Search Results

Search found 3956 results on 159 pages for 'constructor overloading'.

Page 54/159 | < Previous Page | 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61  | Next Page >

  • Is there a clean separation of my layers with this attempt at Domain Driven Design in XAML and C#

    - by Buddy James
    I'm working on an application. I'm using a mixture of TDD and DDD. I'm working hard to separate the layers of my application and that is where my question comes in. My solution is laid out as follows Solution MyApp.Domain (WinRT class library) Entity (Folder) Interfaces(Folder) IPost.cs (Interface) BlogPosts.cs(Implementation of IPost) Service (Folder) Interfaces(Folder) IDataService.cs (Interface) BlogDataService.cs (Implementation of IDataService) MyApp.Presentation(Windows 8 XAML + C# application) ViewModels(Folder) BlogViewModel.cs App.xaml MainPage.xaml (Contains a property of BlogViewModel MyApp.Tests (WinRT Unit testing project used for my TDD) So I'm planning to use my ViewModel with the XAML UI I'm writing a test and define my interfaces in my system and I have the following code thus far. [TestMethod] public void Get_Zero_Blog_Posts_From_Presentation_Layer_Returns_Empty_Collection() { IBlogViewModel viewModel = _container.Resolve<IBlogViewModel>(); viewModel.LoadBlogPosts(0); Assert.AreEqual(0, viewModel.BlogPosts.Count, "There should be 0 blog posts."); } viewModel.BlogPosts is an ObservableCollection<IPost> Now.. my first thought is that I'd like the LoadBlogPosts method on the ViewModel to call a static method on the BlogPost entity. My problem is I feel like I need to inject the IDataService into the Entity object so that it promotes loose coupling. Here are the two options that I'm struggling with: Not use a static method and use a member method on the BlogPost entity. Have the BlogPost take an IDataService in the constructor and use dependency injection to resolve the BlogPost instance and the IDataService implementation. Don't use the entity to call the IDataService. Put the IDataService in the constructor of the ViewModel and use my container to resolve the IDataService when the viewmodel is instantiated. So with option one the layers will look like this ViewModel(Presentation layer) - Entity (Domain layer) - IDataService (Service Layer) or ViewModel(Presentation layer) - IDataService (Service Layer)

    Read the article

  • Purpose of "new" keyword

    - by Channel72
    The new keyword in languages like Java, Javascript, and C# creates a new instance of a class. This syntax seems to have been inherited from C++, where new is used specifically to allocate a new instance of a class on the heap, and return a pointer to the new instance. In C++, this is not the only way to construct an object. You can also construct an object on the stack, without using new - and in fact, this way of constructing objects is much more common in C++. So, coming from a C++ background, the new keyword in languages like Java, Javascript, and C# seemed natural and obvious to me. Then I started to learn Python, which doesn't have the new keyword. In Python, an instance is constructed simply by calling the constructor, like: f = Foo() At first, this seemed a bit off to me, until it occurred to me that there's no reason for Python to have new, because everything is an object so there's no need to disambiguate between various constructor syntaxes. But then I thought - what's really the point of new in Java? Why should we say Object o = new Object();? Why not just Object o = Object();? In C++ there's definitely a need for new, since we need to distinguish between allocating on the heap and allocating on the stack, but in Java all objects are constructed on the heap, so why even have the new keyword? The same question could be asked for Javascript. In C#, which I'm much less familiar with, I think new may have some purpose in terms of distinguishing between object types and value types, but I'm not sure. Regardless, it seems to me that many languages which came after C++ simply "inherited" the new keyword - without really needing it. It's almost like a vestigial keyword. We don't seem to need it for any reason, and yet it's there. Question: Am I correct about this? Or is there some compelling reason that new needs to be in C++-inspired memory-managed languages like Java, Javascript and C#?

    Read the article

  • DI and hypothetical readonly setters in C#

    - by Luis Ferrao
    Sometimes I would like to declare a property like this: public string Name { get; readonly set; } I am wondering if anyone sees a reason why such a syntax shouldn't exist. I believe that because it is a subset of "get; private set;", it could only make code more robust. My feeling is that such setters would be extremely DI friendly, but of course I'm more interested in hearing your opinions than my own, so what do you think? I am aware of 'public readonly' fields, but those are not interface friendly so I don't even consider them. That said, I don't mind if you bring them up into the discussion Edit I realize reading the comments that perhaps my idea is a little confusing. The ultimate purpose of this new syntax would be to have an automatic property syntax that specifies that the backing private field should be readonly. Basically declaring a property using my hypothetical syntax public string Name { get; readonly set; } would be interpreted by C# as: private readonly string name; public string Name { get { return this.name; } } And the reason I say this would be DI friendly is because when we rely heavily on constructor injection, I believe it is good practice to declare our constructor injected fields as readonly.

    Read the article

  • A Look Inside JSR 360 - CLDC 8

    - by Roger Brinkley
    If you didn't notice during JavaOne the Java Micro Edition took a major step forward in its consolidation with Java Standard Edition when JSR 360 was proposed to the JCP community. Over the last couple of years there has been a focus to move Java ME back in line with it's big brother Java SE. We see evidence of this in JCP itself which just recently merged the ME and SE/EE Executive Committees into a single Java Executive Committee. But just before that occurred JSR 360 was proposed and approved for development on October 29. So let's take a look at what changes are now being proposed. In a way JSR 360 is returning back to the original roots of Java ME when it was first introduced. It was indeed a subset of the JDK 4 language, but as Java progressed many of the language changes were not implemented in the Java ME. Back then the tradeoff was still a functionality, footprint trade off but the major market was feature phones. Today the market has changed and CLDC, while it will still target feature phones, will have it primary emphasis on embedded devices like wireless modules, smart meters, health care monitoring and other M2M devices. The major changes will come in three areas: language feature changes, library changes, and consolidating the Generic Connection Framework.  There have been three Java SE versions that have been implemented since JavaME was first developed so the language feature changes can be divided into changes that came in JDK 5 and those in JDK 7, which mostly consist of the project Coin changes. There were no language changes in JDK 6 but the changes from JDK 5 are: Assertions - Assertions enable you to test your assumptions about your program. For example, if you write a method that calculates the speed of a particle, you might assert that the calculated speed is less than the speed of light. In the example code below if the interval isn't between 0 and and 1,00 the an error of "Invalid value?" would be thrown. private void setInterval(int interval) { assert interval > 0 && interval <= 1000 : "Invalid value?" } Generics - Generics add stability to your code by making more of your bugs detectable at compile time. Code that uses generics has many benefits over non-generic code with: Stronger type checks at compile time. Elimination of casts. Enabling programming to implement generic algorithms. Enhanced for Loop - the enhanced for loop allows you to iterate through a collection without having to create an Iterator or without having to calculate beginning and end conditions for a counter variable. The enhanced for loop is the easiest of the new features to immediately incorporate in your code. In this tip you will see how the enhanced for loop replaces more traditional ways of sequentially accessing elements in a collection. void processList(Vector<string> list) { for (String item : list) { ... Autoboxing/Unboxing - This facility eliminates the drudgery of manual conversion between primitive types, such as int and wrapper types, such as Integer.  Hashtable<Integer, string=""> data = new Hashtable<>(); void add(int id, String value) { data.put(id, value); } Enumeration - Prior to JDK 5 enumerations were not typesafe, had no namespace, were brittle because they were compile time constants, and provided no informative print values. JDK 5 added support for enumerated types as a full-fledged class (dubbed an enum type). In addition to solving all the problems mentioned above, it allows you to add arbitrary methods and fields to an enum type, to implement arbitrary interfaces, and more. Enum types provide high-quality implementations of all the Object methods. They are Comparable and Serializable, and the serial form is designed to withstand arbitrary changes in the enum type. enum Season {WINTER, SPRING, SUMMER, FALL}; } private Season season; void setSeason(Season newSeason) { season = newSeason; } Varargs - Varargs eliminates the need for manually boxing up argument lists into an array when invoking methods that accept variable-length argument lists. The three periods after the final parameter's type indicate that the final argument may be passed as an array or as a sequence of arguments. Varargs can be used only in the final argument position. void warning(String format, String... parameters) { .. for(String p : parameters) { ...process(p);... } ... } Static Imports -The static import construct allows unqualified access to static members without inheriting from the type containing the static members. Instead, the program imports the members either individually or en masse. Once the static members have been imported, they may be used without qualification. The static import declaration is analogous to the normal import declaration. Where the normal import declaration imports classes from packages, allowing them to be used without package qualification, the static import declaration imports static members from classes, allowing them to be used without class qualification. import static data.Constants.RATIO; ... double r = Math.cos(RATIO * theta); Annotations - Annotations provide data about a program that is not part of the program itself. They have no direct effect on the operation of the code they annotate. There are a number of uses for annotations including information for the compiler, compiler-time and deployment-time processing, and run-time processing. They can be applied to a program's declarations of classes, fields, methods, and other program elements. @Deprecated public void clear(); The language changes from JDK 7 are little more familiar as they are mostly the changes from Project Coin: String in switch - Hey it only took us 18 years but the String class can be used in the expression of a switch statement. Fortunately for us it won't take that long for JavaME to adopt it. switch (arg) { case "-data": ... case "-out": ... Binary integral literals and underscores in numeric literals - Largely for readability, the integral types (byte, short, int, and long) can also be expressed using the binary number system. and any number of underscore characters (_) can appear anywhere between digits in a numerical literal. byte flags = 0b01001111; long mask = 0xfff0_ff08_4fff_0fffl; Multi-catch and more precise rethrow - A single catch block can handle more than one type of exception. In addition, the compiler performs more precise analysis of rethrown exceptions than earlier releases of Java SE. This enables you to specify more specific exception types in the throws clause of a method declaration. catch (IOException | InterruptedException ex) { logger.log(ex); throw ex; } Type Inference for Generic Instance Creation - Otherwise known as the diamond operator, the type arguments required to invoke the constructor of a generic class can be replaced with an empty set of type parameters (<>) as long as the compiler can infer the type arguments from the context.  map = new Hashtable<>(); Try-with-resource statement - The try-with-resources statement is a try statement that declares one or more resources. A resource is an object that must be closed after the program is finished with it. The try-with-resources statement ensures that each resource is closed at the end of the statement.  try (DataInputStream is = new DataInputStream(...)) { return is.readDouble(); } Simplified varargs method invocation - The Java compiler generates a warning at the declaration site of a varargs method or constructor with a non-reifiable varargs formal parameter. Java SE 7 introduced a compiler option -Xlint:varargs and the annotations @SafeVarargs and @SuppressWarnings({"unchecked", "varargs"}) to supress these warnings. On the library side there are new features that will be added to satisfy the language requirements above and some to improve the currently available set of APIs.  The library changes include: Collections update - New Collection, List, Set and Map, Iterable and Iteratator as well as implementations including Hashtable and Vector. Most of the work is too support generics String - New StringBuilder and CharSequence as well as a Stirng formatter. The javac compiler  now uses the the StringBuilder instead of String Buffer. Since StringBuilder is synchronized there is a performance increase which has necessitated the wahat String constructor works. Comparable interface - The comparable interface works with Collections, making it easier to reuse. Try with resources - Closeable and AutoCloseable Annotations - While support for Annotations is provided it will only be a compile time support. SuppressWarnings, Deprecated, Override NIO - There is a subset of NIO Buffer that have been in use on the of the graphics packages and needs to be pulled in and also support for NIO File IO subset. Platform extensibility via Service Providers (ServiceLoader) - ServiceLoader interface dos late bindings of interface to existing implementations. It helpe to package an interface and behavior of the implementation at a later point in time.Provider classes must have a zero-argument constructor so that they can be instantiated during loading. They are located and instantiated on demand and are identified via a provider-configuration file in the METAINF/services resource directory. This is a mechansim from Java SE. import com.XYZ.ServiceA; ServiceLoader<ServiceA> sl1= new ServiceLoader(ServiceA.class); Resources: META-INF/services/com.XYZ.ServiceA: ServiceAProvider1 ServiceAProvider2 ServiceAProvider3 META-INF/services/ServiceB: ServiceBProvider1 ServiceBProvider2 From JSR - I would rather use this list I think The Generic Connection Framework (GCF) was previously specified in a number of different JSRs including CLDC, MIDP, CDC 1.2, and JSR 197. JSR 360 represents a rare opportunity to consolidated and reintegrate parts that were duplicated in other specifications into a single specification, upgrade the APIs as well provide new functionality. The proposal is to specify a combined GCF specification that can be used with Java ME or Java SE and be backwards compatible with previous implementations. Because of size limitations as well as the complexity of the some features like InvokeDynamic and Unicode 6 will not be included. Additionally, any language or library changes in JDK 8 will be not be included. On the upside, with all the changes being made, backwards compatibility will still be maintained. JSR 360 is a major step forward for Java ME in terms of platform modernization, language alignment, and embedded support. If you're interested in following the progress of this JSR see the JSR's java.net project for details of the email lists, discussions groups.

    Read the article

  • Questioning the motivation for dependency injection: Why is creating an object graph hard?

    - by oberlies
    Dependency injection frameworks like Google Guice give the following motivation for their usage (source): To construct an object, you first build its dependencies. But to build each dependency, you need its dependencies, and so on. So when you build an object, you really need to build an object graph. Building object graphs by hand is labour intensive (...) and makes testing difficult. But I don't buy this argument: Even without dependency injection, I can write classes which are both easy to instantiate and convenient to test. E.g. the example from the Guice motivation page could be rewritten in the following way: class BillingService { private final CreditCardProcessor processor; private final TransactionLog transactionLog; // constructor for tests, taking all collaborators as parameters BillingService(CreditCardProcessor processor, TransactionLog transactionLog) { this.processor = processor; this.transactionLog = transactionLog; } // constructor for production, calling the (productive) constructors of the collaborators public BillingService() { this(new PaypalCreditCardProcessor(), new DatabaseTransactionLog()); } public Receipt chargeOrder(PizzaOrder order, CreditCard creditCard) { ... } } So dependency injection may really be an advantage in advanced use cases, but I don't need it for easy construction and testability, do I?

    Read the article

  • What's a good entity hierarchy for a 2D game?

    - by futlib
    I'm in the process of building a new 2D game out of some code I wrote a while ago. The object hierarchy for entities is like this: Scene (e.g. MainMenu): Contains multiple entities and delegates update()/draw() to each Entity: Base class for all things in a scene (e.g. MenuItem or Alien) Sprite: Base class for all entities that just draw a texture, i.e. don't have their own drawing logic Does it make sense to split up entities and sprites up like that? I think in a 2D game, the terms entity and sprite are somewhat synonymous, right? But I do believe that I need some base class for entities that just draw a texture, as opposed to drawing themselves, to avoid duplication. Most entities are like that. One weird case is my Text class: It derives from Sprite, which accepts either the path of an image or an already loaded texture in its constructor. Text loads a texture in its constructor and passes that to Sprite. Can you outline a design that makes more sense? Or point me to a good object-oriented reference code base for a 2D game? I could only find 3D engine code bases of decent code quality, e.g. Doom 3 and HPL1Engine.

    Read the article

  • This is something new

    - by shmoolca
    Normal 0 false false false EN-US X-NONE X-NONE MicrosoftInternetExplorer4 /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-priority:99; mso-style-qformat:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt; mso-para-margin-top:0cm; mso-para-margin-right:0cm; mso-para-margin-bottom:10.0pt; mso-para-margin-left:0cm; line-height:115%; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast; mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;} I have created GUI with lots of my own controls. This control has style as a resource inside control resources. My performance profiler shows that InitializeComponent of this control is 7.5 times longer than control that has defined style in resources of application. It occurs because constructor is loading whole BAML each time constructor is called. Sounds logical for me :)

    Read the article

  • Why do memory-managed languages retain the `new` keyword?

    - by Channel72
    The new keyword in languages like Java, Javascript, and C# creates a new instance of a class. This syntax seems to have been inherited from C++, where new is used specifically to allocate a new instance of a class on the heap, and return a pointer to the new instance. In C++, this is not the only way to construct an object. You can also construct an object on the stack, without using new - and in fact, this way of constructing objects is much more common in C++. So, coming from a C++ background, the new keyword in languages like Java, Javascript, and C# seemed natural and obvious to me. Then I started to learn Python, which doesn't have the new keyword. In Python, an instance is constructed simply by calling the constructor, like: f = Foo() At first, this seemed a bit off to me, until it occurred to me that there's no reason for Python to have new, because everything is an object so there's no need to disambiguate between various constructor syntaxes. But then I thought - what's really the point of new in Java? Why should we say Object o = new Object();? Why not just Object o = Object();? In C++ there's definitely a need for new, since we need to distinguish between allocating on the heap and allocating on the stack, but in Java all objects are constructed on the heap, so why even have the new keyword? The same question could be asked for Javascript. In C#, which I'm much less familiar with, I think new may have some purpose in terms of distinguishing between object types and value types, but I'm not sure. Regardless, it seems to me that many languages which came after C++ simply "inherited" the new keyword - without really needing it. It's almost like a vestigial keyword. We don't seem to need it for any reason, and yet it's there. Question: Am I correct about this? Or is there some compelling reason that new needs to be in C++-inspired memory-managed languages like Java, Javascript and C#?

    Read the article

  • Design for object with optional and modifiable attributtes?

    - by Ikuzen
    I've been using the Builder pattern to create objects with a large number of attributes, where most of them are optional. But up until now, I've defined them as final, as recommended by Joshua Block and other authors, and haven't needed to change their values. I am wondering what should I do though if I need a class with a substantial number of optional but non-final (mutable) attributes? My Builder pattern code looks like this: public class Example { //All possible parameters (optional or not) private final int param1; private final int param2; //Builder class public static class Builder { private final int param1; //Required parameters private int param2 = 0; //Optional parameters - initialized to default //Builder constructor public Builder (int param1) { this.param1 = param1; } //Setter-like methods for optional parameters public Builder param2(int value) { param2 = value; return this; } //build() method public Example build() { return new Example(this); } } //Private constructor private Example(Builder builder) { param1 = builder.param1; param2 = builder.param2; } } Can I just remove the final keyword from the declaration to be able to access the attributes externally (through normal setters, for example)? Or is there a creational pattern that allows optional but non-final attributes that would be better suited in this case?

    Read the article

  • How to implement child-parent aggregation link in C++?

    - by Giorgio
    Suppose that I have three classes P, C1, C2, composition (strong aggregation) relations between P <>- C1 and P <>- C2, i.e. every instance of P contains an instance of C1 and an instance of C2, which are destroyed when the parent P instance is destroyed. an association relation between instances of C1 and C2 (not necessarily between children of the same P). To implement this, in C++ I normally define three classes P, C1, C2, define two member variables of P of type boost::shared_ptr<C1>, boost::shared_ptr<C2>, and initialize them with newly created objects in P's constructor, implement the relation between C1 and C2 using a boost::weak_ptr<C2> member variable in C1 and a boost::weak_ptr<C1> member variable in C2 that can be set later via appropriate methods, when the relation is established. Now, I also would like to have a link from each C1 and C2 object to its P parent object. What is a good way to implement this? My current idea is to use a simple constant raw pointer (P * const) that is set from the constructor of P (which, in turn, calls the constructors of C1 and C2), i.e. something like: class C1 { public: C1(P * const p, ...) : paren(p) { ... } private: P * const parent; ... }; class P { public: P(...) : childC1(new C1(this, ...)) ... { ... } private: boost::shared_ptr<C1> childC1; ... }; Honestly I see no risk in using a private constant raw pointer in this way but I know that raw pointers are often frowned upon in C++ so I was wondering if there is an alternative solution.

    Read the article

  • How to create a copy of an instance without having access to private variables

    - by Jamie
    Im having a bit of a problem. Let me show you the code first: public class Direction { private CircularList xSpeed, zSpeed; private int[] dirSquare = {-1, 0, 1, 0}; public Direction(int xSpeed, int zSpeed){ this.xSpeed = new CircularList(dirSquare, xSpeed); this.zSpeed = new CircularList(dirSquare, zSpeed); } public Direction(Point dirs){ this(dirs.x, dirs.y); } public void shiftLeft(){ xSpeed.shiftLeft(); zSpeed.shiftRight(); } public void shiftRight(){ xSpeed.shiftRight(); zSpeed.shiftLeft(); } public int getXSpeed(){ return this.xSpeed.currentValue(); } public int getZSpeed(){ return this.zSpeed.currentValue(); } } Now lets say i have an instance of Direction: Direction dir = new Direction(0, 0); As you can see in the code of Direction, the arguments fed to the constructor, are passed directly to some other class. One cannot be sure if they stay the same because methods shiftRight() and shiftLeft could have been called, which changes thos numbers. My question is, how do i create a completely new instance of Direction, that is basically copy(not by reference) of dir? The only way i see it, is to create public methods in both CircularList(i can post the code of this class, but its not relevant) and Direction that return the variables needed to create a copy of the instance, but this solution seems really dirty since those numbers are not supposed to be touched after beeing fed to the constructor, and therefore they are private.

    Read the article

  • Interview Questions in OOP

    - by Fero
    Hi all, I faced the below interview questions in OOP under PHP language. Kindly clear my clarifications regarding this. I am very confused. As i am a beginner to OOP i got too confused. Could anyone clarify these things clearly? Difference between Abstract class and interface. Interviewer : Let us consider abstract class contains three abstract methods such as a,b,c and interface contains three methods a,b,c. In this case these do the same functionality. Then why are going for abstract and why are we going for interface. Me : ? static keyword. Interviewer: We call static method without creating object by using scope resolution operator in PHP. As well as we can able to call concrete methods also. Then what is need of static keyword there? Me : .... final keyword. Interviewer: Give me any scenario of using final keyword. Me : For db connection related method Interviewer: Other than that? Me: ... Constructor. Interviewer: What is the use of constructor? Me : There is no need for object to access this. It will call automatically when the class calls. Interviewer: Other than that? Me : .... Thanks in advance...

    Read the article

  • Object oriented wrapper around a dll

    - by Tom Davies
    So, I'm writing a C# managed wrapper around a native dll. The dll contains several hundred functions. In most cases, the first argument to each function is an opaque handle to a type internal to the dll. So, an obvious starting point for defining some classes in the wrapper would be to define classes corresponding to each of these opaque types, with each instance holding and managing the opaque handle (passed to its constructor) Things are a little awkward when dealing with callbacks from the dll. Naturally, the callback handlers in my wrapper have to be static, but the callbacks arguments invariable contain an opaque handle. In order to get from the static callback back to an object instance, I've created a static dictionary in each class, associating handles with class instances. In the constructor of each class, an entry is put into the dictionary, and this entry is then removed in the Destructors. When I receive a callback, I can then consult the dictionary to retrieve the class instance corresponding to the opaque reference. Are there any obvious flaws to this? Something that seems to be a problem is that the existence static dictionary means that the garbage collector will not act on my class instances that are otherwise unreachable. As they are never garbage collected, they never get removed from the dictionary, so the dictionary grows. It seems I might have to manually dispose of my objects, which is something absolutely would like to avoid. Can anyone suggest a good design that allows me to avoid having to do this?

    Read the article

  • Balancing dependency injection with public API design

    - by kolektiv
    I've been contemplating how to balance testable design using dependency injection with providing simple fixed public API. My dilemma is: people would want to do something like var server = new Server(){ ... } and not have to worry about creating the many dependencies and graph of dependencies that a Server(,,,,,,) may have. While developing, I don't worry too much, as I use an IoC/DI framework to handle all that (I'm not using the lifecycle management aspects of any container, which would complicate things further). Now, the dependencies are unlikely to be re-implemented. Componentisation in this case is almost purely for testability (and decent design!) rather than creating seams for extension, etc. People will 99.999% of the time wish to use a default configuration. So. I could hardcode the dependencies. Don't want to do that, we lose our testing! I could provide a default constructor with hard-coded dependencies and one which takes dependencies. That's... messy, and likely to be confusing, but viable. I could make the dependency receiving constructor internal and make my unit tests a friend assembly (assuming C#), which tidies the public API but leaves a nasty hidden trap lurking for maintenance. Having two constructors which are implicitly connected rather than explicitly would be bad design in general in my book. At the moment that's about the least evil I can think of. Opinions? Wisdom?

    Read the article

  • Code Clone Analysis on Rawr &ndash; Part 1

    - by Dylan Smith
    In this post we’ll take a look at the first result from the Code Clone Analysis, and do some refactoring to eliminate the duplication.  The first result indicated that it found an exact match repeated 14 times across the solution, with 18 lines of duplicated code in each of the 14 blocks.   Net Lines Of Code Deleted: 179     In this case the code in question was a bunch of classes representing the various Bosses.  Every Boss class has a constructor that initializes a whole bunch of properties of that boss, however, for most bosses a lot of these are simply set to 0’s.     Every Boss class inherits from the class MultiDiffBoss, so I simply moved all the initialization of the various properties to the base class constructor, and left it up to the Boss subclasses to only set those that are different than the default values. In this case there are actually 22 Boss subclasses, however, due to some inconsistencies in the code structure Code Clone only identified 14 of them as identical blocks.  Since I was in there refactoring the 14 identified already, it was pretty straightforward to identify the other 8 subclasses that had the same duplicated behavior and refactor those also.   Note: Code Clone Analysis is pretty slow right now.  It takes approx 1 min to build this solution, but it takes 9 mins to run Code Clone Analysis.  Personally, if the results are high quality I’m OK with it taking a long time to run since I don’t expect it’s something I would be running all that often.  However, it would be nice to be able to run it as part of a nightly build, but at this time I don’t believe it’s possible to run outside of Visual Studio due to a dependency on the meta-data available in the VS environment.

    Read the article

  • Questioning one of the arguments for dependency injection: Why is creating an object graph hard?

    - by oberlies
    Dependency injection frameworks like Google Guice give the following motivation for their usage (source): To construct an object, you first build its dependencies. But to build each dependency, you need its dependencies, and so on. So when you build an object, you really need to build an object graph. Building object graphs by hand is labour intensive (...) and makes testing difficult. But I don't buy this argument: Even without dependency injection, I can write classes which are both easy to instantiate and convenient to test. E.g. the example from the Guice motivation page could be rewritten in the following way: class BillingService { private final CreditCardProcessor processor; private final TransactionLog transactionLog; // constructor for tests, taking all collaborators as parameters BillingService(CreditCardProcessor processor, TransactionLog transactionLog) { this.processor = processor; this.transactionLog = transactionLog; } // constructor for production, calling the (productive) constructors of the collaborators public BillingService() { this(new PaypalCreditCardProcessor(), new DatabaseTransactionLog()); } public Receipt chargeOrder(PizzaOrder order, CreditCard creditCard) { ... } } So there may be other arguments for dependency injection (which are out of scope for this question!), but easy creation of testable object graphs is not one of them, is it?

    Read the article

  • C++ program...overshoots? [migrated]

    - by Zdrok
    I'm decent at C++, but I may have missed some nuance that applies here. Or maybe I completely missed a giant concept, I have no idea. My program was instantly crashing ("blah.exe is not responding") about 1/5 times it was run (other times it ran completely fine) and I tracked the problem down to a constructor for a world class that was called once in the beginning of the main function. Here is the code (in the constructor) that causes the problem: int ii; for(ii=0;ii<=255;ii++) { cout<<"ent "<<ii<<endl; entity_list[ii]=NULL; } for(ii=0;ii<=255;ii++) { cout<<"sec "<<ii<<endl; sector_list[ii]=NULL; } entity_list[0] = new Entity(0,0); entity_list[0]->_world = this; Specifically the second for loop. The cout references are new for the sake of telling where it is having trouble. It would print the entire "ent 1" to "ent 255" and then "sec 1" to "sec 255" and then crash right after, as if it was going for a 257th run through of the second for loop. I set the second for loop to go until "ii<=254" which stopped all crashes. Does C++ code tend to "overshoot" for loops or something? What is causing it to crash at this specific loop seemingly at random? By the way, entity_list and sector_list point to classes called Entity and Sector, respectively, but they are not constructing anything so I didn't think it would be relevant. I also have a forward declaration for the Entity class in a header for this, but since none were being constructed I didn't think it was relevant either. EDIT: It was due to the new Entity line, I assumed wrongly that the fact that altering the for statement to 254 fixed the crashes meant that it had to be there. I still don't understand why the for loop is related, though.

    Read the article

  • What are the differences between programming languages? [closed]

    - by Omega
    Once upon a time, I heard from someone the only difference between programming languages is the syntax I wanted to deny it - to say that there are other fundamental aspects that truly set a language apart from others than just syntax. But I couldn't... So, can you? Whenever I search Google for something like "differences between programming languages", the results tend to be debates between two specific languages (I'd like something more general) - however, some of the aspects that people seemed to debate the most were: Object-Oriented Method/Operator overloading (I actually see this rather related to syntax) Garbage-Collection (While it seems like a good difference, for some reason it doesn't seem that "fundamental") What important aspects other than syntax can you think of?

    Read the article

  • Isometric Camera trouble - can't rotate or move correctly

    - by Deukalion
    I'm trying to create a 3D editor, but I've been having some trouble with the Camera and understanding each component. I've created 2 camera that works OK, but now I'm trying to implement an Isometric Camera in XNA without success on the rotation and movement of the camera. All I get working is Zoom. (Cube with x=3f, y=3f, z=1f in center) And this is the constructor for my IsometricCamera (inherits from ICamera, with methods for Rotation, Movement and Zoom, and Properties for World/View/Projection matrices) public IsometricCamera3D(GraphicsDevice device, float startClip = -1000f, float endClip = 1000f) { matrix_projection = Matrix.CreateOrthographic(device.Viewport.Width, device.Viewport.Height, startClip, endClip); rotation = Vector3.Zero; matrix_view = Matrix.CreateScale(zoom) * Matrix.CreateRotationY(MathHelper.ToRadians(45 + 180)) * Matrix.CreateRotationX(MathHelper.ToRadians(30)) * Matrix.CreateRotationZ(MathHelper.ToRadians(120)) * Matrix.CreateTranslation(rotation.X, rotation.Y, rotation.Z); } Problem is when I rotate it, all that happens is that the Cube gets more or less shiny and nothing happens. What is wrong and how should I create my View matrix to move it / rotate it correctly? Rotate, Move and Zoom looks like: MethodName(Vector3 rotation/movement), Zoom(float value); and just increases the value, then calls an update to recreate the View Matrix according to the code in the constructor. Currently, in my editor I use MiddleButton + Mouse Movement to rotate the camera, but it's not working as the other camera. But in my default camera I use World Matrix to move, but I guess that's not the best way to go which is why I'm trying this.

    Read the article

  • C++ compiler structures such as Virtual method Table etc

    - by Roger
    I am aware of the C++ Virtual Table which allows dynamic dispatch for doing things at runtime (although if I am honest I am not completely sure of the full list of things it achieves). I am wondering what other "low level" aspects of C++ are there, which one doesnt usually come across when learning the C++ language? Things like: -How is multithreading and locking on objects performed? -Overloading/overwriting functions -Generics Are there other "structures", similar to the vtable, which assist with these types of things on a lower level? (and if anyone can help with what the VTable actually does it would be most appreciated!)

    Read the article

  • Using texture() in combination with JBox2D

    - by Valentino Ru
    I'm getting some trouble using the texture() method inside beginShape()/endShape() clause. In the display()-method of my class TowerElement (a bar which is DYNAMIC), I draw the object like following: void display(){ Vec2 pos = level.getLevel().getBodyPixelCoord(body); float a = body.getAngle(); // needed for rotation pushMatrix(); translate(pos.x, pos.y); rotate(-a); fill(temp); // temp is a color defined in the constructor stroke(0); beginShape(); vertex(-w/2,-h/2); vertex(w/2,-h/2); vertex(w/2,h-h/2); vertex(-w/2,h-h/2); endShape(CLOSE); popMatrix(); } Now, according to the API, I can use the texture() method inside the shape definition. Now when I remove the fill(temp) and put texture(img) (img is a PImage defined in the constructor), the stroke gets drawn, but the bar isn't filled and I get the warning texture() is not available with this renderer What can I do in order to use textures anyway? I don't even understand the error message, since I do not know much about different renderers.

    Read the article

  • Override methods should call base method?

    - by Trevor Pilley
    I'm just running NDepend against some code that I have written and one of the warnings is Overrides of Method() should call base.Method(). The places this occurs are where I have a base class which has virtual properties and methods with default behaviour but which can be overridden by a class which inherits from the base class and doesn't call the overridden method. For example, in the base class I have a property defined like this: protected virtual char CloseQuote { get { return '"'; } } And then in an inheriting class which uses a different close quote: protected override char CloseQuote { get { return ']'; } } Not all classes which inherit from the base class use different quote characters hence my initial design. The alternatives I thought of were have get/set properties in the base class with the defaults set in the constructor: protected BaseClass() { this.CloseQuote = '"'; } protected char CloseQuote { get; set; } public InheritingClass() { this.CloseQuote = ']'; } Or make the base class require the values as constructor args: protected BaseClass(char closeQuote, ...) { this.CloseQuote = '"'; } protected char CloseQuote { get; private set; } public InheritingClass() base (closeQuote: ']', ...) { } Should I use virtual in a scenario where the base implementation may be replaced instead of extended or should I opt for one of the alternatives I thought of? If so, which would be preferable and why?

    Read the article

  • Is it okay for an application to check for automatic updates in less than 20 hour interval?

    - by FlameStream
    I have a desktop application that has the ability to automatically update itself on the next restart (without the user's consent - but this is another issue altogether). Assuming that the user would never notice anything related to application updating (such as a progress bar, or pop-up requiring restart), and that our server would support the request spam load, is there any reason why it should not check for updates in less than 20 hour interval? The reason I'm asking this is because all applications that I know that have auto-update capability check for update every 20 to 24 hours and at startup. I was just wondering if there was an ethical rule about it, or simply because of the risk of overloading the server.

    Read the article

  • Storing a pass-by-reference parameter as a pointer - Bad practice?

    - by Karl Nicoll
    I recently came across the following pattern in an API I've been forced to use: class SomeObject { public: // Constructor. SomeObject(bool copy = false); // Set a value. void SetValue(const ComplexType &value); private: bool m_copy; ComplexType *m_pComplexType; ComplexType m_complexType; }; // ------------------------------------------------------------ SomeObject::SomeObject(bool copy) : m_copy(copy) { } // ------------------------------------------------------------ void SomeObject::SetValue(const ComplexType &value) { if (m_copy) m_complexType.assign(value); else m_pComplexType = const_cast<ComplexType *>(&value); } The background behind this pattern is that it is used to hold data prior to it being encoded and sent to a TCP socket. The copy weirdness is designed to make the class SomeObject efficient by only holding a pointer to the object until it needs to be encoded, but also provide the option to copy values if the lifetime of the SomeObject exceeds the lifetime of a ComplexType. However, consider the following: SomeObject SomeFunction() { ComplexType complexTypeInstance(1); // Create an instance of ComplexType. SomeObject encodeHelper; encodeHelper.SetValue(complexTypeInstance); // Okay. return encodeHelper; // Uh oh! complexTypeInstance has been destroyed, and // now encoding will venture into the realm of undefined // behaviour! } I tripped over this because I used the default constructor, and this resulted in messages being encoded as blank (through a fluke of undefined behaviour). It took an absolute age to pinpoint the cause! Anyway, is this a standard pattern for something like this? Are there any advantages to doing it this way vs overloading the SetValue method to accept a pointer that I'm missing? Thanks!

    Read the article

  • Farseer circle hangs where it's spawned

    - by necrosmash
    I'm currently trying to simply spawn a circle in Farseer. However, it's stuck wherever I spawn it! The game is updating fine, as I can see the circle spinning in place when I spawn it because of how I currently have gravity set up (following code from Game1.cs): // Initialise the screen center for use with // the Level class screenCenter = new Vector2(graphics.GraphicsDevice.Viewport.Width / 2f, graphics.GraphicsDevice.Viewport.Height / 2f); world = new World(new Vector2(20, 20)); currentLevel = new Level1(screenCenter, circleSprite, groundSprite, ref world); Level1 constructor: public Level1(Vector2 screenCenter, Texture2D circleSprite, Texture2D groundSprite, ref World world) { player = new Player(ref world, screenCenter, circleSprite); ground = new Ground(ref world, screenCenter, groundSprite); listLevelItems = new List<LevelItem>(); listLevelItems.Add(player); listLevelItems.Add(ground); } Player constructor: public Player(ref World world, Vector2 screenCenter, Texture2D sprite) { setSprite(sprite); setPosition((screenCenter / MeterInPixels) + new Vector2(0f, 0f)); playerBody = BodyFactory.CreateCircle(world, 96f / (2f * MeterInPixels), 1f, playerPosition); getBody().BodyType = BodyType.Dynamic; // Ball bounce and friction getBody().Restitution = 0.3f; getBody().Friction = 0.5f; } If I use a breakpoint and change the playerBody position while the game is halted, the ball does move, but stays fixed in its new location. Any help would be greatly appreciated.

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61  | Next Page >