and where the calculated amount should be persisted to. My other worry about the automatically updating approach is that the calculated values might be a little bit different from what was originally saved to the database, due to rounding values (an older version of the software, was using floats, but now decimals). So, loading, let's say 2000 entities from the database could change their status and make the ORM believe that they have changed and be persisted back to the database the next time the SaveChanges() method is called on the context. It would trigger a mass of updates that I am not really interested in, or could cause problems, if the calculation methods changed (the entities fetched would lose their old values to be replaced by freshly recalculated ones, simply by being loaded). Then, let's take the example even further. Each invoice has some related invoice details, which also have BilledAmount, PaidAmount and Balance (I'm simplifying my actual business case for the sake of the example, so let's assume the customer can pay each item of the invoice separately rather than as a whole). If we consider the entity should take care of itself, any change of the child details should cause the Invoice totals to change as well. In a fully automated approach, a simple implementation would be looping through each detail of the invoice to recalculate the header totals, every time one the property changes. It probably would be fine for just a record, but if a lot of entities were fetched at once, it could create a significant overhead, as it would perform this process every time a new invoice detail record is fetched. Possibly worse, if the details are not already loaded, it could cause the ORM to lazy-load them, just to recalculate the balances. So far, I went with the Update() method-way, mainly for the reasons I explained above, but I wonder if it was right. I'm noticing I have to keep calling these methods quite often and at different places in my code and it is potential source of bugs. It also has a detrimental effect on data-binding because when the properties of the detail or header changes, the other properties are left out of date and the method has no way to be called. What is the recommended approach in this case?

  Read the article

• Should library classes be wrapped before using them in unit testing?

  - by Songo

  I'm doing unit testing and in one of my classes I need to send a mail from one of the methods, so using constructor injection I inject an instance of Zend_Mail class which is in Zend framework. Example: class Logger{ private $mailer; function __construct(Zend_Mail $mail){ $this->mail=$mail; } function toBeTestedFunction(){ //Some code $this->mail->setTo('some value'); $this->mail->setSubject('some value'); $this->mail->setBody('some value'); $this->mail->send(); //Some } } However, Unit testing demands that I test one component at a time, so I need to mock the Zend_Mail class. In addition I'm violating the Dependency Inversion principle as my Logger class now depends on concretion not abstraction. Does that mean that I can never use a library class directly and must always wrap it in a class of my own? Example: interface Mailer{ public function setTo($to); public function setSubject($subject); public function setBody($body); public function send(); } class MyMailer implements Mailer{ private $mailer; function __construct(){ $this->mail=new Zend_Mail; //The class isn't injected this time } function setTo($to){ $this->mailer->setTo($to); } //implement the rest of the interface functions similarly } And now my Logger class can be happy :D class Logger{ private $mailer; function __construct(Mailer $mail){ $this->mail=$mail; } //rest of the code unchanged } Questions: Although I solved the mocking problem by introducing an interface, I have created a totally new class Mailer that now needs to be unit tested although it only wraps Zend_Mail which is already unit tested by the Zend team. Is there a better approach to all this? Zend_Mail's send() function could actually have a Zend_Transport object when called (i.e. public function send($transport = null)). Does this make the idea of a wrapper class more appealing? The code is in PHP, but answers doesn't have to be. This is more of a design issue than a language specific feature

  Read the article

• PHP - Internal APIs/Libraries - What makes sense?

  - by Mark Locker

  I've been having a discussion lately with some colleagues about the best way to approach a new project, and thought it'd be interesting to get some external thoughts thrown into the mix. Basically, we're redeveloping a fairly large site (written in PHP) and have differing opinions on how the platform should be setup. Requirements: The platform will need to support multiple internal websites, as well as external (non-PHP) projects which at the moment consist of a mobile app and a toolbar. We have no plans/need in the foreseeable future to open up an API externally (for use in products other than our own). My opinion: We should have a library of well documented native model classes which can be shared between projects. These models will represent everything in our database and can take advantage of object orientated features such as inheritance, traits, magic methods, etc. etc. As well as employing ORM. We can then add an API layer on top of these models which can basically accept requests and route them to the appropriate methods, translating the response so that it can be used platform independently. This routing for each method can be setup as and when it's required. Their opinion: We should have a single HTTP API which is used by all projects (internal PHP ones or otherwise). My thoughts: To me, there are a number of issues with using the sole HTTP API approach: It will be very expensive performance wise. One page request will result in several additional http requests (which although local, are still ones that Apache will need to handle). You'll lose all of the best features PHP has for OO development. From simple inheritance, to employing the likes of ORM which can save you writing a lot of code. For internal projects, the actual process makes me cringe. To get a users name, for example, a request would go out of our box, over the LAN, back in, then run through a script which calls a method, JSON encodes the output and feeds that back. That would then need to be JSON decoded, and be presented as an array ready to use. Working with arrays, as appose to objects, makes me sad in a modern PHP framework. Their thoughts (and my responses): Having one method of doing thing keeps things simple. - You'd only do things differently if you were using a different language anyway. It will become robust. - Seeing as the API will run off the library of models, I think my option would be just as robust. What do you think? I'd be really interested to hear the thoughts of others on this, especially as opinions on both sides are not founded on any past experience.

  Read the article

• How to handle status columns in designing tables

  - by altsyset

  How to handle multiple statuses for a table entry, for example an item table may have an active, inactive, fast moving, and/or batch statuses. And I wanted to handle them in single column with VARCHAR type. Also I might set each of those attributes as a boolean with different columns. But I am not sure what consequences this might lead to. So if you have experienced such situations which one would be the best way to handle it?

  Read the article

• Type Object does not support slicing Unity3D

  - by Vish

  I am getting the following error in my code and I can't seem to understand why. Can anyone help me with it? This is my current code. The line causing the error is marked in a comment near the end. var rows : int = 4; var cols : int = 4; var totalCards : int = cols * rows; var matchesNeedToWin : int = totalCards * 0.5; var matchesMade : int = 0; var cardW : int = 100; var cardH : int = 100; var aCards : Array; var aGrid : Array; // This Array will store the two cards that the player flipped var aCardsFlipped : ArrayList; // To prevent player from clicking buttons when we don't want him to var playerCanClick : boolean; var playerHasWon : boolean = false; class Card extends System.Object { var isFaceUp : boolean = false; var isMatched : boolean = false; var img : String; function Card () { img = "robot"; } } function Start () { var i : int = 0; var j : int = 0; playerCanClick = true; aCards = new Array (); aGrid = new Array (); aCardsFlipped = new ArrayList (); for ( i = 0; i < rows; i++) { aGrid [i] = new Array (); for (j = 0; j < cols; cols++ ) { aGrid [i] [j] = new Card (); // <------ Error over here } } } function Update () { Debug.Log("Game Screen has loaded"); } The error states as follows: Error BCE0048: Type 'Object' does not support slicing. (BCE0048) (Assembly-UnityScript)

  Read the article

• Transforming object world space matrix to a position in world space

  - by Fredrik Boston Westman

  Im trying to make a function for picking objects with a bounding sphere however I have run in to a problem. First I check against my my bounding sphere, then if it checks out then I test against the vertexes. I have already tested my vertex picking method and it work fine, however when I check first with my bounding sphere method it dosnt register anything. My conclusion is that when im transform my sphere position in to the position of the object in world space, the transformation goes wrong ( I base this on the fact the the x coordinate always becomes 1, even tho i translate non of my meshes along the x-axis to 1). So my question is: What is the proper way to transform a objects world space matrix to a position vector ? This is how i do it now: First i set my position vector to 0. XMVECTOR meshPos = XMVectorSet(0.0f, 0.0f, 0.0f, 0.0f); Then I trannsform it with my object space matrix, and then add the offset to the center of the mesh. meshPos = XMVector3TransformCoord(meshPos, meshWorld) + centerOffset;

  Read the article

• Oracle SQL Developer: Single Object Compare

  - by thatjeffsmith

  There’s a nasty rumor going around that you can’t compare database objects and/or code in Oracle SQL Developer. So let’s put that to bed right now. First, here’s how to compare: PL/SQL to PL/SQL or a SQL statement to another SQL statement So now that that’s settled, why don’t we take a look at how to compare a single table, to another table – whether it’s in the same database or a different database. Database Diff There’s no additional licensing requirement here. If you have SQL Developer, you can use this feature. if you’re going to compare 1 table to another, make sure you ONLY have ‘tables’ checked And then, use this dialog to select your table(s): Move over the object(s) you want to compare over to the right hand side. And now we can move onto the results. The differences, side-by-side, and the script to make B look like A Common lines with differences are highlighted in blue, new lines are highlighted in red. So that’s why they are different, but here’s the script to synch up the differences: Read the script, TEST the script, apply the script. And that’s it. Well, that’s mostly it. If you have questions about how to compare a database object in a schema you don’t have the login information for, read this post next.

  Read the article

• How to move the object around the screen

  - by Abhishek

  I am trying to move the object around the screen I try this code -(void) move { CGFloat upperLimit = mWinSize.height - (mGunda.contentSize.height / 2.0); CGFloat upperLimit1 = mWinSize.height; CGFloat lowerLimit = (mGunda.contentSize.height / 2.0); CGFloat RightLimit = mWinSize.width - (mGunda.contentSize.width/2.0); CGFloat Right = (mGunda.contentSize.width/2.0); if ( mImageGoingUpward ) { mGunda.position = ccp( mGunda.position.x, mGunda.position.y + 5); if ( mGunda.position.y >= upperLimit ) { mImageGoingUpward = NO; mHori = NO; } } else { mGunda.position = ccp( mGunda.position.x, mGunda.position.y - 5); if ( mGunda.position.y <= lowerLimit ) { mGunda.position = ccp(mGunda.position.x +5, lowerLimit); } if(mGunda.position.x >= RightLimit) { mGunda.position = ccp(mGunda.position.x, mGunda.position.y+10); mHori = YES; } if(mHori) { if(mGunda.position.y >= upperLimit) { mGunda.position = ccp(mGunda.position.x - 5,mGunda.position.y); } } } } } It move the object from bottom to top & top to bottom & bottom to right & right to right top of the screen here is problem I have got It not move to the right top to left side of screen this rotationis not happen. How can I do this

  Read the article

• Yet Another Way To Create An Object

  - by Ricardo Peres

  After I wrote this post, I come up with yet another way to create an object... Here it is: Stopwatch watch = new Stopwatch(); ConstructorInfo ci = typeof(StringBuilder).GetConstructor(new Type[0]); NewExpression expr = Expression.New(ci); Func<StringBuilder> func = Expression.Lambda(typeof(Func<StringBuilder>), expr).Compile() as Func<StringBuilder>; watch.Start(); for (Int32 i = 0; i < 100; ++i) { StringBuilder builder = func(); } Int64 time4 = watch.ElapsedTicks; watch.Reset(); I know of only one other way, which is by using CodeDOM. If you know of any other ways to create an object, let me know! SyntaxHighlighter.config.clipboardSwf = 'http://alexgorbatchev.com/pub/sh/2.0.320/scripts/clipboard.swf'; SyntaxHighlighter.brushes.CSharp.aliases = ['c#', 'c-sharp', 'csharp']; SyntaxHighlighter.all();

  Read the article

• Checking if an object is inside bounds of an isometric chunk

  - by gopgop

  How would I check if an object is inside the bounds of an isometric chunk? for example I have a player and I want to check if its inside the bounds of this isometric chunk. I draw the isometric chunk's tiles using OpenGL Quads. My first try was checking in a square pattern kind of thing: e = object; this = isometric chunk; if (e.getLocation().getX() < this.getLocation().getX()+World.CHUNK_WIDTH*World.TILE_WIDTH && e.getLocation().getX() > this.getLocation().getX()) { if (e.getLocation().getY() > this.getLocation().getY() && e.getLocation().getY() < this.getLocation().getY()+World.CHUNK_HEIGHT*World.TILE_HEIGHT) { return true; } } return false; What happens here is that it checks in a SQUARE around the chunk so not the real isometric bounds. Image example: (THE RED IS WHERE THE PROGRAM CHECKS THE BOUNDS) What I have now: Desired check: Ultimately I want to do the same for each tile in the chunk. EXTRA INFO: Till now what I had in my game is you could only move tile by tile but now I want them to move freely but I still need them to have a tile location so no matter where they are on the tile their tile location will be that certain tile. then when they are inside a different tile's bounding box then their tile location becomes the new tile. Same thing goes with chunks. the player does have an area but the area does not matter in this case. and as long as the X and Y are inside the bounding box then it should return true. they don't have to be completely on the tile.

  Read the article

• Switch or a Dictionary when assigning to new object

  - by KChaloux

  Recently, I've come to prefer mapping 1-1 relationships using Dictionaries instead of Switch statements. I find it to be a little faster to write and easier to mentally process. Unfortunately, when mapping to a new instance of an object, I don't want to define it like this: var fooDict = new Dictionary<int, IBigObject>() { { 0, new Foo() }, // Creates an instance of Foo { 1, new Bar() }, // Creates an instance of Bar { 2, new Baz() } // Creates an instance of Baz } var quux = fooDict[0]; // quux references Foo Given that construct, I've wasted CPU cycles and memory creating 3 objects, doing whatever their constructors might contain, and only ended up using one of them. I also believe that mapping other objects to fooDict[0] in this case will cause them to reference the same thing, rather than creating a new instance of Foo as intended. A solution would be to use a lambda instead: var fooDict = new Dictionary<int, Func<IBigObject>>() { { 0, () => new Foo() }, // Returns a new instance of Foo when invoked { 1, () => new Bar() }, // Ditto Bar { 2, () => new Baz() } // Ditto Baz } var quux = fooDict[0](); // equivalent to saying 'var quux = new Foo();' Is this getting to a point where it's too confusing? It's easy to miss that () on the end. Or is mapping to a function/expression a fairly common practice? The alternative would be to use a switch: IBigObject quux; switch(someInt) { case 0: quux = new Foo(); break; case 1: quux = new Bar(); break; case 2: quux = new Baz(); break; } Which invocation is more acceptable? Dictionary, for faster lookups and fewer keywords (case and break) Switch: More commonly found in code, doesn't require the use of a Func< object for indirection.

  Read the article

• Explicitly pass context object versus injecting with IoC

  - by SonOfPirate

  I have a layered service application where the service layer delegates operations into the domain layer for execution. Many of these operations need to know the context under which they are operation. (The context included the identity of the current user, culture information, etc. received from the caller.) For example, I have an API method that returns a list of announcements. The list is based on the current user's role and each announcement is localized to their culture. The API is a thin-facade that delegates to an Application Service in my domain layer. The Application Service method obviously needs to know the context of the current request/operation as another call to the same API from another user should result in a different list. Within this method, we also have logging that uses some of the context information so we a clear understanding of the context when the operation was performed (this is especially useful if something goes wrong.) While this is a contrived example, in the real world, my Application Services will coordinate operations with many collaborative components, any number of them also needing the context information. My choice is to pass the context to the Application Service which would then pass it with any calls to collaborators or have the IoC container satisfy the dependency the Application Service and any collaborators have on the context. I am wondering if it is considered good/bad, best practices/code smell, etc. if I pass the context object as a parameter to the domain methods or if injecting the context via an IoC container is preferred. (EDIT: I should mention that the context object is instantiated per-request.)

  Read the article

• Canonical representation of a class object containing a list element in XML

  - by dendini

  I see that most implementations of JAX-RS represent a class object containing a list of elements as follows (assume a class House containing a list of People) <houses> <house> <person> <name>Adam</name> </person> <person> <name>Blake</name> </person> </house> <house> </house> </houses> The result above is obtained for instance from Jersey 2 JAX-RS implementation, notice Jersey creates a wrapper class "houses" around each house, however strangely it doesn't create a wrapper class around each person! I don't feel this is a correct mapping of a list, in other words I'd feel more confortable with something like this: <houses> <house> <persons> <person> <name>Adam</name> </person> <person> <name>Blake</name> </person> </persons> </house> <house> </house> </houses> Is there any document explaining how an object should be correctly mapped apart from any opninion?

  Read the article

• TDD: Write a separate test for object initialization or relying on other tests exercising it

  - by DXM

  This seems to be the common pattern that's emerging in some of the tests I've worked on lately. We have a class, and quite often this is legacy code whose design can't be easily altered, which has a bunch of member variables. There's some kind of "Initialize" or "Load" function which would put an object into a valid state. Only after it is initialized/loaded, are the members in the proper state so that other methods can be exercised. So when we start writing tests, first test is "TestLoad" and all we put in there is exercising initialization logic. Then we might add one (or few) TestLoadFailureXXX tests and those are definitely valuable. Then we start writing tests to verify other behaviors but all of them require the object to be loaded. So they all start by running exactly the same code as "TestLoad". So my question: Is TestLoad even necessary? Do you take it and let other tests simply exercise the loading? Or leave it so things are more explicit? I know that each unit test function should have no (or as little as possible) overlap with other test functions, but it seems like in cases of loading, this is unavoidable. And whether we like it or not, if something in the loading code breaks, we will end up with a whole test suite of failures. Is there another approach that I might be missing here? Thank you for the responses. It definitely makes sense that you want to see "InitializationTest" and if that fails you know where to start looking. In case it matters, this question is mostly about C++ and we use CppUnit framework. And now, thanks to sleske, I'll be constantly wishing that CppUnit supported test dependencies. Might have to hack something in one of these days :)

  Read the article

• LibGdx, Texture an Object

  - by Gigi10012

  I want to set texture to an Object, this is my playerobject class: private boolean up; private float speed; private float fallacceleration = 20; private float acceleration = 15; private float maxSpeed = 300; SpriteBatch batch; public Player() { x = MyGdxGame.WIDTH - 9*MyGdxGame.WIDTH/10; y = MyGdxGame.HEIGHT - 3 * MyGdxGame.HEIGHT/10; shapex = new float[4]; shapey = new float[4]; radians = 2*MathUtils.PI; batch = new SpriteBatch(); } private void setShape() { //Simple Arrow Shape ...... } public void update(float dt) { setShape(); } public void draw(ShapeRenderer sr) { sr.setColor(0F, 0F, 0F, 1F); sr.begin(ShapeType.Line); //Drawing Shape .............. sr.end(); } What I have to do to add texture to that object? (I'm using LibGdx)

  Read the article

< Previous Page | 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54  | Next Page >