Search Results

Search found 63668 results on 2547 pages for 'object type'.

Page 5/2547 | < Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >

  • Designing a class in such a way that it doesn't become a "God object"

    - by devoured elysium
    I'm designing an application that will allow me to draw some functions on a graphic. Each function will be drawn from a set of points that I will pass to this graphic class. There are different kinds of points, all inheriting from a MyPoint class. For some kind of points it will be just printing them on the screen as they are, others can be ignored, others added, so there is some kind of logic associated to them that can get complex. How to actually draw the graphic is not the main issue here. What bothers me is how to make the code logic such that this GraphicMaker class doesn't become the so called God-Object. It would be easy to make something like this: class GraphicMaker { ArrayList<Point> points = new ArrayList<Point>(); public void AddPoint(Point point) { points.add(point); } public void DoDrawing() { foreach (Point point in points) { if (point is PointA) { //some logic here else if (point is PointXYZ) { //...etc } } } } How would you do something like this? I have a feeling the correct way would be to put the drawing logic on each Point object (so each child class from Point would know how to draw itself) but two problems arise: There will be kinds of points that need to know all the other points that exist in the GraphicObject class to know how to draw themselves. I can make a lot of the methods/properties from the Graphic class public, so that all the points have a reference to the Graphic class and can make all their logic as they want, but isn't that a big price to pay for not wanting to have a God class?

    Read the article

  • What type of pattern would be used in this case

    - by Admiral Kunkka
    I want to know how to tackle this type of scenario. We are building a person's background, from scratch, and I want to know, conceptually, how to proceed with a secure object pattern in both design and execution... I've been reading on Factory patterns, Model-View-Controller types, Dependency injection, Singleton approaches... and I can't seem to grasp or 'fit' these types of designs decisions into what I'm trying to do.. First and foremost, I started with having a big jack-of-all-trades class, then I read some more, and some tips were to make sure your classes only have a single purpose.. which makes sense and I started breaking down certain things into other classes. Okay, cool. Now I'm looking at dependency injection and kind of didn't really know what's going on. Example/insight of what kind of heirarchy I need to accomplish... class Person needs to access and build from a multitude of different classes. class Culture needs to access a sub-class for culture benefits class Social needs to access class Culture, and other sub-classes class Birth needs to access Social, Culture, and other sub-classes class Childhood/Adolescence/Adulthood need to access everything. Also, depending on different rolls, this class heirarchy needs to create multiple people as well, such as Family, and their backgrounds using some, if not all, of these same classes. Think of it as a people generator, all random, with backgrounds and things that happen to them. Ageing, death of loved ones, military careers, e.t.c. Most of the generation is done randomly, making calls to a mt_rand function to pick from most of the selections inside the classes, guaranteeing the data to be absolutely random. I have most of the bulk-data down, and was looking for some insight from fellow programmers, what do you think?

    Read the article

  • How to create a link to Nintex Start Workflow Page in the document set home page

    - by ybbest
    In this blog post, I’d like to show you how to create a link to start Nintex Workflow Page in the document set home page. 1. Firstly, you need to upload the latest version of jQuery to the style library of your team site. 2. Then, upload a text file to the style library for writing your own html and JavaScript 3. In the document set home page, insert a new content editor web part and link the text file you just upload. 4. Update the text file with the following content, you can download this file here. <script type="text/javascript" src="/Style%20Library/jquery-1.9.0.min.js"></script> <script type="text/javascript" src="/_layouts/sp.js"></script> <script type="text/javascript"> $(document).ready(function() { listItemId=getParameterByName("ID"); setTheWorkflowLink("YBBESTDocumentLibrary"); }); function buildWorkflowLink(webRelativeUrl,listId,itemId) { var workflowLink =webRelativeUrl+"_layouts/NintexWorkflow/StartWorkflow.aspx?list="+listId+"&ID="+itemId+"&WorkflowName=Start Approval"; return workflowLink; } function getParameterByName(name) { name = name.replace(/[\[]/, "\\\[").replace(/[\]]/, "\\\]"); var regexS = "[\\?&]" + name + "=([^&#]*)"; var regex = new RegExp(regexS); var results = regex.exec(window.location.search); if(results == null){ return ""; } else{ return decodeURIComponent(results[1].replace(/\+/g, " ")); } } function setTheWorkflowLink(listName) { var SPContext = new SP.ClientContext.get_current(); web = SPContext.get_web(); list = web.get_lists().getByTitle(listName); SPContext.load(web,"ServerRelativeUrl"); SPContext.load(list, 'Title', 'Id'); SPContext.executeQueryAsync(setTheWorkflowLink_Success, setTheWorkflowLink_Fail); } function setTheWorkflowLink_Success(sender, args) { var listId = list.get_id(); var listTitle = list.get_title(); var webRelativeUrl = web.get_serverRelativeUrl(); var startWorkflowLink=buildWorkflowLink(webRelativeUrl,listId,listItemId) $("a#submitLink").attr('href',startWorkflowLink); } function setTheWorkflowLink_Fail(sender, args) { alert("There is a problem setting up the submit exam approval link"); } </script> <a href="" target="_blank" id="submitLink"><span style="font-size:14pt">Start the approval process.</span></a> 5. Save your changes and go to the document set Item, you will see the link is on the home page now. Notes: 1. You can create a link to start the workflow using the following build dynamic string configuration: {Common:WebUrl}/_layouts/NintexWorkflow/StartWorkflow.aspx?list={Common:ListID}&ID={ItemProperty:ID}&WorkflowName=workflowname. With this link you will still need to click the start button, this is standard SharePoint behaviour and cannot be altered. References: http://connect.nintex.com/forums/27143/ShowThread.aspx How to use html and JavaScript in Content Editor web part in SharePoint2010

    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

  • What is the evidence that an API has exceeded its orthogonality in the context of types?

    - by hawkeye
    Wikipedia defines software orthogonality as: orthogonality in a programming language means that a relatively small set of primitive constructs can be combined in a relatively small number of ways to build the control and data structures of the language. The term is most-frequently used regarding assembly instruction sets, as orthogonal instruction set. Jason Coffin has defined software orthogonality as Highly cohesive components that are loosely coupled to each other produce an orthogonal system. C.Ross has defined software orthogonality as: the property that means "Changing A does not change B". An example of an orthogonal system would be a radio, where changing the station does not change the volume and vice-versa. Now there is a hypothesis published in the the ACM Queue by Tim Bray - that some have called the Bánffy Bray Type System Criteria - which he summarises as: Static typings attractiveness is a direct function (and dynamic typings an inverse function) of API surface size. Dynamic typings attractiveness is a direct function (and static typings an inverse function) of unit testing workability. Now Stuart Halloway has reformulated Banfy Bray as: the more your APIs exceed orthogonality, the better you will like static typing My question is: What is the evidence that an API has exceeded its orthogonality in the context of types? Clarification Tim Bray introduces the idea of orthogonality and APIs. Where you have one API and it is mainly dealing with Strings (ie a web server serving requests and responses), then a uni-typed language (python, ruby) is 'aligned' to that API - because the the type system of these languages isn't sophisticated, but it doesn't matter since you're dealing with Strings anyway. He then moves on to Android programming, which has a whole bunch of sensor APIs, which are all 'different' to the web server API that he was working on previously. Because you're not just dealing with Strings, but with different types, the API is non-orthogonal. Tim's point is that there is a empirical relationship between your 'liking' of types and the API you're programming against. (ie a subjective point is actually objective depending on your context).

    Read the article

  • Is it better to return NULL or empty values from functions/methods where the return value is not present?

    - by P B
    I am looking for a recommendation here. I am struggling with whether it is better to return NULL or an empty value from a method when the return value is not present or cannot be determined. Take the following two methods as an examples: string ReverseString(string stringToReverse) // takes a string and reverses it. Person FindPerson(int personID) // finds a Person with a matching personID. In ReverseString(), I would say return an empty string because the return type is string, so the caller is expecting that. Also, this way, the caller would not have to check to see if a NULL was returned. In FindPerson(), returning NULL seems like a better fit. Regardless of whether or not NULL or an empty Person Object (new Person()) is returned the caller is going to have to check to see if the Person Object is NULL or empty before doing anything to it (like calling UpdateName()). So why not just return NULL here and then the caller only has to check for NULL. Does anyone else struggle with this? Any help or insight is appreciated.

    Read the article

  • How to build Object Oriented Skills?

    - by cedar715
    Being a core developer for couple of years, coding applications seeing the class diagrams, sequence diagrams, I decided to improve my self, taking the next step of designing. As I'm an OO developer, I'm interested in improving my design skills. For Example, I had a hard time designing a currency converter. My questions to the SO: Is it by experience the design skills can be acquired? Will learning books/blog/material over internet etc help? Is it that one needs the domain knowledge of the application being developed? Knowing Design patterns, principles? Studying 'Code Complete' book ? Need to have Problem-solving skills? In short, given a problem, I just want to solve it in Object-oriented way??

    Read the article

  • Does this copy the reference or the object?

    - by Water Cooler v2
    Sorry, I am being both thick and lazy, but mostly lazy. Actually, not even that. I am trying to save time so I can do more in less time as there's a lot to be done. Does this copy the reference or the actual object data? public class Foo { private NameValueCollection _nvc = null; public Foo( NameValueCollection nvc) { _nvc = nvc; } } public class Bar { public static void Main() { NameValueCollection toPass = new NameValueCollection(); new Foo( toPass ); // I believe this only copies the reference // so if I ever wanted to compare toPass and // Foo._nvc (assuming I got hold of the private // field using reflection), I would only have to // compare the references and wouldn't have to compare // each string (deep copy compare), right? } I think I know the answer for sure: it only copies the reference. But I am not even sure why I am asking this. I guess my only concern is, if, after instantiating Foo by calling its parameterized ctor with toPass, if I needed to make sure that the NVC I passed as toPass and the NVC private field _nvc had the exact same content, I would just need to compare their references, right?

    Read the article

  • controlling an object through another object ?

    - by Stefano Borini
    Today I've seen the following pattern: you have an object A and an object B. Object B accepts a pointer to A at its constructor. Once B is created, there's a method B.doCalc() that performs a calculation (internally using A's information). The result is obtained with method B.getResult(). In order to perform another calculation, A is modified, and B.doCalc() is called again. What is your opinion on this choice ? I would have designed it differently, but I want to hear your voice. Edit : note that my main objection is to modify A to have a different result from B, without touching B. Although similar, I think that just this discipline expresses a much better feeling of what's going on. Instead of a = new A a.whatever = 5 b = new B(a) b.doCalc() res = b.getResult() a.whatever = 6 b.doCalc() res = b.getResult() You get the a pointer object from b itself. a = new A a.whatever = 5 b = new B(a) b.doCalc() res = b.getResult() a = b.getAPointer() a.whatever = 6 b.doCalc() res = b.getResult() because it makes more explicit the fact that a is taken from b and then modified. I still don't like it, though...

    Read the article

  • Uncaught TypeError: Object [object Object] has no method 'onAdded'

    - by user3604227
    I am using ExtJS4 with Java servlets. I am following the MVC architecture for ExtJS. I am trying a simple example of displaying a border layout but it doesnt work and I get the following error in ext-all.js in the javascript console: Uncaught TypeError: Object [object Object] has no method 'onAdded' Here is my code: app.js Ext.Loader.setConfig({ enabled : true }); Ext.application({ name : 'IN', appFolder : 'app', controllers : [ 'Items' ], launch : function() { console.log('in LAUNCH-appjs'); Ext.create('Ext.container.Viewport', { items : [ { xtype : 'borderlyt' } ] }); } }); Items.js (controller) Ext.define('IN.controller.Items', { extend : 'Ext.app.Controller', views : [ 'item.Border' ], init : function() { this.control({ 'viewport > panel' : { render : this.onPanelRendered } }); }, onPanelRendered : function() { console.log('The panel was rendered'); } }); Border.js (view) Ext.define('IN.view.item.Border',{extend : 'Ext.layout.container.Border', alias : 'widget.borderlyt', title : 'Border layout' , autoShow : true, renderTo : Ext.getBody(), defaults : { split : true, layout : 'border', autoScroll : true, height : 800, width : 500 }, items : [ { region : 'north', html : "Header here..", id : 'mainHeader' }, { region : 'west', width : 140, html : "Its West..", }, { region : 'south', html : "This is my temp footer content", height : 30, margins : '0 5 5 5', bodyPadding : 2, id : 'mainFooter' }, { id : 'mainContent', collapsible : false, region : 'center', margins : '5', border : true, } ] }); The folder structure for the Webcontent is as follows: WebContent app controller Items.js model store view item Border.js ext_js resources src ext_all.js index.html app.js Can someone help me resolve this error? Thanks in advance

    Read the article

  • wcf web service in post method, object properties are null, although the object is not null

    - by Abdalhadi Kolayb
    i have this problem in post method when i send object parameter to the method, then the object is not null, but all its properties have the default values. here is data module: [DataContract] public class Products { [DataMember(Order = 1)] public int ProdID { get; set; } [DataMember(Order = 2)] public string ProdName { get; set; } [DataMember(Order = 3)] public float PrpdPrice { get; set; } } and here is the interface: [OperationContract] [WebInvoke( Method = "POST", UriTemplate = "AddProduct", ResponseFormat = WebMessageFormat.Json, BodyStyle = WebMessageBodyStyle.WrappedRequest, RequestFormat = WebMessageFormat.Json)] string AddProduct([MessageParameter(Name = "prod")]Products prod); public string AddProduct(Products prod) { ProductsList.Add(prod); return "return string"; } here is the json request: Content-type:application/json {"prod":[{"ProdID": 111,"ProdName": "P111","PrpdPrice": 111}]} but in the server the object received: {"prod":[{"ProdID": 0,"ProdName": NULL,"PrpdPrice": 0}]}

    Read the article

  • Returning a mock object from a mock object

    - by Songo
    I'm trying to return an object when mocking a parser class. This is the test code using PHPUnit 3.7 //set up the result object that I want to be returned from the call to parse method $parserResult= new ParserResult(); $parserResult->setSegment('some string'); //set up the stub Parser object $stubParser=$this->getMock('Parser'); $stubParser->expects($this->any()) ->method('parse') ->will($this->returnValue($parserResult)); //injecting the stub to my client class $fileHeaderParser= new FileWriter($stubParser); $output=$fileParser->writeStringToFile(); Inside my writeStringToFile() method I'm using $parserResult like this: writeStringToFile(){ //Some code... $parserResult=$parser->parse(); $segment=$parserResult->getSegment();//that's why I set the segment in the test. } Should I mock ParserResult in the first place, so that the mock returns a mock? Is it good design for mocks to return mocks? Is there a better approach to do this all?!

    Read the article

  • When should a method of a class return the same instance after modifying itself?

    - by modiX
    I have a class that has three methods A(), B() and C(). Those methods modify the own instance. While the methods have to return an instance when the instance is a separate copy (just as Clone()), I got a free choice to return void or the same instance (return this;) when modifying the same instance in the method and not returning any other value. When deciding for returning the same modified instance, I can do neat method chains like obj.A().B().C();. Would this be the only reason for doing so? Is it even okay to modify the own instance and return it, too? Or should it only return a copy and leave the original object as before? Because when returning the same modified instance the user would maybe admit the returned value is a copy, otherwise it would not be returned? If it's okay, what's the best way to clarify such things on the method?

    Read the article

  • Object-Oriented Operating System

    - by nmagerko
    As I thought about writing an operating system, I came across a point that I really couldn't figure out on my own: Can an operating system truly be written in an Object-Oriented Programming (OOP) Language? Being that these types of languages do not allow for direct accessing of memory, wouldn't this make it impossible for a developer to write an entire operating system using only an OOP Language? Take, for example, the Android Operating System that runs many phones and some tablets in use around the world. I believe that this operating system uses only Java, an Object-Oriented language. In Java, I have been unsuccessful in trying to point at and manipulate a specific memory address that the run-time environment (JRE) has not assigned to my program implicitly. In C, C++, and other non-OOP languages, I can do this in a few lines. So this makes me question whether or not an operating system can be written in an OOP, especially Java. Any counterexamples or other information is appreciated.

    Read the article

  • Object Oriented programming on 8-bit MCU Case Study

    - by Calvin Grier
    I see that there's a lot of questions related to OO Programming here. I'm actually trying to find a specific resource related to embedded OO approaches for an 8 bit MCU. Several years back (maybe 6) I was looking for material related to Object Oriented programming for resource constrained 8051 microprocessors. I found an article/website with a case history of a design group that used a very small RAM part, and implemented many Object based constructs during their C design and development. I believe it was an 8051. The project was a success, and managed to stay inside the very small ROM/RAM they had available. I'm attempting to find it again, but Google can't locate it. The article was well written, and recommended a "mixed" approach using C methods for inheritance and encapsulation - if I recall correctly. Can anyone help me locate this article?

    Read the article

  • What is Object Oriented Programming ill-suited for?

    - by Richard JP Le Guen
    In Martin Fowler's book Refactoring, Fowler speaks of how when developers learn something new, they don't consider when it's inappropriate for the job: Ten years ago it was like that with objects. If someone asked me when not to use objects, it was hard to answer. [...] It was just that I didn't know what those limitations were, although I knew what the benefits were. Reading this, it occurred to me I don't know what the limitations or potential disadvantages of Object-Oriented Programming are. What are the limitations of Object Oriented Programming? When should one look at a project and think "OOP is not best suited for this"?

    Read the article

  • Is there really Object-relational impedance mismatch?

    - by user52763
    It is always stated that it is hard to store applications objects in relational databases - the object-relational impedance mismatch - and that is why Document databases are better. However, is there really an impedance mismatch? And object has a key (albeit it may be hidden away by the runtime as a pointer to memory), a set of values, and foreign keys to other objects. Objects are as much made up of tables as it is a document. Neither really fit. I can see a use for databases to model the data into specific shapes for scenarios in the application - e.g. to speed up database lookup and avoid joins, etc., but won't it be better to keep the data as normalized as possible at the core, and transform as required?

    Read the article

  • In which object should I implement wait()/notify()?

    - by Christopher Francisco
    I'm working in an Android project with multithreading. Basically I have to wait to the server to respond before sending more data. The data sending task is delimited by the flag boolean hasServerResponded so the Thread will loop infinitely without doing anything until the flag becomes true. Since this boolean isn't declared as volatile (yet), and also looping without doing anything wastes resources, I thought maybe I should use AtomicBoolean and also implement wait() / notify() mechanism. Should I use the AtomicBoolean object notify() and wait() methods or should I create a lock Object?

    Read the article

  • Representing complex object dependencies

    - by max
    I have several classes with a reasonably complex (but acyclic) dependency graph. All the dependencies are of the form: class X instance contains an attribute of class Y. All such attributes are set during initialization and never changed again. Each class' constructor has just a couple parameters, and each object knows the proper parameters to pass to the constructors of the objects it contains. class Outer is at the top of the dependency hierarchy, i.e., no class depends on it. Currently, the UI layer only creates an Outer instance; the parameters for Outer constructor are derived from the user input. Of course, Outer in the process of initialization, creates the objects it needs, which in turn create the objects they need, and so on. The new development is that the a user who knows the dependency graph may want to reach deep into it, and set the values of some of the arguments passed to constructors of the inner classes (essentially overriding the values used currently). How should I change the design to support this? I could keep the current approach where all the inner classes are created by the classes that need them. In this case, the information about "user overrides" would need to be passed to Outer class' constructor in some complex user_overrides structure. Perhaps user_overrides could be the full logical representation of the dependency graph, with the overrides attached to the appropriate edges. Outer class would pass user_overrides to every object it creates, and they would do the same. Each object, before initializing lower level objects, will find its location in that graph and check if the user requested an override to any of the constructor arguments. Alternatively, I could rewrite all the objects' constructors to take as parameters the full objects they require. Thus, the creation of all the inner objects would be moved outside the whole hierarchy, into a new controller layer that lies between Outer and UI layer. The controller layer would essentially traverse the dependency graph from the bottom, creating all the objects as it goes. The controller layer would have to ask the higher-level objects for parameter values for the lower-level objects whenever the relevant parameter isn't provided by the user. Neither approach looks terribly simple. Is there any other approach? Has this problem come up enough in the past to have a pattern that I can read about? I'm using Python, but I don't think it matters much at the design level.

    Read the article

  • Liskov substitution principle with abstract parent class

    - by Songo
    Does Liskov substitution principle apply to inheritance hierarchies where the parent is an abstract class the same way if the parent is a concrete class? The Wikipedia page list several conditions that have to be met before a hierarchy is deemed to be correct. However, I have read in a blog post that one way to make things easier to conform to LSP is to use abstract parent instead of a concrete class. How does the choice of the parent type (abstract vs concrete) impacts the LSP? Is it better to have an abstract base class whenever possible?

    Read the article

  • Alternatives to type casting in your domain

    - by Mr Happy
    In my Domain I have an entity Activity which has a list of ITasks. Each implementation of this task has it's own properties beside the implementation of ITask itself. Now each operation of the Activity entity (e.g. Execute()) only needs to loop over this list and call an ITask method (e.g. ExecuteTask()). Where I'm having trouble is when a specific tasks' properties need to be updated. How do I get an instance of that task? The options I see are: Get the Activity by Id and cast the task I need. This'll either sprinkle my code with: Tasks.OfType<SpecificTask>().Single(t => t.Id == taskId) or Tasks.Single(t => t.Id == taskId) as SpecificTask Make each task unique in the whole system (make each task an entity), and create a new repository for each ITask implementation I don't like either option, the first because I don't like casting: I'm using NHibernate and I'm sure this'll come back and bite me when I start using Lazy Loading (NHibernate currently uses proxies to implement this). I don't like the second option because there are/will be dozens of different kind of tasks. Which would mean I'd have to create as many repositories. Am I missing a third option here? Or are any of my objections to the two options not justified? How have you solved this problem in the past?

    Read the article

  • Passing functions into other functions as parameters, bad practice?

    - by BlueHat
    We've been in the process of changing how our AS3 application talks to our back end and we're in the process of implementing a REST system to replace our old one. Sadly the developer who started the work is now on long term sick leave and it's been handed over to me. I've been working with it for the past week or so now and I understand the system, but there's one thing that's been worrying me. There seems to be a lot of passing of functions into functions. For example our class that makes the call to our servers takes in a function that it will then call and pass an object to when the process is complete and errors have been handled etc. It's giving me that "bad feeling" where I feel like it's horrible practice and I can think of some reasons why but I want some confirmation before I propose a re-work to system. I was wondering if anyone had any experience with this possible problem?

    Read the article

  • What kind of programs/solutions can only be written with OOP or are too hard to achieve without it?

    - by user1598390
    Paraphrasing a recent question: What is Object Oriented Programming ill-suited for? I would like to ask the opposite question: What kind of programs cannot be written unless you use OOP? What kind of programs are not recommended to be written using non-OOP techniques? What kind of programs need OOP in order to even be written? What kind of programs would be too hard to write without OOP ? The answer to this question can help sell the idea of OOP to project leaders that have no special interest in code quality. At least they could buy the idea if one shows them the kind of things that are not even possible unless you use OOP.

    Read the article

  • Sharing object between 2 classes

    - by Justin
    I am struggling to wrap my head around being able to share an object between two classes. I want to be able to create only one instance of the object, commonlib in my main class and then have the classes, foo1 and foo2, to be able to mutually share the properties of the commonlib. commonlib is a 3rd party class which has a property Queries that will be added to in each child class of bar. This is why it is vital that only one instance is created. I create two separate queries in foo1 and foo2. This is my setup: abstract class bar{ //common methods } class foo1 extends bar{ //add query to commonlib } class foo2 extends bar{ //add query to commonlib } class main { public $commonlib = new commonlib(); public function start(){ //goal is to share one instance of $this->commonlib between foo1 and foo2 //so that they can both add to the properites of $this->commonlib (global //between the two) //now execute all of the queries after foo1 and foo2 add their query $this->commonlib->RunQueries(); } }

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >