Search Results

Search found 45849 results on 1834 pages for 'abstract class'.

Page 51/1834 | < Previous Page | 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58  | Next Page >

  • Google Python Class Day 2 Part 4

    Google Python Class Day 2 Part 4 Google Python Class Day 1 Part 1: Closing Thoughts. By Nick Parlante. Support materials and exercises: code.google.com From: GoogleDevelopers Views: 129 1 ratings Time: 11:16 More in Science & Technology

    Read the article

  • SortedSet Collection Class in .NET 4.0

    This article explains SortedSet Collection class added in Base Class Libraries (BCL) of .NET 4.0...Did you know that DotNetSlackers also publishes .net articles written by top known .net Authors? We already have over 80 articles in several categories including Silverlight. Take a look: here.

    Read the article

  • Circular class dependency

    - by shad0w
    Is it bad design to have 2 classes which need each other? I'm writing a small game in which I have a GameEngine class which has got a few GameState objects. To access several rendering methods, these GameState objects also need to know the GameEngine class - so it's a circular dependency. Would you call this bad design? I am just asking, because I am not quite sure and at this time I am still able to refactor these things.

    Read the article

  • 3 Benefits of Multiple C Class Hosting

    Multiple C Class hosting has become an essential tool for marketers striving to have their websites rank highly in the search engines. The ability to interlink websites while having search engines actually count rather than discount the links is invaluable. What are the benefits of Multiple C Class hosting? Read on to find out.

    Read the article

  • which style of member-access is preferable

    - by itwasntpete
    the purpose of oop using classes is to encapsulate members from the outer space. i always read that accessing members should be done by methods. for example: template<typename T> class foo_1 { T state_; public: // following below }; the most common doing that by my professor was to have a get and set method. // variant 1 T const& getState() { return state_; } void setState(T const& v) { state_ = v; } or like this: // variant 2 // in my opinion it is easier to read T const& state() { return state_; } void state(T const& v) { state_ = v; } assume the state_ is a variable, which is checked periodically and there is no need to ensure the value (state) is consistent. Is there any disadvantage of accessing the state by reference? for example: // variant 3 // do it by reference T& state() { return state_; } or even directly, if I declare the variable as public. template<typename T> class foo { public: // variant 4 T state; }; In variant 4 I could even ensure consistence by using c++11 atomic. So my question is, which one should I prefer?, Is there any coding standard which would decline one of these pattern? for some code see here

    Read the article

  • Why am I seeing so many instantiable classes without state?

    - by futlib
    I'm seeing a lot of instantiable classes in the C++ and Java world that don't have any state. I really can't figure out why people do that, they could just use a namespace with free functions in C++, or a class with a private constructor and only static methods in Java. The only benefit I can think of is that you don't have to change most of your code if you later decide that you want a different implementation in certain situations. But isn't that a case of premature design? It could be turned into a class later, when/if it becomes appropriate. Am I getting this wrong? Is it not OOP if I don't put everything into objects (i.e. instantiated classes)? Then why are there so many utility namespaces and classes in the standard libraries of C++ and Java? Update: I've certainly seen a lot examples of this in my previous jobs, but I'm struggling to find open source examples, so maybe it's not that common after all. Still, I'm wondering why people do it, and how common it is.

    Read the article

  • Passing variables, creating instances, self, The mechanics and usage of classes: need explenation

    - by Baf
    I've been sitting over this the whole day and Im a little tired already so please excuse me being brief. Im new to python. I just rewrrote a working program, into a bunch of functions in a class and everzthings messed up. I dont know if its me but Im very surprised i couldn t find a beginners tutorial on how to handle classes on the web so I have a few questions. First of all, in the init section of the class i have declared a bunch of variables with self.variable=something. Is it correct that i should be able to access/modify these variables in every function of the class by using self.variable in that function? In other words by declaring self.variable i have made these variables, global variables in the scope of the class right? If not how do i handle self. ? Secondly how do i correctly pass arguments to the class? some example code would be cool. thirdly how do i call a function of the class outside of the class scope? some example code would be cool. fouthly how do I create an Instance of the class INITIALCLASS in another class OTHERCLASS, passing variables from OTHERCLASS to INITIALCLASS? some example code would be cool. I Want to call a function from OTHERCLASS with arguments from INITIALCLASS. What Ive done so far is. class OTHERCLASS(): def __init__(self,variable1,variable2,variable3): self.variable1=variable1 self.variable2=variable2 self.variable3=variable3 def someotherfunction(self): something=somecode(using self.variable3) self.variable2.append(something) print self.variable2 def somemorefunctions(self): self.variable2.append(variable1) class INITIALCLASS(): def __init__(self): self.variable1=value1 self.variable2=[] self.variable3='' self.DoIt=OTHERCLASS(variable1,variable2,variable3) def somefunction(self): variable3=Somecode #tried this self.DoIt.someotherfunctions() #and this DoIt.someotherfunctions() I clearly havent understood how to pass variables to classes or how to handle self, when to use it and when not, I probably also havent understood how to properly create an isntance of a class. In general i havent udnerstood the mechanics of classes So please help me and explain it to me like i have no Idea( which i dont it seems). Or point me to a thorough video, or readable tutorial. All i find on the web is super simple examples, that didnt help me much. Or just very short definitions of classes and class methods instances etc. I can send you my original code if you guys want, but its quite long. Thanks for the Help Much appreciated!

    Read the article

  • JavaScript Class Patterns

    - by Liam McLennan
    To write object-oriented programs we need objects, and likely lots of them. JavaScript makes it easy to create objects: var liam = { name: "Liam", age: Number.MAX_VALUE }; But JavaScript does not provide an easy way to create similar objects. Most object-oriented languages include the idea of a class, which is a template for creating objects of the same type. From one class many similar objects can be instantiated. Many patterns have been proposed to address the absence of a class concept in JavaScript. This post will compare and contrast the most significant of them. Simple Constructor Functions Classes may be missing but JavaScript does support special constructor functions. By prefixing a call to a constructor function with the ‘new’ keyword we can tell the JavaScript runtime that we want the function to behave like a constructor and instantiate a new object containing the members defined by that function. Within a constructor function the ‘this’ keyword references the new object being created -  so a basic constructor function might be: function Person(name, age) { this.name = name; this.age = age; this.toString = function() { return this.name + " is " + age + " years old."; }; } var john = new Person("John Galt", 50); console.log(john.toString()); Note that by convention the name of a constructor function is always written in Pascal Case (the first letter of each word is capital). This is to distinguish between constructor functions and other functions. It is important that constructor functions be called with the ‘new’ keyword and that not constructor functions are not. There are two problems with the pattern constructor function pattern shown above: It makes inheritance difficult The toString() function is redefined for each new object created by the Person constructor. This is sub-optimal because the function should be shared between all of the instances of the Person type. Constructor Functions with a Prototype JavaScript functions have a special property called prototype. When an object is created by calling a JavaScript constructor all of the properties of the constructor’s prototype become available to the new object. In this way many Person objects can be created that can access the same prototype. An improved version of the above example can be written: function Person(name, age) { this.name = name; this.age = age; } Person.prototype = { toString: function() { return this.name + " is " + this.age + " years old."; } }; var john = new Person("John Galt", 50); console.log(john.toString()); In this version a single instance of the toString() function will now be shared between all Person objects. Private Members The short version is: there aren’t any. If a variable is defined, with the var keyword, within the constructor function then its scope is that function. Other functions defined within the constructor function will be able to access the private variable, but anything defined outside the constructor (such as functions on the prototype property) won’t have access to the private variable. Any variables defined on the constructor are automatically public. Some people solve this problem by prefixing properties with an underscore and then not calling those properties by convention. function Person(name, age) { this.name = name; this.age = age; } Person.prototype = { _getName: function() { return this.name; }, toString: function() { return this._getName() + " is " + this.age + " years old."; } }; var john = new Person("John Galt", 50); console.log(john.toString()); Note that the _getName() function is only private by convention – it is in fact a public function. Functional Object Construction Because of the weirdness involved in using constructor functions some JavaScript developers prefer to eschew them completely. They theorize that it is better to work with JavaScript’s functional nature than to try and force it to behave like a traditional class-oriented language. When using the functional approach objects are created by returning them from a factory function. An excellent side effect of this pattern is that variables defined with the factory function are accessible to the new object (due to closure) but are inaccessible from anywhere else. The Person example implemented using the functional object construction pattern is: var john = new Person("John Galt", 50); console.log(john.toString()); var personFactory = function(name, age) { var privateVar = 7; return { toString: function() { return name + " is " + age * privateVar / privateVar + " years old."; } }; }; var john2 = personFactory("John Lennon", 40); console.log(john2.toString()); Note that the ‘new’ keyword is not used for this pattern, and that the toString() function has access to the name, age and privateVar variables because of closure. This pattern can be extended to provide inheritance and, unlike the constructor function pattern, it supports private variables. However, when working with JavaScript code bases you will find that the constructor function is more common – probably because it is a better approximation of mainstream class oriented languages like C# and Java. Inheritance Both of the above patterns can support inheritance but for now, favour composition over inheritance. Summary When JavaScript code exceeds simple browser automation object orientation can provide a powerful paradigm for controlling complexity. Both of the patterns presented in this article work – the choice is a matter of style. Only one question still remains; who is John Galt?

    Read the article

  • JavaScript Class Patterns

    - by Liam McLennan
    To write object-oriented programs we need objects, and likely lots of them. JavaScript makes it easy to create objects: var liam = { name: "Liam", age: Number.MAX_VALUE }; But JavaScript does not provide an easy way to create similar objects. Most object-oriented languages include the idea of a class, which is a template for creating objects of the same type. From one class many similar objects can be instantiated. Many patterns have been proposed to address the absence of a class concept in JavaScript. This post will compare and contrast the most significant of them. Simple Constructor Functions Classes may be missing but JavaScript does support special constructor functions. By prefixing a call to a constructor function with the ‘new’ keyword we can tell the JavaScript runtime that we want the function to behave like a constructor and instantiate a new object containing the members defined by that function. Within a constructor function the ‘this’ keyword references the new object being created -  so a basic constructor function might be: function Person(name, age) { this.name = name; this.age = age; this.toString = function() { return this.name + " is " + age + " years old."; }; } var john = new Person("John Galt", 50); console.log(john.toString()); Note that by convention the name of a constructor function is always written in Pascal Case (the first letter of each word is capital). This is to distinguish between constructor functions and other functions. It is important that constructor functions be called with the ‘new’ keyword and that not constructor functions are not. There are two problems with the pattern constructor function pattern shown above: It makes inheritance difficult The toString() function is redefined for each new object created by the Person constructor. This is sub-optimal because the function should be shared between all of the instances of the Person type. Constructor Functions with a Prototype JavaScript functions have a special property called prototype. When an object is created by calling a JavaScript constructor all of the properties of the constructor’s prototype become available to the new object. In this way many Person objects can be created that can access the same prototype. An improved version of the above example can be written: function Person(name, age) { this.name = name; this.age = age; } Person.prototype = { toString: function() { return this.name + " is " + this.age + " years old."; } }; var john = new Person("John Galt", 50); console.log(john.toString()); In this version a single instance of the toString() function will now be shared between all Person objects. Private Members The short version is: there aren’t any. If a variable is defined, with the var keyword, within the constructor function then its scope is that function. Other functions defined within the constructor function will be able to access the private variable, but anything defined outside the constructor (such as functions on the prototype property) won’t have access to the private variable. Any variables defined on the constructor are automatically public. Some people solve this problem by prefixing properties with an underscore and then not calling those properties by convention. function Person(name, age) { this.name = name; this.age = age; } Person.prototype = { _getName: function() { return this.name; }, toString: function() { return this._getName() + " is " + this.age + " years old."; } }; var john = new Person("John Galt", 50); console.log(john.toString()); Note that the _getName() function is only private by convention – it is in fact a public function. Functional Object Construction Because of the weirdness involved in using constructor functions some JavaScript developers prefer to eschew them completely. They theorize that it is better to work with JavaScript’s functional nature than to try and force it to behave like a traditional class-oriented language. When using the functional approach objects are created by returning them from a factory function. An excellent side effect of this pattern is that variables defined with the factory function are accessible to the new object (due to closure) but are inaccessible from anywhere else. The Person example implemented using the functional object construction pattern is: var personFactory = function(name, age) { var privateVar = 7; return { toString: function() { return name + " is " + age * privateVar / privateVar + " years old."; } }; }; var john2 = personFactory("John Lennon", 40); console.log(john2.toString()); Note that the ‘new’ keyword is not used for this pattern, and that the toString() function has access to the name, age and privateVar variables because of closure. This pattern can be extended to provide inheritance and, unlike the constructor function pattern, it supports private variables. However, when working with JavaScript code bases you will find that the constructor function is more common – probably because it is a better approximation of mainstream class oriented languages like C# and Java. Inheritance Both of the above patterns can support inheritance but for now, favour composition over inheritance. Summary When JavaScript code exceeds simple browser automation object orientation can provide a powerful paradigm for controlling complexity. Both of the patterns presented in this article work – the choice is a matter of style. Only one question still remains; who is John Galt?

    Read the article

  • Storing class constants (for use as bitmask) in a database?

    - by fireeyedboy
    Let's say I have a class called Medium which can represent different types of media. For instance: uploaded video embedded video uploaded image embedded image I represent these types with contants, like this: class MediumAbstract { const UPLOAD = 0x0001; const EMBED = 0x0010; const VIDEO = 0x0100; const IMAGE = 0x1000; const VIDEO_UPLOAD = 0x0101; // for convenience const VIDEO_EMBED = 0x0110; // for convenience const IMAGE_UPLOAD = 0x1001; // for convenience const IMAGE_EMBED = 0x1010; // for convenience const ALL = 0x1111; // for convenience } Thus, it is easy for me to do a combined search on them on an (abstract) repository, with something like: { public function findAllByType( $type ) { ... } } $media = $repo->findAllByType( MediumAbstract::VIDEO | MediumAbstract::IMAGE_UPLOAD ); // or $media = $repo->findAllByType( MediumAbstract::ALL ); // etc.. How do you feel about using these constant values in a concrete repository like a database? Is it ok? Or should I substitute them with meaningful data in the database. Table medium: | id | type | location | etc.. ------------------------------------------------- | 1 | use constants here? | /some/path | etc.. (Of course I'll only be using the meaningful constants: VIDEO_UPLOAD, VIDEO_EMBED, IMAGE_UPLOAD and IMAGE_EMBED)

    Read the article

  • How can I share variables between a base class and subclass in Perl?

    - by Jonathan
    I have a base class like this: package MyClass; use vars qw/$ME list of vars/; use Exporter; @ISA = qw/Exporter/; @EXPORT_OK = qw/ many variables & functions/; %EXPORT_TAGS = (all => \@EXPORT_OK ); sub my_method { } sub other_methods etc { } --- more code--- I want to subclass MyClass, but only for one method. package MySubclass; use MyClass; use vars qw/@ISA/; @ISA = 'MyClass'; sub my_method { --- new method } And I want to call this MySubclass like I would the original MyClass, and still have access to all of the variables and functions from Exporter. However I am having problems getting the Exporter variables from the original class, MyClass, to export correctly. Do I need to run Exporter again inside the subclass? That seems redundant and unclear. Example file: #!/usr/bin/perl use MySubclass /$ME/; -- rest of code But I get compile errors when I try to import the $ME variable. Any suggestions?

    Read the article

  • EF4 and multiple abstract levels

    - by Cedric
    I need to use inheritance with EF4 and the TPH model created from DB. I created a new projet to test simples classes. There is my class model: There is my table in SQL SERVER 2008 : VEHICLE ID : int PK Owner : varchar(50) Consumption : float FirstCirculationDate : date Type : varchar(50) Discriminator : varchar(10) I added a condition in my EDMX on the Discriminator field to differentiate the Scooter, Car, Motorbike and Bike entities. MotorizedVehicle and Vehicle are Abstract. But when I compile, this error appears : Error 3032: Problem in mapping fragments starting at lines 78, 85:EntityTypes EF4InheritanceModel.Scooter, EF4InheritanceModel.Motorbike, EF4InheritanceModel.Car, EF4InheritanceModel.Bike are being mapped to the same rows in table Vehicle. Mapping conditions can be used to distinguish the rows that these types are mapped to. Edit : To Ladislav : I try it and error change to become it for all of my entities : Error 3034: Problem in mapping fragments starting at lines 72, 86:An entity is mapped to different rows within the same table. Ensure these two mapping fragments do not map two groups of entities with overlapping keys to two distinct groups of rows. To Henk (with Ladislay suggestion) : There are all of mappings details : What's wrong ? Thanks

    Read the article

  • When is it better to use a method versus a property for a class definition?

    - by ccomet
    Partially related to an earlier question of mine, I have a system in which I have to store complex data as a string. Instead of parsing these strings as all kinds of separate objects, I just created one class that contains all of those objects, and it has some parser logic that will encode all properties into strings, or decode a string to get those objects. That's all fine and good. This question is not about the parser itself, but about where I should house the logic for the parser. Is it a better choice to put it as a property, or as a method? In the case of a property, say public string DataAsString, the get accessor would house the logic to encode all of the data into a string, while the set accessor would decode the input value and set all of the data in the class instance. It seems convenient because the input/output is indeed a string. In the case of a method, one method would be Encode(), which returns the encoded string. Then, either the constructor itself would house the logic for the decoding a string and require the string argument, or I write a Decode(string str) method which is called separately. In either case, it would be using a method instead of a property. So, is there a functional difference between these paths, in terms of the actual running of the code? Or are they basically equivalent and it then boils down to a choice of personal preference or which one looks better? And in that kind of question... which would look cleaner anyway?

    Read the article

  • Declaring a string array in class header file - compiler thinks string is variable name?

    - by Dave
    Hey everybody, I need a bit of a hand with declaring a string array in my class header file in C++. atm it looks like this: //Maze.h #include <string> class Maze { GLfloat mazeSize, mazeX, mazeY, mazeZ; string* mazeLayout; public: Maze ( ); void render(); }; and the constructor looks like this: //Maze.cpp #include <GL/gl.h> #include "Maze.h" #include <iostream> #include <fstream> Maze::Maze( ) { cin >> mazeSize; mazeLayout = new string[mazeSize]; mazeX = 2/mazeSize; mazeY = 0.25; mazeZ = 2/mazeSize; } I'm getting a compiler error that says: In file included from model-view.cpp:11: Maze.h:14: error: ISO C++ forbids declaration of ‘string’ with no type Maze.h:14: error: expected ‘;’ before ‘*’ token and the only sense that makes to me is that for some reason it thinks I want string as a variable name not as a type declaration. If anybody could help me out that would be fantastic, been looking this up for a while and its giving me the shits lol. Cheers guys

    Read the article

  • Use Struct as a Ptr/class? Need a fix .NET

    - by acidzombie24
    I wrote a bunch of code and i would like to fix it the fastest way possible. I'll describe my problem in a easier way. I have apples and oranges, they are both Point and in the list apples, oranges. I create a PictureBox and draw the apple/oranges on screen and move them around and update the Point via Tag. The problem now is since its a struct the tag is a copy so the original elements in the list are not update. So, how do i update them? I consider using Point? But those seem to be readonly. So the only solution i can think of is Clear the list, iterate through all the controls then check the picturebox property to check if the image is a apple or orange then add it to a list I really only thought of this solution typing this question, but my main question is, is there a better way? Is there some List<Ptr<Point>> class i can use so when i update the apples or oranges through the tag the element in the list will update as a class would?

    Read the article

  • How do I put an ASP.NET website project and class library projects in one .sln file on Subversion

    - by JustinP8
    My company has several class libraries we use in multiple website projects (not web application projects). Website projects don't have .sln files, but I'm sure I've read in my past research that you can make a blank solution and put your website and class library projects in it. After answers to my previous questions, this is the direction that I'm going (based slightly on [http://amadiere.com/blog/2009/06/multiple-subversion-projects-in-one-visual-studio-solution-using-svnexternals/][1]: /websites /website1 /trunk /website1 /libraries /library1 /trunk /library1 /library2 /trunk /library2 /etc... Then I planed on using svn:externals to copy /library1, /library2, and so on into the working_copy/websites/website1/ folder. I want my team members to be able to checkout the /trunk folder for website1 and get a .sln file, /library1 external, /library2 external, etc. I want that .sln file to contain the website1 website project, and all of the library external projects. Hopefully that would look something like: /working_copy /websites /website1 /trunk /website1 /library1 (svn:external of libraries/library1/trunk/library1) /library2 (svn:external of libraries/library2/trunk/library2) /etc. website1.sln So, at the end of all of this, the goal is that my teammates check out the trunk, open the solution, and everyone has the exact same solution. When we commit, everything is committed appropriately to subversion (the website code, and the libraries are committed to their appropriate place on the repo). How have others solved these issues? How can I make a .sln file that my team members and I can share in this manner? [1]: "This Article"

    Read the article

  • Abstract factory pattern on top of IoC?

    - by Sergei
    I have decided to use IoC principles on a bigger project. However, i would like to get something straight that's been bothering me for a long time. The conclusion that i have come up with is that an IoC container is an architectural pattern, not a design pattern. In other words, no class should be aware of its presence and the container itself should be used at the application layer to stitch up all components. Essentially, it becomes an option, on top of a well designed object-oriented model. Having said that, how is it possible to access resolved types without sprinkling IoC containers all over the place (regardless of whether they are abstracted or not)? The only option i see here is to utilize abstract factories which use an IoC container to resolve concrete types. This should be easy enough to swap out for a set of standard factories. Is this a good approach? Has anyone on here used it and how well did it work for you? Is there anything else available? Thanks!

    Read the article

  • Splitting a C++ class into files now won't compile.

    - by vgm64
    Hi. I am teaching myself to write classes in C++ but can't seem to get the compilation to go through. If you can help me figure out not just how, but why, it would be greatly appreciated. Thank you in advance! Here are my three files: make_pmt.C #include <iostream> #include "pmt.h" using namespace std; int main() { CPMT *pmt = new CPMT; pmt->SetVoltage(900); pmt->SetGain(2e6); double voltage = pmt->GetVoltage(); double gain= pmt->GetGain(); cout << "The voltage is " << voltage << " and the gain is " << gain << "." <<endl; return 0; } pmt.C #include "pmt.h" using namespace std; class CPMT { double gain, voltage; public: double GetGain() {return gain;} double GetVoltage() {return voltage;} void SetGain(double g) {gain=g;} void SetVoltage(double v) {voltage=v;} }; pmt.h #ifndef PMT_H #define PMT_H 1 using namespace std; class CPMT { double gain, voltage; public: double GetGain(); double GetVoltage(); void SetGain(double g); void SetVoltage(double v); }; #endif And for reference, I get a linker error (right?): Undefined symbols: "CPMT::GetVoltage()", referenced from: _main in ccoYuMbH.o "CPMT::GetGain()", referenced from: _main in ccoYuMbH.o "CPMT::SetVoltage(double)", referenced from: _main in ccoYuMbH.o "CPMT::SetGain(double)", referenced from: _main in ccoYuMbH.o ld: symbol(s) not found collect2: ld returned 1 exit status

    Read the article

  • C++ iterator and const_iterator problem for own container class

    - by BaCh
    Hi there, I'm writing an own container class and have run into a problem I can't get my head around. Here's the bare-bone sample that shows the problem. It consists of a container class and two test classes: one test class using a std:vector which compiles nicely and the second test class which tries to use my own container class in exact the same way but fails miserably to compile. #include <vector> #include <algorithm> #include <iterator> using namespace std; template <typename T> class MyContainer { public: class iterator { public: typedef iterator self_type; inline iterator() { } }; class const_iterator { public: typedef const_iterator self_type; inline const_iterator() { } }; iterator begin() { return iterator(); } const_iterator begin() const { return const_iterator(); } }; // This one compiles ok, using std::vector class TestClassVector { public: void test() { vector<int>::const_iterator I=myc.begin(); } private: vector<int> myc; }; // this one fails to compile. Why? class TestClassMyContainer { public: void test(){ MyContainer<int>::const_iterator I=myc.begin(); } private: MyContainer<int> myc; }; int main(int argc, char ** argv) { return 0; } gcc tells me: test2.C: In member function ‘void TestClassMyContainer::test()’: test2.C:51: error: conversion from ‘MyContainer::iterator’ to non-scalar type ‘MyContainer::const_iterator’ requested I'm not sure where and why the compiler wants to convert an iterator to a const_iterator for my own class but not for the STL vector class. What am I doing wrong?

    Read the article

  • Why should I abstract my data layer?

    - by Gazillion
    OOP principles were difficult for me to grasp because for some reason I could never apply them to web development. As I developed more and more projects I started understanding how some parts of my code could use certain design patterns to make them easier to read, reuse, and maintain so I started to use it more and more. The one thing I still can't quite comprehend is why I should abstract my data layer. Basically if I need to print a list of items stored in my DB to the browser I do something along the lines of: $sql = 'SELECT * FROM table WHERE type = "type1"';' $result = mysql_query($sql); while($row = mysql_fetch_assoc($result)) { echo '<li>'.$row['name'].'</li>'; } I'm reading all these How-Tos or articles preaching about the greatness of PDO but I don't understand why. I don't seem to be saving any LoCs and I don't see how it would be more reusable because all the functions that I call above just seem to be encapsulated in a class but do the exact same thing. The only advantage I'm seeing to PDO are prepared statements. I'm not saying data abstraction is a bad thing, I'm asking these questions because I'm trying to design my current classes correctly and they need to connect to a DB so I figured I'd do this the right way. Maybe I'm just reading bad articles on the subject :) I would really appreciate any advice, links, or concrete real-life examples on the subject!

    Read the article

  • How do I use the Enum value from a class in another part of code?

    - by ChiggenWingz
    Coming from a C# background from a night course at a local college, I've sort of started my way in C++. Having a lot pain getting use to the syntax. I'm also still very green when it comes to coding techniques. From my WinMain function, I want to be able to access a variable which is using an enum I declared in another class. (inside core.h) class Core { public: enum GAME_MODE { INIT, MENUS, GAMEPLAY }; GAME_MODE gameMode; Core(); ~Core(); ...OtherFunctions(); }; (inside main.cpp) Core core; int WINAPI WinMain(...) { ... startup code here... core.gameMode = Core.GAME_MODE.INIT; ...etc... } Basically I want to set that gameMode to the enum value of Init or something like that from my WinMain function. I want to also be able to read it from other areas. I get the error... expected primary-expression before '.' token If I try to use core.gameMode = Core::GAME_MODE.INIT;, then I get the same error. I'm not fussed about best practices, as I'm just trying to get the basic understanding of passing around variables in C++ between files. I'll be making sure variables are protected and neatly tucked away later on once I am use to the flexibility of the syntax. If I remember correctly, C# allowed me to use Enums from other classes, and all I had to do was something like Core.ENUMNAME.ENUMVALUE. I hope what I'm wanting to do is clear :\ As I have no idea what a lot of the correct terminology is.

    Read the article

  • Matching Class arrays

    - by frinkz
    I'm writing a routine to invoke methods, found by a name and an array of parameter Class values Matching the Method by getName works, but when trying to match the given Class[] for parameters, and Method.getParameterTypes(), I'm having trouble. I assumed that this would work: Class[] searchParams = new Class[] { float.class, String.class }; Class[] methodParams = m.getParameterTypes(); if(methodParams == searchParams) { m.invoke(this, paramValues); } But apparantly not - m.invoke is never reached. I've checked, and methodParams gives the same classes as searchParams. The code below works, and picks the right method, but it seems like a very dirty way of doing things, I'm sure I'm missing something obvious. Class[] searchParams = new Class[] { float.class, String.class }; Class[] methodParams = m.getParameterTypes(); boolean isMatch = true; for(int i = 0; i < searchParams.length; i++) { if(!searchParams.getClass().equals(methodParams.getClass())) { isMatch = false; } } if(isMatch) { m.invoke(this, paramValues); }

    Read the article

  • XML Schema for a .NET type that inherits and implements

    - by John Ruiz
    Hi, Please consider the following three .NET types: I have an interface, an abstract class, and a concrete class. My question is how to write the XML Schema to include the properties from the interface and from the abstract class. public interface IStartable { bool RequiresKey { get; set; } void Start(object key); } public abstract class Vehicle { uint WheelCount { get; set; } } public class Car : Vehicle, IStartable { public bool RequiresKey { get; set; } public string Make { get; set; } publilc string Model { get; set; } public Car() {} public void Start(object key) { // start car with key } } I don't know how to complete this schema: <xs:schema xmlns:xs="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema" targetNamespace="cars" xmlns="cars" xmlns:c="cars"> <!-- How do I get car to have vehicle's wheelcount AND IStartable's RequiresKey? --> <xs:element name="Car" type="c:Car" /> <xs:complexType name="Car"> <xs:complexContent> <xs:extension base="c:Vehicle"> <xs:group ref=c:CarGroup" /> </xs:extension> </xs:complexContent> </xs:complexType> <xs:group name="CarGroup"> <xs:sequence> <xs:element name="Make" type="xs:token" /> <xs:element name="Model" type="xs:token" /> </xs:sequence> </xs:group> <xs:complexType name="Vehicle"> <xs:sequence> <xs:element name="WheelCount" type="xs:unsignedInt" /> </xs:sequence> </xs:complexType> <xs:complexType name="IStartable"> <xs:sequence> <xs:element name="RequiresKey" type="xs:boolean" /> </xs:sequence> </xs:complexType> </xs:schema>

    Read the article

  • Vector of objects

    - by Paul
    I've got a abstract class class A { public: virtual void somefunction() = ; }; and some different classes that inherit this class: class Ab { public: void somefunction(); }; etc. I want to make a vector containing some objects of these classes (how many depends on input parameters) so I can access these easily later. However I'm a bit lost on how to do this. My best idea is vector<A> *objectsVector; Ab AbObject; objectsVector.push_back(AbObject); However this gives me a huge amout of errors from various .h files in /usr/include/c++ How should i solve this?

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58  | Next Page >