Search Results

Search found 658 results on 27 pages for 'oo'.

Page 5/27 | < Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >

  • What OO Design to use ( is there a Design Pattern )?

    - by Blundell
    I have two objects that represent a 'Bar/Club' ( a place where you drink/socialise). In one scenario I need the bar name, address, distance, slogon In another scenario I need the bar name, address, website url, logo So I've got two objects representing the same thing but with different fields. I like to use immutable objects, so all the fields are set from the constructor. One option is to have two constructors and null the other fields i.e: class Bar { private final String name; private final Distance distance; private final Url url; public Bar(String name, Distance distance){ this.name = name; this.distance = distance; this.url = null; } public Bar(String name, Url url){ this.name = name; this.distance = null; this.url = url; } // getters } I don't like this as you would have to null check when you use the getters In my real example the first scenario has 3 fields and the second scenario has about 10, so it would be a real pain having two constructors, the amount of fields I would have to declare null and then when the object are in use you wouldn't know which Bar you where using and so what fields would be null and what wouldn't. What other options do I have? Two classes called BarPreview and Bar? Some type of inheritance / interface? Something else that is awesome?

    Read the article

  • How should I refactor switch statements like this (Switching on type) to be more OO?

    - by Taytay
    I'm seeing some code like this in our code base, and want to refactor it: (Typescript psuedocode follows): class EntityManager{ private findEntityForServerObject(entityType:string, serverObject:any):IEntity { var existingEntity:IEntity = null; switch(entityType) { case Types.UserSetting: existingEntity = this.getUserSettingByUserIdAndSettingName(serverObject.user_id, serverObject.setting_name); break; case Types.Bar: existingEntity = this.getBarByUserIdAndId(serverObject.user_id, serverObject.id); break; //Lots more case statements here... } return existingEntity; } } The downsides of switching on type are self-explanatory. Normally, when switching behavior based on type, I try to push the behavior into subclasses so that I can reduce this to a single method call, and let polymorphism take care of the rest. However, the following two things are giving me pause: 1) I don't want to couple the serverObject with the class that is storing all of these objects. It doesn't know where to look for entities of a certain type. And unfortunately, the identity of a type of ServerObject varies with the type of ServerObject. (So sometimes it's just an ID, other times it's a combination of an id and a uniquely identifying string, etc). And this behavior doesn't belong down there on those subclasses. It is the responsibility of the EntityManager and its delegates. 2) In this case, I can't modify the ServerObject classes since they're plain old data objects. It should be mentioned that I've got other instances of the above method that take a parameter like "IEntity" and proceed to do almost the same thing (but slightly modify the name of the methods they're calling to get the identity of the entity). So, we might have: case Types.Bar: existingEntity = this.getBarByUserIdAndId(entity.getUserId(), entity.getId()); break; So in that case, I can change the entity interface and subclasses, but this isn't behavior that belongs in that class. So, I think that points me to some sort of map. So eventually I will call: private findEntityForServerObject(entityType:string, serverObject:any):IEntity { return aMapOfSomeSort[entityType].findByServerObject(serverObject); } private findEntityForEntity(someEntity:IEntity):IEntity { return aMapOfSomeSort[someEntity.entityType].findByEntity(someEntity); } Which means I need to register some sort of strategy classes/functions at runtime with this map. And again, I darn well better remember to register one for each my my types, or I'll get a runtime exception. Is there a better way to refactor this? I feel like I'm missing something really obvious here.

    Read the article

  • Debugging OpenOffice crashes

    - by JD Long
    This is partly an OpenOffice question and partly a Ubuntu question. I'm running OpenOffice 3.2.0 and Ubuntu 10.04. I get frequent crashes of OO, especially the Calc app, although I get crashes in the word processor as well. They are very abrupt and accompanies by no warning or error message. I'm just typing away and then the app is gone. Sometimes I even end up thinking I'm typing in OO and discover that OO has crashed and I'm typing in whatever application was under OO. However, I can't reproduce these crashes on demand. They seem random. I can open the same file and do the same exact thing but it does not crash. In Ubuntu how do I trace, track, or diagnose these types of crashes? Is there software I can invoke to help diagnose? Can I start OO from a command prompt with debugging of some sort enabled? Note: if someone could add the tag OpenOffice, I would appreciate it

    Read the article

  • What is a good standard exercise to learn the OO features of a language?

    - by FarmBoy
    When I'm learning a new language, I often program some mathematical functions to get used to the control flow syntax. After that, I like to implement some sorting algorithms to get used to the array/list constructs. But I don't have a standard exercise for exploring the languages OO features. Does anyone have a stock exercise for this? A good answer would naturally lend to inheritance, polymorphism, etc., for a programmer already comfortable with these concepts. An ideal answer would be one that could be communicated in a few words, without ambiguity, in the way that "implement mergesort" is completely unambiguous. (As an example, answering "design a game" is so vague as to be useless.) Any ideas? EDIT: I have to remark that the results here are somewhat ironic. 10 upvotes and (originally) 5 favorites suggest that this is a question others are interested in. Yet the most upvoted answer is one that says there is no good answer. Oh well. I think I'll look at the textbook below, I've found games useful in the past for OO.

    Read the article

  • What's a good Perl OO interface for creating and sending email?

    - by aidan
    I'm looking for a simple (OO?) approach to email creation and sending. Something like $e = Email->new(to => "test <[email protected]>", from => "from <[email protected]>"); $e->plain_text($plain_version); $e->html($html_version); $e->attach_file($some_file_object); I've found Email::MIME::CreateHTML, which looks great in almost every way, except that it does not seem to support file attachments. Also, I'm considering writing these emails to a database and having a cronjob send them at a later date. This means that I would need a $e->as_text() sub to return the entire email, including attachments, as raw text which I could stuff into the db. And so I would then need a way of sending the raw emails - what would be a good way of achieving this? Many thanks

    Read the article

  • Java OO design confusion: how to handle actions modified by states modified by actions...

    - by Arvanem
    Hi folks, Given an entity, whose action is potentially modified by states (of the entity and other entities) in turn potentially modified by other actions (of the entity and other entities) , what is the best way to code or design to handle the potential existence of the modifiers? Speaking metaphorically, I am coding a Java application representing a piano. As you know a piano has keys (which, when pressed, emit sound) and pedals (which, when pressed, modify the keys' sounds). My base class structure is as follows: Entity (for keys and pedals) State (this holds each entity's states, e.g. name such as "soft pedal", and boolean "Pressed"), Action (this holds each entity's actions, e.g. play sound when pressed, or modify others sounds). By composition, the Entity class has a copy of each of State and Action inside it. e.g.: public class Entity { State entityState = new State(); Action entityAction = new Action(); Thus I have coded a "C-Sharp" key Entity. When I "press" that entity (set its "Pressed" state to true), its action plays a "C-Sharp" sound and then sets its "Pressed" state to false. At the same time, if the "C-Sharp" key entity is not "tuned", its sound deviates from "C-Sharp". Meanwhile I have coded a "soft pedal" Entity. When that entity is "pressed", no sound plays but its action is to make softer the sound of the "C-Sharp" and other key entities. I have also coded a "sustain pedal" Entity. When that entity is "pressed", no sound plays but its action is to enable reverberation of the sound of the "C-Sharp" and other key entities. Both the "soft" and "sustain pedals" can be pressed at the same time with the result that keys entities become both softened and reverberating. In short, I do not understand how to make this simultaneous series of states and actions modify each other in a sensible OO way. I am wary of coding a massive series of "if" statements or "switches". Thanks in advance for any help or links you can offer.

    Read the article

  • Explicit method tables in C# instead of OO - good? bad?

    - by FunctorSalad
    Hi! I hope the title doesn't sound too subjective; I absolutely do not mean to start a debate on OO in general. I'd merely like to discuss the basic pros and cons for different ways of solving the following sort of problem. Let's take this minimal example: you want to express an abstract datatype T with functions that may take T as input, output, or both: f1 : Takes a T, returns an int f2 : Takes a string, returns a T f3 : Takes a T and a double, returns another T I'd like to avoid downcasting and any other dynamic typing. I'd also like to avoid mutation whenever possible. 1: Abstract-class-based attempt abstract class T { abstract int f1(); // We can't have abstract constructors, so the best we can do, as I see it, is: abstract void f2(string s); // The convention would be that you'd replace calls to the original f2 by invocation of the nullary constructor of the implementing type, followed by invocation of f2. f2 would need to have side-effects to be of any use. // f3 is a problem too: abstract T f3(double d); // This doesn't express that the return value is of the *same* type as the object whose method is invoked; it just expresses that the return value is *some* T. } 2: Parametric polymorphism and an auxilliary class (all implementing classes of TImpl will be singleton classes): abstract class TImpl<T> { abstract int f1(T t); abstract T f2(string s); abstract T f3(T t, double d); } We no longer express that some concrete type actually implements our original spec -- an implementation is simply a type Foo for which we happen to have an instance of TImpl. This doesn't seem to be a problem: If you want a function that works on arbitrary implementations, you just do something like: // Say we want to return a Bar given an arbitrary implementation of our abstract type Bar bar<T>(TImpl<T> ti, T t); At this point, one might as well skip inheritance and singletons altogether and use a 3 First-class function table class /* or struct, even */ TDictT<T> { readonly Func<T,int> f1; readonly Func<string,T> f2; readonly Func<T,double,T> f3; TDict( ... ) { this.f1 = f1; this.f2 = f2; this.f3 = f3; } } Bar bar<T>(TDict<T> td; T t); Though I don't see much practical difference between #2 and #3. Example Implementation class MyT { /* raw data structure goes here; this class needn't have any methods */ } // It doesn't matter where we put the following; could be a static method of MyT, or some static class collecting dictionaries static readonly TDict<MyT> MyTDict = new TDict<MyT>( (t) => /* body of f1 goes here */ , // f2 (s) => /* body of f2 goes here */, // f3 (t,d) => /* body of f3 goes here */ ); Thoughts? #3 is unidiomatic, but it seems rather safe and clean. One question is whether there are any performance concerns with it. I don't usually need dynamic dispatch, and I'd prefer if these function bodies get statically inlined in places where the concrete implementing type is known statically. Is #2 better in that regard?

    Read the article

  • Code Reuse and Abstraction in FP vs OOP

    - by Electric Coffee
    I've been told that code reuse and abstraction in OOP is far more difficult to do than it is in FP, and that all the claims that have been made about Object Orientedness (for lack of a better term) being great at reusing code have been flat out lies So I was wondering if anyone here could tell me why that is, and perhaps show me some code to back up these claims, I'm not saying I don't believe you Functional programmers, it's just that I've been "indoctrinated" to think Object Orientedly, and thus can't (yet) think Functionally enough to see it myself To quote Jimmy Hoffa (from an answer to one of my previous questions): The cake is a lie, code reuse in OO is far more difficult than in FP. For all that OO has claimed code reuse over the years, I have seen it follow through a minimum of times. (feel free to just say I must be doing it wrong, I'm comfortable with how well I write OO code having had to design and maintain OO systems for years, I know the quality of my own results) That quote is the basis of my question, I want to see if there's anything to the claim or not

    Read the article

  • What algorithm can I use to detect simple shapes in a 4x4 matrix?

    - by ion
    I'm working on a simple multiplayer game that receives a random 4x4 matrix from a server and extracts a shape from it. For example: XXOO OXOO XXOX XXOO XOOX and XOOO XXXX OXXX So in the first matrix the shape I want to parse is: oo o oo and the 2nd: oo oo ooo I know there must be an algorithm for this because I saw this kind of behavior on some puzzle games but I have no idea how to go about to detecting them or even where to start. So my question is: How do I detect what shape is in the matrix and how do I differentiate between multiple colors? (it doesn't come only in X and O, it comes in a maximum of 4). Additionally, the shape must be a minimum of 4 blocks.

    Read the article

  • Who are the outspoken critics of Object-Oriented design?

    - by Xepoch
    Sure, object-oriented techniques are great and have stuck around for a while. I know only less than a handful of critics of the OO principles. It seems as though most non-OO designs and architectures are shunned, yet we continue to write a lot of good software in C and solve a lot of data changes via awk/sed and countless other examples. Correct tool for the correct job, yes? I'm having a hard time finding articles, presentations, or published criticisms of OO (even Fred Brooks has blessed information hiding). Are there any well-known, published and/or outspoken critics of OO?

    Read the article

  • Problem installing LibreOffice; please help!

    - by EmmyS
    I followed the instructions for installing LibreOffice found here, which are basically the same instructions found all over askubuntu and the web in general. I followed the instructions (including removing OO first) for gnome; all that is in my Applications menu now is LibreOffice (OO used to have OpenOffice Spreadsheet, OpenOffice Presentation, etc.) When I open LibreOffice, I get the splash screen/menu, but all of the choices for creating new docs are greyed out. It also will not open any office/type files (no errors; they just don't open.) The terminal commands indicated that installation was successful, but obviously something is missing. I'm guessing I can just reinstall OO from the software center, but I'd really like to give LibreOffice a try, given the lack of ongoing development on OO. Can anyone help me out?

    Read the article

  • From Java to Javascript? [duplicate]

    - by theGreenCabbage
    This question already has an answer here: Are there any OO-principles that are practically applicable for Javascript? 2 answers I am primarily a Java programmer. Because of its OO principles and the general paradigm of Java programming, like wrapping things in static variables, and having things return specific types, heavily aids me in "visualizing" a program. Instead of thinking of a big program, I can, instead, focus on smaller organized parts of my eventual program, and add functionality and build up from there. Thus, I have trouble programming in other languages. Or at least, I have not been able to program in the same ability as I do in Java compared to other languages. I know Javascript has OO principles, so I'd like to learn this language in a OO-based like I would program with Java. Is this possible?

    Read the article

  • Error in my OO Generics design. How do I workaround it?

    - by John
    I get "E2511 Type parameter 'T' must be a class type" on the third class. type TSomeClass=class end; ParentParentClass<T>=class end; ParentClass<T: class> = class(ParentParentClass<T>) end; ChildClass<T: TSomeClass> = class(ParentClass<T>) end; I'm trying to write a lite Generic Array wrapper for any data type(ParentParentClass) ,but because I'm unable to free type idenitifiers( if T is TObject then Tobject(T).Free) , I created the second class, which is useful for class types, so I can free the objects. The third class is where I use my wrapper, but the compiler throws that error. How do I make it compile?

    Read the article

  • Where should I initialize variables for an OO Recursive Descent Parse Tree?

    - by Vasto
    I'd like to preface this by stating that this is for a class, so please don't solve this for me. One of my labs for my cse class is creating an interpreter for a BNF that was provided. I understand most of the concepts, but I'm trying to build up my tree and I'm unsure where to initialize values. I've tried in both the constructor, and in the methods but Eclipse's debugger still only shows the left branch, even though it runs through completely. Here is my main procedure so you can get an idea of how I'm calling the methods. public class Parser { public static void main(String[] args) throws IOException { FileTokenizer instance = FileTokenizer.Instance(); FileTokenizer.main(args); Prog prog = new Prog(); prog.ParseProg(); prog.PrintProg(); prog.ExecProg(); } Now here is My Prog class: public class Prog { private DeclSeq ds; private StmtSeq ss; Prog() { ds = new DeclSeq(); ss = new StmtSeq(); } public void ParseProg() { FileTokenizer instance = FileTokenizer.Instance(); instance.skipToken(); //Skips program (1) // ds = new DeclSeq(); ds.ParseDS(); instance.skipToken(); //Skips begin (2) // ss = new StmtSeq(); ss.ParseSS(); instance.skipToken(); } I've tried having Prog() { ds = null; ss = null; } public void ParseProg() { FileTokenizer instance = FileTokenizer.Instance(); instance.skipToken(); //Skips program (1) ds = new DeclSeq(); ds.ParseDS(); ... But it gave me the same error. I need the parse tree built up so I can do a pretty print and an execute command, but like I said, I only get the left branch. Any help would be appreciated. Explanations why are even more so appreciated. Thank you, Vasto

    Read the article

  • What would you do if you coded a C++/OO cross-platform framework and realize its laying on your disk

    - by Manuel
    This project started as a development platform because i wanted to be able to write games for mobile devices, but also being able to run and debug the code on my desktop machine too (ie, the EPOC device emulator was so bad): the platforms it currently supports are: Window-desktop WinCE Symbian iPhone The architecture it's quite complete with 16bit 565 video framebuffer, blitters, basic raster ops, software pixel shaders, audio mixer with shaders (dsp fx), basic input, a simple virtual file system... although this thing is at it's first write and so there are places where some refactoring would be needed. Everything has been abstracted away and the guiding principle are: mostly clean code, as if it was a book to just be read object-orientation, without sacrifying performances mobile centric The idea was to open source it, but without being able to manage it, i doubt the software itself would benefit from this move.. Nevertheless, i myself have learned a lot from unmaintained projects. So, thanking you in advance for reading all this... really, what would you do?

    Read the article

  • Too much delay while sending object over UDP to server

    - by RomZes
    I'm getting 4 sec delay when sending objects over UDP. Working on small game and trying to implement multiplayer. For now just trying to synchronize movements of 2 balls on the screen. StartingPoint.java is my server(first player), that receiving serialized objects (coordinates). SecondPlayer.java is client that sending serialized objects to server. When I'm moving my first object it appears 4 seconds later on different screen. StartingPoint.java @Override public void run() { byte[] receiveData = new byte[256]; byte[] sendData = new byte[256]; // DatagramSocket socketS; try { socket = new DatagramSocket(5000); System.out.println("Socket created on "+ port + " port"); } catch (SocketException e1) { // TODO Auto-generated catch block e1.printStackTrace(); } while(true){ b1.update(this); b3.update(); System.out.println("Starting server..."); //// Receiving and deserializing object try { //socket.setSoTimeout(1000); DatagramPacket packet = new DatagramPacket(buf, buf.length); socket.receive(packet); byte[] data = packet.getData(); ByteArrayInputStream in = new ByteArrayInputStream(data); ObjectInputStream is = new ObjectInputStream(in); // socket.setSoTimeout(300); b1 = (Ball) is.readObject(); } catch (IOException | ClassNotFoundException e) { // TODO Auto-generated catch block e.printStackTrace(); } repaint(); try { Thread.sleep(17); } catch (InterruptedException e) { e.printStackTrace(); } SecondPlayer.java @Override public void run() { while(true){ b.update(); networkSend(); repaint(); try { Thread.sleep(17); } catch (InterruptedException e) { e.printStackTrace(); } } public void networkSend(){ // Serialize to a byte array try { ByteArrayOutputStream bStream = new ByteArrayOutputStream(); ObjectOutputStream oo; oo = new ObjectOutputStream(bStream); oo.writeObject(b); oo.flush(); oo.close(); byte[] bufCar = bStream.toByteArray(); //socket = new DatagramSocket(); //socket.setSoTimeout(1000); InetAddress address = InetAddress.getByName("localhost"); DatagramPacket packet = new DatagramPacket(bufCar, bufCar.length, address, port); socket.send(packet); } catch (IOException e) { // TODO Auto-generated catch block e.printStackTrace(); }

    Read the article

  • Java game applet development

    - by RomZes
    I'm getting 4 sec delay when sending objects over UDP. Working on small game and trying to implement multiplayer. For now just trying to synchronize movements of 2 balls on the screen. StartingPoint.java is my server(first player), that receiving serialized objects (coordinates). SecondPlayer.java is client that sending serialized objects to server. When I'm moving my first object it appears 4 seconds later on different screen. StartingPoint.java @Override public void run() { byte[] receiveData = new byte[256]; byte[] sendData = new byte[256]; // DatagramSocket socketS; try { socket = new DatagramSocket(5000); System.out.println("Socket created on "+ port + " port"); } catch (SocketException e1) { // TODO Auto-generated catch block e1.printStackTrace(); } while(true){ b1.update(this); b3.update(); System.out.println("Starting server..."); //// Receiving and deserializing object try { //socket.setSoTimeout(1000); DatagramPacket packet = new DatagramPacket(buf, buf.length); socket.receive(packet); byte[] data = packet.getData(); ByteArrayInputStream in = new ByteArrayInputStream(data); ObjectInputStream is = new ObjectInputStream(in); // socket.setSoTimeout(300); b1 = (Ball) is.readObject(); } catch (IOException | ClassNotFoundException e) { // TODO Auto-generated catch block e.printStackTrace(); } repaint(); try { Thread.sleep(17); } catch (InterruptedException e) { e.printStackTrace(); } SecondPlayer.java @Override public void run() { while(true){ b.update(); networkSend(); repaint(); try { Thread.sleep(17); } catch (InterruptedException e) { e.printStackTrace(); } } public void networkSend(){ // Serialize to a byte array try { ByteArrayOutputStream bStream = new ByteArrayOutputStream(); ObjectOutputStream oo; oo = new ObjectOutputStream(bStream); oo.writeObject(b); oo.flush(); oo.close(); byte[] bufCar = bStream.toByteArray(); //socket = new DatagramSocket(); //socket.setSoTimeout(1000); InetAddress address = InetAddress.getByName("localhost"); DatagramPacket packet = new DatagramPacket(bufCar, bufCar.length, address, port); socket.send(packet); } catch (IOException e) { // TODO Auto-generated catch block e.printStackTrace(); }

    Read the article

  • pros and cons of taking an ABAP job

    - by sJhonny
    I'm a programmer with 3 years of .NET experience under my belt, and am currently looking for a new job. One of the options I'm considering is as an OO ABAP developer position with SAP. However, I have several concerns about taking an ABAP job: as ABAP is used exclusively by SAP, any experience in ABAP that I have would be irrelevant in the outside world. I'm also worried that I wouldn't be exposed to new technologies while working in ABAP, and ultimately I would lose touch with what's going on in the world. This is a real sore point, since I really enjoy exploring and learning new & cool stuff. (*note: Yes, I could experiment with other technologies & trends on my own time, but this is much harder to do, and isn't really the same as working full-time with them) One of the nicest things about programming, for me, is finding a great OO architecture / design (I'm really into object-oriented :)). I know that ABAP is a procedural language, and I'm not certain how 'OO' it's OO version is. This leads me to the conclusion that, unless I stay with SAP to the end of my career, any time spent there would be professionaly unbenificial. Is there anyone who can shed some light on these opinions? are my concerns founded? Are there any advantages (career and technology-wise) to ABAP that I'm missing?

    Read the article

  • Stuff you learned in school, that you have never used again?

    - by Mercfh
    Obviously we learn plenty of things in our University/College/Whatever that probably don't apply to everyday use, but is there anything that stands out particularly? Maybe something that was concentrated ALOT on? For me it was def. 2 things: OO Concepts and Pointers I still use OO, but not nearly to the amount people made it out to be, i can see where it'd be useful but in my line of work we don't have huge amounts of classes, maybe a couple at most. And there certainly isn't much OO reuse (i finally figured out what that means lol) Pointers are another thing, again I can see where they'd be useful...however I barely barely ever touch them, nor do the others I work with. I guess language choice has alot to do with that but still. What about you guys? edit: For those who are asking I work for a Large Printer company, and most of the Applications we work on are Java+XML and Actionscript for "Printer Apps". But we are moving towards other languages (think like webkits and stuff). So the Code amounts per parts are quite small. I never say OO wasn't useful I just said I personally havent seen it used in my workplace much.

    Read the article

  • Java desktop programmer starting to learn Android development: how different is it?

    - by Prog
    I'm a Java programmer. All of my experience is on desktop applications, using Swing for the GUI. I spend a lot of time studying OOP, I have decent understanding of OO concepts and I design and program by the OO approach. I'm thinking of starting to learn Android development soon, and I'm wondering how different it is from desktop development. Obviously the GUI libraries will be different (not Swing), but other than that, I want to know if there are significant differences. I will divide this question to two parts: Apart from the GUI libraries, am I still going to use the standard Java libarary I'm used to? Aka same data structues, same utility classes, etc.? If not, what are the main differences between the libraries I'm used to and the libraries I'll be using? How different is Android development in regard to OO design? Are all of the familiar principles, design patterns, techniques and best pratices just as valid and used? Or is OOP and OOD in Android development significantly different than OO in desktop development? To summarize: apart from GUI design, how different is Java Android development than Java desktop development?

    Read the article

  • Pixel Shader - apply a mask (XNA)

    - by Michal Bozydar Pawlowski
    I'd like to apply a simple few masks to few images. The first mask I'd like to implement is mask like: XXXOOO I mean, that on the right everything is masked (to black), and on the left everything is stayed without changes. The second mask I'd like to implement is glow mask. I mean something like this: O O***O O**X**O O***O O What I mean, is a circle mask, which in the center everything is saved without changes, and going outside the circle everything is starting to be black The last mask is irregular mask. For example like this: OOO* O**X**O OO**OO**O OO*X*O O*O O Where: O - to black * - to gray X - without changes I've read, how to apply distortion pixel shader in XNA: msdn Could you explain me how to apply mute mask on an image? (mask will be grayscale)

    Read the article

  • Is avoiding the private access specifier in PHP justified?

    - by Tifa
    I come from a Java background and I have been working with PHP for almost a year now. I have worked with WordPress, Zend and currently I'm using CakePHP. I was going through Cake's lib and I couldn't help notice that Cake goes a long way avoiding the "private" access specifier. Cake says Try to avoid private methods or variables, though, in favor of protected ones. The latter can be accessed or modified by subclasses, whereas private ones prevent extension or re-use. in this tutorial. Why does Cake overly shun the "private" access specifier while good OO design encourages its use i.e to apply the most restrictive visibility for a class member that is not intended to be part of its exported API? I'm willing to believe that "private" functions are difficult test, but is rest of the convention justified outside Cake? or perhaps it's just a Cake convention of OO design geared towards extensibility at the expense of being a stickler for stringent (or traditional?) OO design?

    Read the article

  • Where to generate data in an Entity-Component System?

    - by Mark Mandel
    So I'm making a small game where I generate 2D landscape using perlin noise when the game first loads. I've got it working in a OO way, but want to move over to an ES architecure, and I'm just struggling to work out the right place for the code that does the generation to go? In OO world, I have a World object which gets passes a coordinate value that is used as the seed for the perlin noise, and generates all the points for the land mass when the world is created. I'm thinking I need a World component with a coordinate field on it - that's an easy part. From there - is it right for a component to generate data when it's first initialised (or is that too OO?)? Or should a System be doing that instead, when the game first starts? Or... some other solution I'm not aware of? Thanks in advance for any guidance.

    Read the article

  • Too complex/too many objects?

    - by Mike Fairhurst
    I know that this will be a difficult question to answer without context, but hopefully there are at least some good guidelines to share on this. The questions are at the bottom if you want to skip the details. Most are about OOP in general. Begin context. I am a jr dev on a PHP application, and in general the devs I work with consider themselves to use many more OO concepts than most PHP devs. Still, in my research on clean code I have read about so many ways of using OO features to make code flexible, powerful, expressive, testable, etc. that is just plain not in use here. The current strongly OO API that I've proposed is being called too complex, even though it is trivial to implement. The problem I'm solving is that our permission checks are done via a message object (my API, they wanted to use arrays of constants) and the message object does not hold the validation object accountable for checking all provided data. Metaphorically, if your perm containing 'allowable' and 'rare but disallowed' is sent into a validator, the validator may not know to look for 'rare but disallowed', but approve 'allowable', which will actually approve the whole perm check. We have like 11 validators, too many to easily track at such minute detail. So I proposed an AtomicPermission class. To fix the previous example, the perm would instead contain two atomic permissions, one wrapping 'allowable' and the other wrapping 'rare but disallowed'. Where previously the validator would say 'the check is OK because it contains allowable,' now it would instead say '"allowable" is ok', at which point the check ends...and the check fails, because 'rare but disallowed' was not specifically okay-ed. The implementation is just 4 trivial objects, and rewriting a 10 line function into a 15 line function. abstract class PermissionAtom { public function allow(); // maybe deny() as well public function wasAllowed(); } class PermissionField extends PermissionAtom { public function getName(); public function getValue(); } class PermissionIdentifier extends PermissionAtom { public function getIdentifier(); } class PermissionAction extends PermissionAtom { public function getType(); } They say that this is 'not going to get us anything important' and it is 'too complex' and 'will be difficult for new developers to pick up.' I respectfully disagree, and there I end my context to begin the broader questions. So the question is about my OOP, are there any guidelines I should know: is this too complicated/too much OOP? Not that I expect to get more than 'it depends, I'd have to see if...' when is OO abstraction too much? when is OO abstraction too little? how can I determine when I am overthinking a problem vs fixing one? how can I determine when I am adding bad code to a bad project? how can I pitch these APIs? I feel the other devs would just rather say 'its too complicated' than ask 'can you explain it?' whenever I suggest a new class.

    Read the article

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