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 >

  • 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

  • Dragging on Different Levels

    - by Fahim Akhter
    Hi, I have a flash project with three non overlapping panels (visual spaces) each of which contains different movie-clips. Each movie-clip in a particular panel is the child of that panel. Now, I want to drag one of the movie-clips from one panel to another (remove it as a child from the first panel and add it to the other) without a jitter and proper drag. What is the appropriate way to handle the drag architecturally. Should the drag be handled in all panels parent. In the panels, or the items themselves? Thanks.

    Read the article

  • Why a new instance uses logger from old instances?

    - by Roman
    I generate 2 instances in this way: gameManager manager1 = new CTManager(owner,players1,"en"); manager1.start(); gameManager manager2 = new CTManager(owner,players2,"en"); manager2.start(); The start() method of the gameManager looks like that: void start() { game.start(); } When I create the game instance I create a loger: log = Logger.getLogger("TestLog"); (log is a public field of the class in which the game belongs). In the game.start() I run many processes and give them a reference to the corresponding log. So, I expect that manager1 and manager2 will write to different files. But manager2 writes to its own file and to the log file of the manager1. Why can it happen?

    Read the article

  • Widget_Controller for different types of data (MVC)

    - by steve-o
    Hello, I have a few widgets I need to show on a site - they are all relating to different types of data (e.g user, house). Each type of data and its relations is represented in specific models, but as far as a controller or helper is concerned, is it an ok plan to have a generic Widget controller/helper which generates the necessary widgets, even though each widget is dealing with distinct data? I don't really want to generate these widgets within the User and House controllers, as these controllers are dealing with different types of functionality. I'd imagine that the Widget_Controller could just contain static methods for generating these widgets, e.g: Widget_Controller::user_panel(); Does that make sense? Cheers!

    Read the article

  • Is this a reasonable way to handle getters/setters in a PHP class?

    - by Mark Biek
    I'm going to try something with the format of this question and I'm very open to suggestions about a better way to handle it. I didn't want to just dump a bunch of code in the question so I've posted the code for the class on refactormycode. base-class-for-easy-class-property-handling My thought was that people can either post code snippets here or make changes on refactormycode and post links back to their refactorings. I'll make upvotes and accept an answer (assuming there's a clear "winner") based on that. At any rate, on to the class itself: I see a lot of debate about getter/setter class methods and is it better to just access simple property variables directly or should every class have explicit get/set methods defined, blah blah blah. I like the idea of having explicit methods in case you have to add more logic later. Then you don't have to modify any code that uses the class. However I hate having a million functions that look like this: public function getFirstName() { return $this->firstName; } public function setFirstName($firstName) { return $this->firstName; } Now I'm sure I'm not the first person to do this (I'm hoping that there's a better way of doing it that someone can suggest to me). Basically, the PropertyHandler class has a __call magic method. Any methods that come through __call that start with "get" or "set" are then routed to functions that set or retrieve values into an associative array. The key into the array is the name of the calling method after get or set. So, if the method coming into __call is "getFirstName", the array key is "FirstName". I liked using __call because it will automatically take care of the case where the subclass already has a "getFirstName" method defined. My impression (and I may be wrong) is that the __get & __set magic methods don't do that. So here's an example of how it would work: class PropTest extends PropertyHandler { public function __construct() { parent::__construct(); } } $props = new PropTest(); $props->setFirstName("Mark"); echo $props->getFirstName(); Notice that PropTest doesn't actually have "setFirstName" or "getFirstName" methods and neither does PropertyHandler. All that's doing is manipulating array values. The other case would be where your subclass is already extending something else. Since you can't have true multiple inheritance in PHP, you can make your subclass have a PropertyHandler instance as a private variable. You have to add one more function but then things behave in exactly the same way. class PropTest2 { private $props; public function __construct() { $this->props = new PropertyHandler(); } public function __call($method, $arguments) { return $this->props->__call($method, $arguments); } } $props2 = new PropTest2(); $props2->setFirstName('Mark'); echo $props2->getFirstName(); Notice how the subclass has a __call method that just passes everything along to the PropertyHandler __call method. Another good argument against handling getters and setters this way is that it makes it really hard to document. In fact, it's basically impossible to use any sort of document generation tool since the explicit methods to be don't documented don't exist. I've pretty much abandoned this approach for now. It was an interesting learning exercise but I think it sacrifices too much clarity.

    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

  • Is there a way to deserialize an object into "$this"?

    - by Andreas Bonini
    I'm writing a class to handle a memcached object. The idea was to create abstract class Cachable and all the cachable objects (such as User, Post, etc) would be subclasses of said class. The class offers some method such as Load() which calls the abstract function LoadFromDB() if the object is not cached, functions to refresh/invalidate the cache, etc. The main problem is in Load(); I wanted to do something similar: protected function Load($id) { $this->memcacheId = $id; $this->Connect(); $cached = $this->memcache->get(get_class($this) . ':' . $id); if($cached === false) { $this->SetLoaded(LoadFromDB($id)); UpdateCache(); } else { $this = $cached; $this->SetLoaded(true); } } Unfortunately I need $this to become $cached (the cached object); is there any way to do that? Was the "every cachable object derives from the cachable class" a bad design idea?

    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

  • Can't remove first node in linked list

    - by carlmonday
    I'm trying to make a linked list class in python (pointless I know, but it's a learning exercise), and the method I have written to remove a node doesn't work if I try to remove the first element of the linked list. If the node to be removed is anywhere else in the linked list the method works fine. Can someone give me some insight as to where I've gone wrong? Here's my code thus far: class Node: def __init__(self, data=None, next=None): self.data = data self.next = next def __repr__(self): return repr(self.data) def printNodes(self): while self: print self.data self = self.next def removeNode(self, datum): """removes node from linked list""" if self.data == datum: return self.next while self.next: if self.next.data == datum: self.next = self.next.next return self self = self.next

    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

  • 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

  • Object Oriented vs Relational Databases

    - by Dan
    Objects oriented databases seem like a really cool idea to me, no need to worry about mapping your domain model to your database model, no messing around with sql or ORM tools. The way I understand it, relational DBs offer some advantages when there is massive amounts of data, and searching an indexing need to be done. To my mind 99% of websites are not massive, and enterprise issues never need to be thought about, so why arn't OO DBs more widely used?

    Read the article

  • Where do you put non-controller classes in codeigniter?

    - by sprugman
    I've got a class Widgets. Widgets are made up of Doohickies. I'm never going to need to access Doohickies directly via url -- they're essentially a private class, only used by Widgets. Where do you put your code to define the Doohicky class? In /app/controllers/doohicky.php? in app/controllers/widget.php? somewhere else? Obviously, the former seems cleaner, but it's not obvious to me how to make the Doohicky class available to Widget.

    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

  • 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

  • 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

  • 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

  • interact with an interface?

    - by ajsie
    from what i've read it seems that one can interact with an interface? eg. lets say that i've got an interface with an empty method "eat()" then 2 subclasses are implementing this interface. can my controller interact with only the interface and use it's eat() method? have a look at the picture in this link strategy

    Read the article

  • Formal name of Magento’s Class Override Design Pattern?

    - by Alan Storm
    Magento is a newish (past 5 years) PHP based Ecommerce system with an architecture that's similar to the Java Spring framework (or so I've been told) One of the features of the Framework is certain classes are not directly instantiated. Rather than do something like $model = new Mage_Foo_Model_Name(); you pass an identifier into a static method on a global application object $model = Mage::getModel('foo/name'); and this instantiates the class for you. One of the wins with this approach is getModel checks a global configuration system for the foo/name identifier, and instantiates the class name it finds in the configuration system. This allows you to change the behavior of a Model system wide with a single configuration change. Is there a formal, Gang of Four or otherwise, name that describes this system/design pattern? The instantiation itself looks like a classic Factory pattern, but I'm specifically interested in the whole "override a class in the system via configuration" aspect. Is there a name/concept that covers this, or is it contained within the worldview of a Factory?

    Read the article

  • Generic overloading tells me this is the same function. Not agree.

    - by serhio
    base class: Class List(Of T) Function Contains(ByVal value As T) As Boolean derived class: Class Bar : List(Of Exception) ' Exception type as example ' Function Contains(Of U)(ByVal value As U) As Boolean compiler tells me that that two are the same, so I need to declare Overloads/new this second function. But I want use U to differentiate the type (one logic) like NullReferenceException, ArgumentNull Exception, etc. but want to leave the base function(no differentiation by type - other logic) as well.

    Read the article

  • javascript function object's inheritFrom method

    - by gawpertron
    I've come across this.inheritFrom that enables you to inherit from a super class. var superClass = function() { this.foo = 'foo'; this.bar = 'bar'; } var subClass = function() { this.inheritFrom = superClass; this.inheritFrom(); this.myFunction = function() { return this.foo; }; } I've looked in Mozilla and MSDN, but I can't seem to find it documented any where. As far as I can see it works in IE6 and Firefox 3. Any reason why it wouldn't be documented?

    Read the article

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