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 50/125 | < Previous Page | 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57  | Next Page >

  • 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

  • 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

  • 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

  • Best way to design a class in python

    - by Fraz
    So, this is more like a philosophical question for someone who is trying to understand classes. Most of time, how i use class is actually a very bad way to use it. I think of a lot of functions and after a time just indent the code and makes it a class and replacing few stuff with self.variable if a variable is repeated a lot. (I know its bad practise) But anyways... What i am asking is: class FooBar: def __init__(self,foo,bar): self._foo = foo self._bar = bar self.ans = self.__execute() def __execute(self): return something(self._foo, self._bar) Now there are many ways to do this: class FooBar: def __init__(self,foo): self._foo = foo def execute(self,bar): return something(self._foo, bar) Can you suggest which one is bad and which one is worse? or any other way to do this. This is just a toy example (offcourse). I mean, there is no need to have a class here if there is one function.. but lets say in __execute something() calls a whole set of other methods.. ?? Thanks

    Read the article

  • 1067: Implicit coercion of a value of type theplayclass to an unrelated type main

    - by Minelava
    I need help because I want to create a gameover screen that display score. However, there's an error that prevent me from transferring the score from theplayclass.as to thegameoverclass.as. Are there ways to pass a value to another movieclip without causing any errors. I refer the source code from this website : http://www.emanueleferonato.com/2008/12/17/designing-the-structure-of-a-flash-game-as3-version/ Here's the error C:\Users\xxx\Downloads\Migrate\test\theplayclass.as, Line 54, Column 41 1067: Implicit coercion of a value of type theplayclass to an unrelated type main. main.as package { import flash.display.MovieClip; import flash.events.Event; public class main extends MovieClip { public var playClass:theplayclass; public var gameOverClass:thegameoverclass; public function main() { showWin(); } public function showWin() { playClass = new theplayclass(this); addChild(playClass); } public function showGameOver() { gameOverClass = new thegameoverclass(this); addChild(gameOverClass); removeChild(playClass); playClass = null; } } } theplayclass.as package { import flash.display.MovieClip; import flash.events.*; public class theplayclass extends MovieClip { private var mainClass:main; var gameScore:Number; var gameOverScore:thegameoverclass; public function theplayclass(passedClass:main) { mainClass = passedClass; scoreText.text ="0"; gameScore = 0; win.addEventListener(MouseEvent.CLICK, showwinFunction); next.addEventListener(MouseEvent.CLICK, showgameoverFunction); addEventListener(Event.ADDED_TO_STAGE, addToStage); addEventListener(Event.ENTER_FRAME, changeScore); } public function addToStage(e:Event):void { this.x = 0; this.y = 0; } private function showwinFunction(e:MouseEvent):void { gameScore+=50; } private function changeScore(e:Event):void { scoreText.text =""+gameScore; } public function showgameoverFunction(e:MouseEvent) { mainClass.showGameOver(); gameOverScore = new thegameoverclass(this); gameOverScore.setTextScore(gameScore); } } } thegameoverclass.as package { import flash.display.MovieClip; import flash.events.MouseEvent; import flash.events.*; public class thegameoverclass extends MovieClip { var mainClass:main; var scorePoints:Number; public function thegameoverclass(passedClass:main) { mainClass = passedClass; finalScore.text = "test"; } public function setTextScore(textToSet:Number) { finalScore.text = ""+scorePoints; } } }

    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

  • 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

  • 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

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

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

    Read the article

  • Python - Is it possible to get the name of the chained function?

    - by user1326876
    I'm working on a class that basically allows for method chaining, for setting some attrbutes for different dictionaries stored. The syntax is as follows: d = Test() d.connect().setAttrbutes(Message=Blah, Circle=True, Key=True) But there can also be other instances, so, for example: d = Test() d.initialise().setAttrbutes(Message=Blah) Now I believe that I can overwrite the "setattrbutes" function; I just don't want to create a function for each of the dictionary. Instead I want to capture the name of the previous chained function. So in the example above I would then be given "connect" and "initialise" so I know which dictionary to store these inside. I hope this makes sense. Any ideas would be greatly appreciated :)

    Read the article

  • Inheriting and overriding interfaces in C#

    - by Daniel A. White
    Please note: I am writing this question. I have these interfaces in a library/framework I am working on: interface IRepository<TKey,TModel> { void Remove(TModel entity); } interface IRepository<T> : IRepository<int, T> { } interface ISoftDeleteRepository<TKey,TModel> : IRepository<TKey, TModel> { } interface ISoftDeleteRepository<TModel> : ISoftDeleteRepository<int, TModel>, IRepository<TModel> { } and these implementations class Repository : IRepository { void Remove(TModel entity) { // actually Delete } } interface IRepository<T> : IRepository<int, T> { } interface ISoftDeleteRepository<TKey,TModel> : IRepository<TKey, TModel> { } interface ISoftDeleteRepository<TModel> : ISoftDeleteRepository<int, TModel>, IRepository<TModel> { }

    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

  • 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

  • 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

  • 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

  • how can I get around no arrays as class constants in php?

    - by user151841
    I have a class with a static method. There is an array to check that a string argument passed is a member of a set. But, with the static method, I can't reference the class property in an uninstantiated class, nor can I have an array as a class constant. I suppose I could hard code the array in the static method, but then if I need to change it, I'd have to remember to change it in two places. I'd like to avoid this.

    Read the article

  • Dilemma with two types and operator +

    - by user35443
    I have small problem with operators. I have this code: public class A { public string Name { get; set; } public A() { } public A(string Name) { this.Name = Name; } public static implicit operator B(A a) { return new B(a.Name); } public static A operator+(A a, A b) { return new A(a.Name + " " + b.Name); } } public class B { public string Name { get; set; } public B() { } public B(string Name) { this.Name = Name; } public static implicit operator A(B b) { return new A(b.Name); } public static B operator +(B b, B a) { return new B(b.Name + " " + a.Name); } } Now I want to know, which's conversion operator will be called and which's addition operator will be called in this operation: new A("a") + new B("b"); Will it be operator of A, or of B? (Or both?) Thanks....

    Read the article

  • Extend base class properties

    - by user1888033
    I need your help to extend my base class, here is the similar structure i have. public class ShowRoomA { public audi AudiModelA { get; set; } public benz benzModelA { get; set; } } public class audi { public string Name { get; set; } public string AC { get; set; } public string PowerStearing { get; set; } } public class benz { public string Name { get; set; } public string AC { get; set; } public string AirBag { get; set; } public string MusicSystem { get; set; } } //My Implementation class like this class Main() { private void UpdateDetails() { ShowRoomA ojbMahi = new ShowRoomA(); GetDetails( ojbMahi ); // this works fine } private void GetDetails(ShowRoomA objShowRoom) { objShowRoom = new objShowRoom(); objShowRoom.audi = new audi(); objShowRoom.audi.Name = "AUDIMODEL94CD698"; objShowRoom.audi.AC = "6 TON"; objShowRoom.audi.PowerStearing = "Electric"; objShowRoom.benz= new benz(); objShowRoom.audi.Name = "BENZMODEL34LCX"; objShowRoom.audi.AC = "8 TON"; objShowRoom.audi.AirBag = "Two (1+1)"; objShowRoom.audi.MusicSystem = "Poineer 3500W"; } } // Till this cool. // Now I got requirement for ShowRoomB with replacement of old audi and benz with new models and new other brand cars also added. // I don't want to modify GetDetails() method. by reusing this method additional logic i want to apply to my new extended model. // Here I struck in designing my new model of ShowRoomB (base of ShowRoomA) ... I have tried some thing like... but not sure. public class audiModelB:audi { public string JetEngine { get; set; } } public class benzModelB:benz { public string JetEngine { get; set; } } public class ShowRoomB { public audiModelB AudiModelB { get; set; } public benzModelB benzModelB { get; set; } } // My new code to Implementation class like this class Main() { private void UpdateDetails() { ShowRoomB ojbNahi = new ShowRoomB(); GetDetails( ojbNahi ); // this is NOT working! I know this object does not contain base class directly, still some what i want fill my new model with old properties. Kindly suggest here } } Can any one please give me solutions how to achieve my extending requirement for base class "ShowroomA" Really appreciated your time and suggestions. Thanks in advance,

    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 | 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57  | Next Page >