Search Results

Search found 3120 results on 125 pages for 'php5 oop'.

Page 49/125 | < Previous Page | 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56  | Next Page >

  • What's the benefit of declaring class functions separately from their actual functionality?

    - by vette982
    In C++, what's the benefit of having a class with functions... say class someClass{ public: void someFunc(int arg1); }; then having the function's actual functionality declared after int main int main() { return 0; } void someClass::someFunc(int arg1) { cout<<arg1; } Furthermore, what's the benefit of declaring the class in a .h header file, then putting the functionality in a .cpp file that #includes the .h file?

    Read the article

  • Instantiating and referencing models in MVC

    - by fig-gnuton
    In MVC, should each model be a globally accessible singleton accessible to any view/controller? Or should the models be singletons that are dependency injected into any component that requires them? Or should a new model instance be created for each component that needs one, in which case events would be used to propagate changes across model instances of the same class?

    Read the article

  • Get class constant names in php?

    - by user151841
    I have a php class with some class constants that indicate the status of an instance. When I'm using the class, after I run some methods on it, I do some checks to make sure that the status is what I expect it to be. For instance, after calling some methods, I expect the status to be MEANINGFUL_STATUS_NAME. $objInstance->method1(); $objInstance->method2(); if ( $objInstance->status !== class::MEANINGFUL_STATUS_NAME ) { throw new Exception("Status is wrong, should not be " . class::MEANINGFUL_STATUS_NAME . "."); } However, this gives me the exception message "Status is wrong, should not be 2" when what I really want to see is "Status is wrong, should not be MEANINGFUL_STATUS_NAME" So I've lost the meaningfulness of the constant name. I was thinking of making an 'translation table' array, so I can take the constant values and translate them back into their name, but this seems cumbersome. How should I translate this back, so I get an error message that gives me a better idea of what went wrong?

    Read the article

  • How to call object's method from constructor?

    - by Kirzilla
    Hello, var Dog = function(name) { this.name = name; this.sayName(); } Dog.prototype.sayName = function() { alert(this.name); } I'm creating new instance of Dog object, but method sayName() is undefined. Why? Or maybe I should do something like (but I can't see difference)... var Dog = function(name) { this.name = name; this.prototype.sayName = function() { alert(this.name); } } Thank you.

    Read the article

  • How to Correct & Improve the Design of this Code?

    - by DaveDev
    HI Guys, I've been working on a little experiement to see if I could create a helper method to serialize any of my types to any type of HTML tag I specify. I'm getting a NullReferenceException when _writer = _viewContext.Writer; is called in protected virtual void Dispose(bool disposing) {/*...*/} I think I'm at a point where it almost works (I've gotten other implementations to work) and I was wondering if somebody could point out what I'm doing wrong? Also, I'd be interested in hearing suggestions on how I could improve the design? So basically, I have this code that will generate a Select box with a number of options: // the idea is I can use one method to create any complete tag of any type // and put whatever I want in the content area <% using (Html.GenerateTag<SelectTag>(Model, new { href = Url.Action("ActionName") })) { %> <%foreach (var fund in Model.Funds) {%> <% using (Html.GenerateTag<OptionTag>(fund)) { %> <%= fund.Name %> <% } %> <% } %> <% } %> This Html.GenerateTag helper is defined as: public static MMTag GenerateTag<T>(this HtmlHelper htmlHelper, object elementData, object attributes) where T : MMTag { return (T)Activator.CreateInstance(typeof(T), htmlHelper.ViewContext, elementData, attributes); } Depending on the type of T it'll create one of the types defined below, public class HtmlTypeBase : MMTag { public HtmlTypeBase() { } public HtmlTypeBase(ViewContext viewContext, params object[] elementData) { base._viewContext = viewContext; base.MergeDataToTag(viewContext, elementData); } } public class SelectTag : HtmlTypeBase { public SelectTag(ViewContext viewContext, params object[] elementData) { base._tag = new TagBuilder("select"); //base.MergeDataToTag(viewContext, elementData); } } public class OptionTag : HtmlTypeBase { public OptionTag(ViewContext viewContext, params object[] elementData) { base._tag = new TagBuilder("option"); //base.MergeDataToTag(viewContext, _elementData); } } public class AnchorTag : HtmlTypeBase { public AnchorTag(ViewContext viewContext, params object[] elementData) { base._tag = new TagBuilder("a"); //base.MergeDataToTag(viewContext, elementData); } } all of these types (anchor, select, option) inherit from HtmlTypeBase, which is intended to perform base.MergeDataToTag(viewContext, elementData);. This doesn't happen though. It works if I uncomment the MergeDataToTag methods in the derived classes, but I don't want to repeat that same code for every derived class I create. This is the definition for MMTag: public class MMTag : IDisposable { internal bool _disposed; internal ViewContext _viewContext; internal TextWriter _writer; internal TagBuilder _tag; internal object[] _elementData; public MMTag() {} public MMTag(ViewContext viewContext, params object[] elementData) { } public void Dispose() { Dispose(true /* disposing */); GC.SuppressFinalize(this); } protected virtual void Dispose(bool disposing) { if (!_disposed) { _disposed = true; _writer = _viewContext.Writer; _writer.Write(_tag.ToString(TagRenderMode.EndTag)); } } protected void MergeDataToTag(ViewContext viewContext, object[] elementData) { Type elementDataType = elementData[0].GetType(); foreach (PropertyInfo prop in elementDataType.GetProperties()) { if (prop.PropertyType.IsPrimitive || prop.PropertyType == typeof(Decimal) || prop.PropertyType == typeof(String)) { object propValue = prop.GetValue(elementData[0], null); string stringValue = propValue != null ? propValue.ToString() : String.Empty; _tag.Attributes.Add(prop.Name, stringValue); } } var dic = new Dictionary<string, object>(StringComparer.OrdinalIgnoreCase); var attributes = elementData[1]; if (attributes != null) { foreach (PropertyDescriptor descriptor in TypeDescriptor.GetProperties(attributes)) { object value = descriptor.GetValue(attributes); dic.Add(descriptor.Name, value); } } _tag.MergeAttributes<string, object>(dic); _viewContext = viewContext; _viewContext.Writer.Write(_tag.ToString(TagRenderMode.StartTag)); } } Thanks Dave

    Read the article

  • Object model design choice

    - by spinon
    I am currently working on a ASP.NET MVC reporting application using C#. This is a redesign from a PHP application that was just initially thrown together and is now starting to gain some more traction. SowWe are in the process of reworking the backend to have a more OO approach. One of the descisions I am currently wrestling with is how to structure the domain objects. Since 95% of the site is readonly I am not sure if the typical approaches are practical. Should I create domain objects for the primary pieces of the application (ticket, assignment, assignee) and then create static methods off of these areas to pull the reporting data? Or should I just skip that part and create the chart data classes and have some get method off of these classes? It's not a real big application and currenlty I am the only one developing on it. But I feel torn as to which approach. I feel that the first one is the better choice but maybe overkill given that the majority of uses is for aggregate reporting. Anybody have some good insight on why I should go one way or another?

    Read the article

  • how are association, aggregation and composition written?

    - by ajsie
    i have read some posts about the differences between these 3 relationships and i think i get the point. i just wonder, are all these written the same when coding? question 1: all 3 are just a value of the object type in a instance variable? class A { public $b = '' public function __construct($object) { $this->b = $object // <-- could be a association, aggregation or a composition relation? } } question 2: does it have to be an instance variable or can it be a static one? class A { public static $b = '' // <-- nothing changed? public function __construct($object) { $this->b = $object } } question 3: is there a difference in where the object is created? i tend to think that composition object is created inside the object: class A { public $b = '' public function __construct() { $this->b = new Object // is created inside the object } } and aggregation/association is passed through a constructor or another method: class A { public $b = '' public function __construct($object) { // passed through a method $this->b = $object } } question 4: why/when is this important to know. do i have to comment an object inside another what relation its about or do you do it in an UML diagram? could someone shed a light on these questions. thanks!

    Read the article

  • how to pass a parameter to method with php's is_callable

    - by fayer
    i have to create a variable that is callable with php's is_callable i have done this: $callable = array(new MyClass, 'methodName'); but i want to pass a parameter to the method. how can i do that? cause using symfony's event dispatcher component will be like: $sfEventDispatcher->connect('log.write', array(new IC_Log('logfile.txt'), 'write')); the first parameter is just a event name, the second is the callable variable. but i can only call the write method, i want to pass a parameter to it. could someone help me out. thanks

    Read the article

  • Can you explain this generics behavior and if I have a workaround?

    - by insta
    Sample program below: using System; using System.Collections.Generic; using System.Linq; using System.Text; namespace GenericsTest { class Program { static void Main(string[] args) { IRetrievable<int, User> repo = new FakeRepository(); Console.WriteLine(repo.Retrieve(35)); } } class User { public int Id { get; set; } public string Name { get; set; } } class FakeRepository : BaseRepository<User>, ICreatable<User>, IDeletable<User>, IRetrievable<int, User> { // why do I have to implement this here, instead of letting the // TKey generics implementation in the baseclass handle it? //public User Retrieve(int input) //{ // throw new NotImplementedException(); //} } class BaseRepository<TPoco> where TPoco : class,new() { public virtual TPoco Create() { return new TPoco(); } public virtual bool Delete(TPoco item) { return true; } public virtual TPoco Retrieve<TKey>(TKey input) { return null; } } interface ICreatable<TPoco> { TPoco Create(); } interface IDeletable<TPoco> { bool Delete(TPoco item); } interface IRetrievable<TKey, TPoco> { TPoco Retrieve(TKey input); } } This sample program represents the interfaces my actual program uses, and demonstrates the problem I'm having (commented out in FakeRepository). I would like for this method call to be generically handled by the base class (which in my real example is able to handle 95% of the cases given to it), allowing for overrides in the child classes by specifying the type of TKey explicitly. It doesn't seem to matter what parameter constraints I use for the IRetrievable, I can never get the method call to fall through to the base class. Also, if anyone can see an alternate way to implement this kind of behavior and get the result I'm ultimately looking for, I would be very interested to see it. Thoughts?

    Read the article

  • Imitating Multiple Inheritance in PHP

    - by fabieno
    I am working on my own MVC framework and found myself stuck. I need the following construction: Controller -- Backend_Controller -- Backend_Crud_Controller -- Frontend_Controller -- Frontend_Crud_Controller Both 'Backend_Crud_Controller' and 'Frontend_Crud_Controller' have the same functionality and thus they should extend another class named 'Base_Crud_Controller', the only difference comes from the 'Backend/Frontend' Controllers which implement different mechanisms. Basically they should inherit both classes but my problem is that 'Backend/Frontend' controller doesn't necessarily extend 'Base_Crud_Controller'. I know multiple inheritance doesn't exist in PHP but I am looking for a solution, I choose to refrain Mixins (like in Symfony) as I don't consider that an elegant solution. Interfaces do not suit me as all of these end up as concrete classes that should implement methods.

    Read the article

  • what is the difference between static class and normal class?

    - by Phsika
    when i prefer static or normal class? Or what is the difference between them? using System; using System.Collections.Generic; using System.Linq; using System.Text; namespace staticmethodlar { class Program { static void Main(string[] args) { SinifA.method1(); } } static class SinifA { public static void method1() { Console.WriteLine("Deneme1"); } } public static class SinifB { public static void method2() { Console.WriteLine("Deneme2"); } } public class sinifC { public void method3() { Console.WriteLine("Deneme3"); } } public class sinifD : sinifC { void method4() { Console.WriteLine("Deneme4"); } sinifC sinifc = new sinifC(); // i need to use it:) } }

    Read the article

  • Zend Framework-where do calls to my methods go? Controller of Model?

    - by Joel
    Hi guys, I'm confused about exactly what I should have in my controller and what in my method. Specifically, I have this in the action method: public function upcomingshowsAction() { $gcal = $this->_validateCalendarConnection(); $uncleanedFeedArray = $this->_getCalendarFeed($gcal); $finishedFeedArray = $this->_cleanFeed($uncleanedFeedArray); $this->view->googleArray = $finishedFeedArray; } And then (incorrectly I know), I have my methods still in the bottom of my controller. So what I'm wondering, is for those methods in the upcomingshowsAction method, should all the actual methods just be in one model and then I'd have something like this: public function upcomingshowsAction() { $finishedFeedArray = new Application_Model_calendarModelPage(); $this->view->googleArray = $finishedFeedArray; } And then something like this in the model: class Application_Model_CalendarModelPage { $gcal = $this->_validateCalendarConnection(); $uncleanedFeedArray = $this->_getCalendarFeed($gcal); $finishedFeedArray = $this->_cleanFeed($uncleanedFeedArray); public functions { ... ... ... } } Am I on the right track here? Thanks!

    Read the article

  • understanding the ORM models in MVC

    - by fayer
    i cant fully understand the ORM models in MVC. so i am using symfony with doctrine. the doctrine models are created. does this mean that i don't have to create any models? are the doctrine models the only models i need? where should i put the code that uses the doctrine models: eg. $phoneIds = array(); $phone1 = new Phonenumber(); $phone1['phonenumber'] = '555 202 7890'; $phone1->save(); $phoneIds[] = $phone1['id']; $phone2 = new Phonenumber(); $phone2['phonenumber'] = '555 100 7890'; $phone2->save(); $phoneIds[] = $phone2['id']; $user = new User(); $user['username'] = 'jwage'; $user['password'] = 'changeme'; $user->save(); $user->link('Phonenumbers', $phoneIds); should this code be in the controller or in another model? and where should i validate these fields (check if it exists in database, that email is email etc)? could someone please shed a light on this. thanks.

    Read the article

  • Ways to make (relatively) safe assumptions about the type of concrete subclasses?

    - by Kylotan
    I have an interface (defined as a abstract base class) that looks like this: class AbstractInterface { public: bool IsRelatedTo(const AbstractInterface& other) const = 0; } And I have an implementation of this (constructors etc omitted): class ConcreteThing { public: bool IsRelatedTo(const AbstractInterface& other) const { return m_ImplObject.has_relationship_to(other.m_ImplObject); } private: ImplementationObject m_ImplObject; } The AbstractInterface forms an interface in Project A, and the ConcreteThing lives in Project B as an implementation of that interface. This is so that code in Project A can access data from Project B without having a direct dependency on it - Project B just has to implement the correct interface. Obviously the line in the body of the IsRelatedTo function cannot compile - that instance of ConcreteThing has an m_ImplObject member, but it can't assume that all AbstractInterfaces do, including the other argument. In my system, I can actually assume that all implementations of AbstractInterface are instances of ConcreteThing (or subclasses thereof), but I'd prefer not to be casting the object to the concrete type in order to get at the private member, or encoding that assumption in a way that will crash without a diagnostic later if this assumption ceases to hold true. I cannot modify ImplementationObject, but I can modify AbstractInterface and ConcreteThing. I also cannot use the standard RTTI mechanism for checking a type prior to casting, or use dynamic_cast for a similar purpose. I have a feeling that I might be able to overload IsRelatedTo with a ConcreteThing argument, but I'm not sure how to call it via the base IsRelatedTo(AbstractInterface) method. It wouldn't get called automatically as it's not a strict reimplementation of that method. Is there a pattern for doing what I want here, allowing me to implement the IsRelatedTo function via ImplementationObject::has_relationship_to(ImplementationObject), without risky casts? (Also, I couldn't think of a good question title - please change it if you have a better one.)

    Read the article

  • Is there anything wrong with a class with all static methods?

    - by MatthewMartin
    I'm doing code review and came across a class that uses all static methods. The entrance method takes several arguments and then starts calling the other static methods passing along all or some of the arguments the entrance method received. It isn't like a Math class with largely unrelated utility functions. In my own normal programming, I rarely write methods where Resharper pops and says "this could be a static method", when I do, they tend to be mindless utility methods. Is there anything wrong with this pattern? Is this just a matter of personal choice if the state of a class is held in fields and properties or passed around amongst static methods using arguments?

    Read the article

  • returning values from function or method multiple times by only calling the class once

    - by Sokhrat Sikar
    I have a members.php file that shows my websites members. I echo members name by using foreach method. A method of Members class returns an array, then I use foreach loop in the members.php file to echo the members. I am trying to aovid writing php code in my members.php file. Is there a way to avoid using foreach inside members.php file? For example, is it possible to return value from a method couple of times? (by only calling the object once). Just like how we normally call the functions? This question doesn't make sense, but I am just trying to see if there is a away around this issue?

    Read the article

  • How should I lay-out my PHP login class?

    - by ThinkingInBits
    So, there is going to be one login form; however 1 of 3 types of members will be signing in member_type_a, member_type_b, member_type_c all of whom have some of the same properties, and some whom may have specific methods and/or properties to them. I want the class to be saved to a session variable for use with member area pages. Any suggestions on applicable design patterns?

    Read the article

  • Show composition/aggregation/association relations between objects in Visual Paradigm UML diagrams?

    - by ajsie
    I have Netbeans installed with Visual Paradigm plugin. I have converted my php code into UML diagrams (modeling - instant reverse). I can see relations (drawn lines) between superclass and subclasses. However, i cannot see relations between objects inside objects (composition/aggregation/association)? The code looks like: class Thread { private $tag = ''; public function __construct($tagObject) { $this->tag = $tagObject; } } I know its possible using Java cause i've read about it. Im using PHP, is this still possible?

    Read the article

  • Is it good practise to blank out inherited functionality that will not be used?

    - by Timo Kosig
    I'm wondering if I should change the software architecture of one of my projects. I'm developing software for a project where two sides (in fact a host and a device) use shared code. That helps because shared data, e.g. enums can be stored in one central place. I'm working with what we call a "channel" to transfer data between device and host. Each channel has to be implemented on device and host side. We have different kinds of channels, ordinary ones and special channels which transfer measurement data. My current solution has the shared code in an abstract base class. From there on code is split between the two sides. As it has turned out there are a few cases when we would have shared code but we can't share it, we have to implement it on each side. The principle of DRY (don't repeat yourself) says that you shouldn't have code twice. My thought was now to concatenate the functionality of e.g. the abstract measurement channel on the device side and the host side in an abstract class with shared code. That means though that once we create an actual class for either the device or the host side for that channel we have to hide the functionality that is used by the other side. Is this an acceptable thing to do: public abstract class MeasurementChannelAbstract { protected void MethodUsedByDeviceSide() { } protected void MethodUsedByHostSide() { } } public class DeviceMeasurementChannel : MeasurementChannelAbstract { public new void MethodUsedByDeviceSide() { base.MethodUsedByDeviceSide(); } } Now, DeviceMeasurementChannel is only using the functionality for the device side from MeasurementChannelAbstract. By declaring all methods/members of MeasurementChannelAbstract protected you have to use the new keyword to enable that functionality to be accessed from the outside. Is that acceptable or are there any pitfalls, caveats, etc. that could arise later when using the code?

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56  | Next Page >