Search Results

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

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

  • 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 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

  • Can a function/class know the context from where it is being invoked or instantiated?

    - by vrode
    Let's take this class as example and assume that get_context() returns the source of the call: class A { public function __construct( ) { if( get_class( get_context( ) ) == B ) { return true; } else { return false; } } } class B { function __construct( ) { $a = new A( ); } } $a = new B( ); // returns true, as B is the invoking class of A $a = new A( ); // returns false, as B is invoked outside of any class So, my questions are: 1) can a function know the context that calls it? 2) can a object know context from where it has been instantiated? Or am I dreaming up new features not implementable in PHP?

    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 avoid "incomplete implementation" warning in partial base class

    - by garph0
    I have created a protocol that my classes need to implement, and then factored out some common functionality into a base class, so I did this: @protocol MyProtocol - (void) foo; - (void) bar; @end @interface Base <MyProtocol> @end @interface Derived_1 : Base @end @interface Derived_2 : Base @end @implementation Base - (void) foo{ //something foo } @end @implementation Derived_1 - (void) bar{ //something bar 1 } @end @implementation Derived_2 - (void) bar{ //something bar 2 } @end In this way in my code I use a generic id<MyProtocol>. The code works (as long as Base is not used directly) but the compiler chokes at the end of the implementation of Base with a warning: Incomplete implementation of class Base Is there a way to avoid this warning or, even better, a more proper way to obtain this partially implemented abstract base class behavior in Objc?

    Read the article

  • What is the Rule of Thumb on Exposing Encapsulated Class Methods

    - by javamonkey79
    Consider the following analogy: If we have a class: "Car" we might expect it to have an instance of "Engine" in it. As in: "The car HAS-A engine". Similarly, in the "Engine" class we would expect an instance of "Starting System" or "Cooling System" which each have their appropriate sub-components. By the nature of encapsulation, is it not true that the car "HAS-A" "radiator hose" in it as well as the engine? Therefore, is it appropriate OO to do something like this: public class Car { private Engine _engine; public Engine getEngine() { return _engine; } // is it ok to use 'convenience' methods of inner classes? // are the following 2 methods "wrong" from an OO point of view? public RadiatorHose getRadiatorHose() { return getCoolingSystem().getRadiatorHose(); } public CoolingSystem getCoolingSystem() { return _engine.getCoolingSystem(); } } public class Engine { private CoolingSystem _coolingSystem; public CoolingSystem getCoolingSystem() { return _coolingSystem; } } public class CoolingSystem { private RadiatorHose _radiatorHose; public RadiatorHose getRadiatorHose() { return _radiatorHose; } } public class RadiatorHose {//... }

    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

  • How do I create a class in Javascript?

    - by William
    This is what I got so far, and it's not working at all :( <!DOCTYPE html> <html lang="en"> <head> <title>Class Test</title> <meta charset="utf-8" /> <style> body { text-align: center; background-color: #ffffff;} #box { position: absolute; left: 610px; top: 80px; height: 50px; width: 50px; background-color: #ff0000; color: #000000;} </style> <script type="text/javascript"> document.onkeydown=function(event){keyDown(event)}; document.onkeyup=function(event){keyUp(event)}; var box = 0; function Player () { var speed = 5; var x = 50; var y = 50; } function update() { box.style.left = this.x + "px"; box.style.top = this.y + "px"; box.innerHTML = "<h6 style=\"margin: 0px 0px 0px 0px; padding: 0px 0px 0px 0px;\">X: "+ this.x + "<br /> Y: " + this.y + "</h6>"; } var player = new Player(); var keys = new Array(256); var i = 0; for (i = 0;i <= 256; i++){ keys[i] = false; } function keyDown(event){ keys[event.keyCode] = true; } function keyUp(event){ keys[event.keyCode] = false; } function update(){ if(keys[37]) player.x -= player.speed; if(keys[39]) player.x += player.speed; player.update(); } setInterval(update, 1000/60); </script> </head> <body> <div id="box" ></div> <script type="text/javascript"> box = document.getElementById('box'); box.innerHTML = "<h6 style=\"margin: 0px 0px 0px 0px; padding: 0px 0px 0px 0px;\">X: "+ player.x + "<br /> Y: " + player.y + "</h6>"; </script> </body> </html>

    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

  • override __set in __construct() in php?

    - by user151841
    I have a class based on database values. I'm using __set to automatically sync database values with the class properties. Set checks an array of database fields that it is allowed to update in the database. The field 'id' isn't in the list, so __set will throw an exception if you try to do $objDbRow->id = 5;. However, there is one time when I do want to set the id property of the object, and that's on instantiation. So in __constuct, I have $this->id = $id (where $id is passed to __construct). However, __set seems to be intercepting the setting here, because an exception is being thrown on construction. What's the way to get around this? I suppose I also have a boolean flag, like $instantiated, that __set() would check before it does it's field whitelist checking. But that feels inelegant.

    Read the article

  • Is there anything wrong with taking immediate actions in constructors?

    - by pestaa
    I have classes like this one: class SomeObject { public function __construct($param1, $param2) { $this->process($param1, $param2); } ... } So I can instantly "call" it as some sort of global function just like new SomeObject($arg1, $arg2); which has the benefits of staying concise, being easy to understand, but might break unwritten rules of semantics by not waiting till a method is called. Should I continue to feel bad because of a bad practice, or there's really nothing to worry about? Clarification: I do want an instance of the class. I do use internal methods of the class only. I initialize the object in the constructor, but call the "important" action-taker methods too. I am selfish in the light of these sentences.

    Read the article

  • Class works without declaring variables?

    - by Maxim Droy
    I'm learned php as functional and procedure language. Right now try to start learn objective-oriented and got an important question. I have code: class car { function set_car($model) { $this->model = $model; } function check_model() { if($this->model == "Mercedes") echo "Good car"; } } $mycar = new car; $mycar->set_car("Mercedes"); echo $mycar->check_model(); Why it does work without declaration of $model? var $model; in the begin? Because in php works "auto-declaration" for any variables? I'm stuck

    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 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 override part of an overload function in JavaScript

    - by Guan Yuxin
    I create a class with a function like this var Obj=function(){this.children=[];this.parent=null;}//a base class Obj.prototype.index=function(child){ // the index of current obj if(arguments.length==0){ return this.parent?this.parent.index(this):0; } // the index of a child matchs specific obj [to be override] return -1; } basically it is just an overload function composed of index() and index(child). Then I create a sub class,SubObj or whatever, inherits from Obj SubObj.prototype.prototype=Obj; Now, it's time to override the index(child) function,however, index() is also in the function an I don't want to overwrite it too. One solution is to write like this var Obj=function(){this.children=[];this.parent=null;}//a base class Obj.prototype.index=function(child){ // the index of current obj if(arguments.length==0){ return this.parent?this.parent.index(this):0; } // the index of a child matchs specific obj [to be override] return this._index(this); } Obj.prototype._index=function(this){ return -1; } SubObj.prototype._index=function(this){/* overwriteing */} But this will easily mislead other coders as _index(child) should be both private(should not be used except index() function) and public(is an overload function of index(),which is public) you guys have better idea?

    Read the article

  • naming a method - using set() when *not* setting a property?

    - by user151841
    Is setX() method name appropriate for only for setting class property X? For instance, I have a class where the output is a string of an html table. Before you can you can call getTable, you have to call setTable(), which just looks at a other properties and decides how to construct the table. It doesn't actually directly set any class property -- only causes the property to be set. When it's called, the class will construct strHtmlTable, but you can't specify it. So, calling it setTable breaks the convention of get and set being interfaces for class properties. Is there another naming convention for this kind of method? Edit: in this particular class, there are at least two ( and in total 8 optional ) other methods that must be called before the class knows everything it needs to to construct the table. I chose to have the data set as separate methods rather than clutter up the __construct() with 8 optional parameters which I'll never remember the order of.

    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

  • 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

  • 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

  • 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

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