Search Results

Search found 36013 results on 1441 pages for 'public fields'.

Page 561/1441 | < Previous Page | 557 558 559 560 561 562 563 564 565 566 567 568  | Next Page >

  • Platform game collisions with Block

    - by Sri Harsha Chilakapati
    I am trying to create a platform game and doing wrong collision detection with the blocks. Here's my code // Variables GTimer jump = new GTimer(1000); boolean onground = true; // The update method public void update(long elapsedTime){ MapView.follow(this); // Add the gravity if (!onground && !jump.active){ setVelocityY(4); } // Jumping if (isPressed(VK_SPACE) && onground){ jump.start(); setVelocityY(-4); onground = false; } if (jump.action(elapsedTime)){ // jump expired jump.stop(); } // Horizontal movement setVelocityX(0); if (isPressed(VK_LEFT)){ setVelocityX(-4); } if (isPressed(VK_RIGHT)){ setVelocityX(4); } } // The collision method public void collision(GObject other){ if (other instanceof Block){ // Determine the horizontal distance between centers float h_dist = Math.abs((other.getX() + other.getWidth()/2) - (getX() + getWidth()/2)); // Now the vertical distance float v_dist = Math.abs((other.getY() + other.getHeight()/2) - (getY() + getHeight()/2)); // If h_dist > v_dist horizontal collision else vertical collision if (h_dist > v_dist){ // Are we moving right? if (getX()<other.getX()){ setX(other.getX()-getWidth()); } // Are we moving left? else if (getX()>other.getX()){ setX(other.getX()+other.getWidth()); } } else { // Are we moving up? if (jump.active){ jump.stop(); } // We are moving down else { setY(other.getY()-getHeight()); setVelocityY(0); onground = true; } } } } The problem is that the object jumps well but does not fall when moved out of platform. Here's an image describing the problem. I know I'm not checking underneath the object but I don't know how. The map is a list of objects and should I have to iterate over all the objects??? Thanks

    Read the article

  • Java : 2D Collision Detection

    - by neko
    I'm been working on 2D rectangle collision for weeks and still cannot get this problem fixed. The problem I'm having is how to adjust a player to obstacles when it collides. I'm referencing this link. The player sometime does not get adjusted to obstacles. Also, it sometimes stuck in obstacle guy after colliding. Here, the player and the obstacle are inheriting super class Sprite I can detect collision between the two rectangles and the point by ; public Point getSpriteCollision(Sprite sprite, double newX, double newY) { // set each rectangle Rectangle spriteRectA = new Rectangle( (int)getPosX(), (int)getPosY(), getWidth(), getHeight()); Rectangle spriteRectB = new Rectangle( (int)sprite.getPosX(), (int)sprite.getPosY(), sprite.getWidth(), sprite.getHeight()); // if a sprite is colliding with the other sprite if (spriteRectA.intersects(spriteRectB)){ System.out.println("Colliding"); return new Point((int)getPosX(), (int)getPosY()); } return null; } and to adjust sprites after a collision: // Update the sprite's conditions public void update() { // only the player is moving for simplicity // collision detection on x-axis (just x-axis collision detection at this moment) double newX = x + vx; // calculate the x-coordinate of sprite move Point sprite = getSpriteCollision(map.getSprite().get(1), newX, y);// collision coordinates (x,y) if (sprite == null) { // if the player is no colliding with obstacle guy x = newX; // move } else { // if collided if (vx > 0) { // if the player was moving from left to right x = (sprite.x - vx); // this works but a bit strange } else if (vx < 0) { x = (sprite.x + vx); // there's something wrong with this too } } vx=0; y+=vy; vy=0; } I think there is something wrong in update() but cannot fix it. Now I only have a collision with the player and an obstacle guy but in future, I'm planning to have more of them and making them all collide with each other. What would be a good way to do it? Thanks in advance.

    Read the article

  • Is this method of writing Unit Tests correct?

    - by aspdotnetuser
    I have created a small C# project to help me learn how to write good unit tests. I know that one important rule of unit testing is to test the smallest 'unit' of code possible so that if it fails you know exactly what part of the code needs to fixed. I need help with the following before I continue to implement more unit tests for the project: If I have a Car class, for example, that creates a new Car object which has various attributes that are calculated when its' constructor method is called, would the two following tests be considered as overkill? Should there be one test that tests all calculated attributes of the Car object instead? [Test] public void CarEngineCalculatedValue() { BusinessObjects.Car car= new BusinessObjects.Car(); Assert.GreaterOrEqual(car.Engine, 1); } [Test] public void CarNameCalculatedValue() { BusinessObjects.Car car= new BusinessObjects.Car(); Assert.IsNotNull(car.Name); } Should I have the above two test methods to test these things or should I have one test method that asserts the Car object has first been created and then test these things in the same test method?

    Read the article

  • This for array colllision function doesn't work with anything but first object in array

    - by Zee Bashew
    For some reason, this simple simple loop is totally broken. (characterSheet is my character Class, it's just a movieClip with some extra functionality) (hitBox, is basically a square movieclip) Anyway: every time hitBox make contact with a characterSheet in a different order than they were created: Nothing happens. The program only seems to be listening to collisions that are made with o2[0]. As soon as another hitBox is created, it pushes the last one out of o2[0] and the last one becomes totally useless. What's super weird is that I can hit characterSheets in any order I like.... public function collisions(o1:Array, o2:Array) { if((o1.lenght>=0)&&(o2.length>=0)){ for (var i = 0; i < o1.length; i++) { var ob1 = o1[i]; for (var f = 0; f < o1.length; f++) { var ob2 = o2[f]; if (ob1 is characterSheet) { if (ob2.hitTestObject(ob1)) { var right:Boolean = true; if (ob1.x < hitBox(ob2).origin.x) right = false; characterSheet(ob1).specialDamage(hitBox(ob2).damageType, hitBox(ob2).damage, right); }}}}}} Also it might be somewhat helpful to see the function for creating a new hitBox public function SpawnHitBox(targeted, following, atype, xoff, yoff, ... args) { var newHitBox = new hitBox(targeted, following, atype, xoff, yoff, args); badCollisionObjects.push(newHitBox); arraydictionary[newHitBox] = badCollisionObjects; addChild(newHitBox); }

    Read the article

  • Windows Embedded Compact 7

    - by Valter Minute
    This will be the official name of the new release of Windows CE. Windows Embedded Compact 7 is available as a public CTP and it already supports a wide range of CPUs and both the device emulator and VirtualPC emulated environments. So I’ll have to learn a new (and longer) name for my favorite OS… but I (and all my two readers!) will be able to test it as soon as the download from connect web site completes (I'm sorry for my readers, but you'll have to download it by yourselves). Here’s a link for the download (it's free but you’ll have to register on connect with a valid LiveId): https://connect.microsoft.com/windowsembeddedce Remember that this is still a beta (or “Community Technology Preview” if you speak marketing language) and so it’s better to not install it on your main development PC (or, at least, backup everything before installation) and that the features and performances you’ll get from this beta may not be the same ones of the final release of the OS. You can discover the new features of Windows Embedded Compact on the new “official” webpage on microsoft website: http://www.microsoft.com/windowsembedded/en-us/products/windowsce/compact7.mspx or on Olivier’s blog: http://blogs.msdn.com/b/obloch/archive/2010/06/01/windows-embedded-compact-7-announced-and-public-ctp-available.aspx I hope to be able to post some interesting content about Windows Embedded Compact 7 soon (and maybe be able to shorten it’s name in CE7 in my blog posts, when I'll ensure that both my readers are not worketing for Microsoft's marketing department …). Technorati Tags: "Windows Embedded Compact 7"

    Read the article

  • design for supporting entities with images

    - by brainydexter
    I have multiple entities like Hotels, Destination Cities etc which can contain images. The way I have my system setup right now is, I think of all the images belonging to this universal set (a table in the DB contains filePaths to all the images). When I have to add an image to an entity, I see if the entity exists in this universal set of images. If it exists, attach the reference to this image, else create a new image. E.g.: class ImageEntityHibernateDAO { public void addImageToEntity(IContainImage entity, String filePath, String title, String altText) { ImageEntity image = this.getImage(filePath); if (image == null) image = new ImageEntity(filePath, title, altText); getSession().beginTransaction(); entity.getImages().add(image); getSession().getTransaction().commit(); } } My question is: Earlier I had to write this code for each entity (and each entity would have a Set collection). So, instead of re-writing the same code, I created the following interface: public interface IContainImage { Set<ImageEntity> getImages(); } Entities which have image collections also implements IContainImage interface. Now, for any entity that needs to support adding Image functionality, all I have to invoke from the DAO looks something like this: // in DestinationDAO::addImageToDestination { imageDao.addImageToEntity(destination, imageFileName, imageTitle, imageAltText); // in HotelDAO::addImageToHotel { imageDao.addImageToEntity(hotel, imageFileName, imageTitle, imageAltText); It'd be great help if someone can provide me some critique on this design ? Are there any serious flaws that I'm not seeing right away ?

    Read the article

  • How can I use timer to stop another thread? [on hold]

    - by Haoda Fu
    How can we stop another thread based on a timer? I was trying to use timer to stop another thread. But I didn't got a success. To better illustrate my point and for your easy to understand the key issue. I made the following sample example. Your help is really appreciated using System; using System.Collections.Generic; using System.Text; using System.Threading; using System.Timers; namespace TestCodes { public static class Program { private static Thread nT = new Thread(PrintABC); private static System.Timers.Timer aTimer; public static void Main() { aTimer = new System.Timers.Timer(1000); aTimer.Elapsed += TimerCallback; aTimer.Interval = 1000; aTimer.Enabled = true; nT.Start(); Console.ReadLine(); } private static void TimerCallback(Object o, ElapsedEventArgs e) { nT.Join(); Console.WriteLine("Complete the PrintABC"); GC.Collect(); } private static void PrintABC() { for (int iter = 1; iter < 300; iter++) { Console.WriteLine(iter+"abc"); Console.ReadKey(); //Thread.Sleep(100); } } } }

    Read the article

  • How bad it's have two methods with the same name but differents signatures in two classes?

    - by Super User
    I have a design problem relationated with the public interface, the names of methods and the understanding of my API and my code. I have two classes like this: class A: ... function collision(self): .... ... class B: .... function _collision(self, another_object, l, r, t, b): .... The first class have one public method named collision and the second have one private method called _collision. The two methods differs in arguments type and number. In the API _m method is private. For the example let's say that the _collision method checks if the object is colliding with another_ object with certain conditions l, r, t, b (for example, collide the left side, the right side, etc) and returns true or false according to the case. The collision method, on the other hand, resolves all the collisions of the object with other objects. The two methods have the same name because I think is better avoid overload the design with different names for methods who do almost the same think, but in distinct contexts and classes. This is clear enough to the reader or I should change the method's name?

    Read the article

  • What to do when TDD tests reveal new functionality that is needed that also needs tests?

    - by Joshua Harris
    What do you do when you are writing a test and you get to the point where you need to make the test pass and you realize that you need an additional piece of functionality that should be separated into its own function? That new function needs to be tested as well, but the TDD cycle says to Make a test fail, make it pass then refactor. If I am on the step where I am trying to make my test pass I'm not supposed to go off and start another failing test to test the new functionality that I need to implement. For example, I am writing a point class that has a function WillCollideWith(LineSegment): public class Point { // Point data and constructor ... public bool CollidesWithLine(LineSegment lineSegment) { Vector PointEndOfMovement = new Vector(Position.X + Velocity.X, Position.Y + Velocity.Y); LineSegment pointPath = new LineSegment(Position, PointEndOfMovement); if (lineSegment.Intersects(pointPath)) return true; return false; } } I was writing a test for CollidesWithLine when I realized that I would need a LineSegment.Intersects(LineSegment) function. But, should I just stop what I am doing on my test cycle to go create this new functionality? That seems to break the "Red, Green, Refactor" principle. Should I just write the code that detects that lineSegments Intersect inside of the CollidesWithLine function and refactor it after it is working? That would work in this case since I can access the data from LineSegment, but what about in cases where that kind of data is private?

    Read the article

  • Unity Problem with colliding instances of same object

    - by Kuba Sienkiewicz
    I want to check if object's instance is overlapping with another instance (any spawned object with another spawned object, not necessary the same object). I'm doing this by detecting collisions between bodies. But I have a problem. Spawned object (instances) are detecting collision with everything but other spawned objects. I've checked collision layers etc. All of spawned objects have rigidbodies and mesh colliders. Also when I attach my script to another body and I touch that body with an instanced object it detects collision. So problem is visible only in collision between spawned objects. And one more information I have script, rigid body and collider attached to child of main object. using UnityEngine; using System.Collections; public class CantPlace : MonoBehaviour { public bool collided = false; // Use this for initialization void Start () { } // Update is called once per frame void Update () { //Debug.Log (collided); } void OnTriggerEnter(Collider collider) { //if (true) { //foreach (Transform child in this.transform) { // if (child.name == "Cylinder") { //collided = true; Color c; c = this.renderer.material.color; c.g = 0f; c.b = 1f; c.r = 0f; this.renderer.material.color = c; Debug.Log (collider.name); //} // } //} //foreach (ContactPoint contact in collision.contacts) { // Debug.DrawRay(contact.point, contact.normal, Color.red,15f); // } } }

    Read the article

  • Should you always pass the bare minimum data needed into a function

    - by Anders Holmström
    Let's say I have a function IsAdmin that checks whether a user is an admin. Let's also say that the admin checking is done by matching user id, name and password against some sort of rule (not important). In my head there are then two possible function signatures for this: public bool IsAdmin(User user); public bool IsAdmin(int id, string name, string password); I most often go for the second type of signature, thinking that: The function signature gives the reader a lot more info The logic contained inside the function doesn't have to know about the User class It usually results in slightly less code inside the function However I sometimes question this approach, and also realize that at some point it would become unwieldy. If for example a function would map between ten different object fields into a resulting bool I would obviously send in the entire object. But apart from a stark example like that I can't see a reason to pass in the actual object. I would appreciate any arguments for either style, as well as any general observations you might offer. I program in both object oriented and functional styles, so the question should be seen as regarding any and all idioms.

    Read the article

  • Overloading methods that do logically different things, does this break any major principles?

    - by siva.k
    This is something that's been bugging me for a bit now. In some cases you see code that is a series of overloads, but when you look at the actual implementation you realize they do logically different things. However writing them as overloads allows the caller to ignore this and get the same end result. But would it be more sound to name the methods more explicitly then to write them as overloads? public void LoadWords(string filePath) { var lines = File.ReadAllLines(filePath).ToList(); LoadWords(lines); } public void LoadWords(IEnumerable<string> words) { // loads words into a List<string> based on some filters } Would these methods better serve future developers to be named as LoadWordsFromFile() and LoadWordsFromEnumerable()? It seems unnecessary to me, but if that is better what programming principle would apply here? On the flip side it'd make it so you didn't need to read the signatures to see exactly how you can load the words, which as Uncle Bob says would be a double take. But in general is this type of overloading to be avoided then?

    Read the article

  • Must all AI states be able to react to any event?

    - by Prog
    FSMs implemented with the State design pattern are a common way to design AI agents. I am familiar with the State design pattern and know how to implement it. How is this used in games to design AI agents? Consider a simplified class Monster, representing an AI agent: class Monster { State state; // other fields omitted public void update(){ // called every game-loop cycle state.execute(this); } public void setState(State state){ this.state = state; } // irrelevant stuff omitted } There are several State subclasses implementing execute() differently. So far, classic State pattern. AI agents are subject to environmental effects and other objects communicating with them. For example, an AI agent might tell another AI agent to attack (i.e. agent.attack()). Or a fireball might tell an AI agent to fall down. This means that the agent must have methods such as attack() and fallDown(), or commonly some message receiving mechanism to understand such messages. With an FSM, the current State of the agent should be the one taking care of such method calls - i.e. the agent delegates to the current state upon every event. Is this correct? If correct, how is this done? Are all states obligated by their superclass to implement methods such as attack(), fallDown() etc., so the agent can always delegate to them on almost every event? Or is it done in some other way?

    Read the article

  • Will new Twitter API 1.1 allow hashtag/tweet/trend queries without any authentication, i.e. for a client that does not use an user's account at all?

    - by P5music
    I see that, even not being logged in Twitter with an account, if I google hashtags or twitter accounts, twitter show them. I think it should be also possible to get those tweets programmatically but I do not know it for sure, so I ask for confirmation here, especially for the future with the new Twitter API resctrictions. I mean, will it be possible to get tweets from hashtags or accounts without logging in an user account, and so not wanting to access the user settings, subscriptions, etc (because I do not need it), thus not having to respect any token limit? I found these API 1.1 faqs, have I to be concerned? Will an application have to request user authorization just to make public API calls? When API v1.1 is released, user authorization (and access tokens) are required for all API 1.1 requests. In the weeks following release, some methods will require only application-based authentication for certain "userless" contexts. Will an application have to request user authorization just to make public API calls? When API v1.1 is released, user authorization (and access tokens) are required for all API 1.1 requests. In the weeks following release, some methods will require only application-based authentication for certain "userless" contexts. Will the Search API require authentication? The Search API is now part of the official REST API in version 1.1. In addition to serving results in a format consistent with other Tweet resources, usage will also require authentication.

    Read the article

  • How exactly to implement multiple threads in a game

    - by xerwin
    So I recently started learning Java, and having a interest in playing games as well as developing them, naturally I want to create game in Java. I have experience with games in C# and C++ but all of them were single-threaded simple games. But now, I learned how easy it is to make threads in Java, I want to take things to the next level. I started thinking about how would I actually implement threading in a game. I read couple of articles that say the same thing "Usually you have thread for rendering, for updating game logic, for AI, ..." but I haven't (or didn't look hard enough) found example of implementation. My idea how to make implementation is something like this (example for AI) public class AIThread implements Runnable{ private List<AI> ai; private Player player; /*...*/ public void run() { for (int i = 0; i < ai.size(); i++){ ai.get(i).update(player); } Thread.sleep(/* sleep until the next game "tick" */); } } I think this could work. If I also had a rendering and updating thread list of AI in both those threads, since I need to draw the AI and I need to calculate the logic between player and AI(But that could be moved to AIThread, but as an example) . Coming from C++ I'm used to do thing elegantly and efficiently, and this seems like neither of those. So what would be the correct way to handle this? Should I just keep multiple copies of resources in each thread or should I have the resources on one spot, declared with synchronized keyword? I'm afraid that could cause deadlocks, but I'm not yet qualified enough to know when a code will produce deadlock.

    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++: calling non-member functions with the same syntax of member ones

    - by peoro
    One thing I'd like to do in C++ is to call non-member functions with the same syntax you call member functions: class A { }; void f( A & this ) { /* ... */ } // ... A a; a.f(); // this is the same as f(a); Of course this could only work as long as f is not virtual (since it cannot appear in A's virtual table. f doesn't need to access A's non-public members. f doesn't conflict with a function declared in A (A::f). I'd like such a syntax because in my opinion it would be quite comfortable and would push good habits: calling str.strip() on a std::string (where strip is a function defined by the user) would sound a lot better than calling strip( str );. most of the times (always?) classes provide some member functions which don't require to be member (ie: are not virtual and don't use non-public members). This breaks encapsulation, but is the most practical thing to do (due to point 1). My question here is: what do you think of such feature? Do you think it would be something nice, or something that would introduce more issues than the ones it aims to solve? Could it make sense to propose such a feature to the next standard (the one after C++0x)? Of course this is just a brief description of this idea; it is not complete; we'd probably need to explicitly mark a function with a special keyword to let it work like this and many other stuff.

    Read the article

  • Embedded Tomcat Cluster

    - by ThreaT
    Can someone please explain with an example how an Embedded Tomcat Cluster works. Would a load balancer be necessary? Since we're using embedded tomcat, how would two separate jar files (each a standalone web application with their own embedded tomcat instance) know where eachother are and let eachother know their status, etc? Here is the code I have so far which is just a regular embedded tomcat without any clustering: import javax.servlet.ServletException; import javax.servlet.http.HttpServlet; import javax.servlet.http.HttpServletRequest; import javax.servlet.http.HttpServletResponse; import java.io.File; import java.io.IOException; import java.io.Writer; public class Main { public static void main(String[] args) throws LifecycleException, InterruptedException, ServletException { Tomcat tomcat = new Tomcat(); tomcat.setPort(8080); Context ctx = tomcat.addContext("/", new File(".").getAbsolutePath()); Tomcat.addServlet(ctx, "hello", new HttpServlet() { protected void service(HttpServletRequest req, HttpServletResponse resp) throws ServletException, IOException { Writer w = resp.getWriter(); w.write("Hello, World!"); w.flush(); } }); ctx.addServletMapping("/*", "hello"); tomcat.start(); tomcat.getServer().await(); } } Source: java dzone

    Read the article

  • Embedded Nashorn in JEditorPane

    - by Geertjan
    Here's a prototype for some kind of backoffice content management system. Several interesting goodies are included, such as an embedded JavaScript editor, as can be seen in the screenshot: Key items of interest in the above are as follows: Embedded JavaScript editor (i.e., the latest and greatest Nashorn technology, look it up, if you're not aware of what that is.) The way that's done is to include the relevant JavaScript modules in your NetBeans Platform application. Make very sure to include "Lexer to NetBeans Bridge", which does a bunch of critical stuff under the hood. The JEditorPane is defined as follows, along the lines that I blogged about recently thanks to Steven Yi: javaScriptPane.setContentType("text/javascript"); EditorKit kit = CloneableEditorSupport.getEditorKit("text/javascript"); javaScriptPane.setEditorKit(kit); javaScriptPane.getDocument().putProperty("mimeType", "text/javascript"); Note that "javaScriptPane" above is simply a JEditorPane. Timon Veenstra's excellent solution for integrating Nodes with MultiViewElements, which is described here by Timon, and nowhere else in the world. The tab you see above is within a pluggable container, so anyone else could create a new module and register their own MultiViewElement such that it will be incorporated into the editor. A small trick to ensure that only one window opens per news item: @NbBundle.Messages("OpenNews=Open") private class OpenNewsAction extends AbstractAction { public OpenNewsAction() { super(Bundle.OpenNews()); } @Override public void actionPerformed(ActionEvent e) { News news = getLookup().lookup(News.class); Mode editorMode = WindowManager.getDefault().findMode("editor"); for (TopComponent tc : WindowManager.getDefault().getOpenedTopComponents(editorMode)) { if (tc.getDisplayName().equals(news.getTitle())) { tc.requestActive(); return; } } TopComponent tc = MultiViews.createMultiView("application/x-newsnode", NewsNode.this); tc.open(); tc.requestActive(); } } The rest of what you see above is all standard NetBeans Platform stuff. The sources of everything you see above is here: http://java.net/projects/nb-api-samples/sources/api-samples/show/versions/7.3/misc/CMSBackOffice

    Read the article

  • Places to store basic data

    - by Ella
    I am using PHP. I'm building a fully modular CMS, which is destined for the public. Some people might view this as a framework, but I intend to write a set of extensions for it, extensions that will make it a CMS :P Because it's completely modular I have a problem figuring out how to load extensions. Practically I need to get the list of active extensions, so I can load them inside my base class. I load them by reading some file headers, which contain a "dependency" field. That field decides the order in which I have to instantiate the objects. The problem is that when the CMS starts I have no database interface, because that's an extension too, so I can't store the active extensions list in the database :) You might ask how are extensions activated in the first place. Well - in the administration interface, which is an extension as well (obviously on first install of the CMS there will be some extensions active by default). Could writing that list inside a text file be a solution? The problem is that a lot of hosts are not very nice with scripts when they write files. And since this CMS is public I might have a problem here?

    Read the article

  • Keep cube spinning after fling

    - by Zero
    So I've been trying to get started with game development for Android using Unity3D. For my first project I've made a simple cube that you can spin using touch. For that I have the following code: using UnityEngine; using System.Collections; public class TouchScript : MonoBehaviour { float speed = 0.4f; bool canRotate = false; Transform cachedTransform; public bool CanRotate { get { return canRotate; } private set { canRotate = value; } } void Start () { // Make reference to transform cachedTransform = transform; } // Update is called once per frame void Update () { if (Input.touchCount > 0) { Touch touch = Input.GetTouch (0); // Switch through touch events switch (Input.GetTouch (0).phase) { case TouchPhase.Began: if (VerifyTouch (touch)) CanRotate = true; break; case TouchPhase.Moved: if (CanRotate) RotateObject (touch); break; case TouchPhase.Ended: CanRotate = false; break; } } } bool VerifyTouch (Touch touch) { Ray ray = Camera.main.ScreenPointToRay (touch.position); RaycastHit hit; // Check if there is a collider attached already, otherwise add one on the fly if (collider == null) gameObject.AddComponent (typeof(BoxCollider)); if (Physics.Raycast (ray, out hit)) { if (hit.collider.gameObject == this.gameObject) return true; } return false; } void RotateObject (Touch touch) { cachedTransform.Rotate (new Vector3 (touch.deltaPosition.y, -touch.deltaPosition.x, 0) * speed, Space.World); } } The above code works fine. However, I'm wondering how I can keep the cube spinning after the user lifts his finger. The user should be able to "fling" the cube, which would keep spinning and after a while would slowly come to a stop due to drag. Should I do this using AddForce or something? I'm really new to this stuff so I'd like it if you guys could point me in the right direction here :) .

    Read the article

  • Is implementing an interface defined in a subpackage an anti-pattern?

    - by Michael Kjörling
    Let's say I have the following: package me.my.pkg; public interface Something { /* ... couple of methods go here ... */ } and: package me.my; import me.my.pkg.Something; public class SomeClass implements Something { /* ... implementation of Something goes here ... */ /* ... some more method implementations go here too ... */ } That is, the class implementing an interface lives closer to the package hierarchy root than does the interface it implements but they both belong in the same package hierarchy. The reason for this in the particular case I have in mind is that there is a previously-existing package that groups functionality which the Something interface logically belongs to, and the logical (as in both "the one you'd expect" and "the one where it needs to go given the current architecture") implementation class exists previously and lives one level "up" from the logical placement of the interface. The implementing class does not logically belong anywhere under me.my.pkg. In my particular case, the class in question implements several interfaces, but that feels like it doesn't make any (or at least no significant) difference here. I can't decide if this is an acceptable pattern or not. Is it or is it not, and why?

    Read the article

  • Good design for class with similar constructors

    - by RustyTheBoyRobot
    I was reading this question and thought that good points were made, but most of the solutions involved renaming one of the methods. I am refactoring some poorly written code and I've run into this situation: public class Entity { public Entity(String uniqueIdentifier, boolean isSerialNumber) { if (isSerialNumber) { this.serialNumber = uniqueIdentifier; //Lookup other data } else { this.primaryKey = uniqueIdentifier; // Lookup other data with different query } } } The obvious design flaw is that someone needed two different ways to create the object, but couldn't overload the constructor since both identifiers were of the same type (String). Thus they added a flag to differentiate. So, my question is this: when this situation arises, what are good designs for differentiating between these two ways of instantiating an object? My First Thoughts You could create two different static methods to create your object. The method names could be different. This is weak because static methods don't get inherited. You could create different objects to force the types to be different (i.e., make a PrimaryKey class and a SerialNumber class). I like this because it seems to be a better design, but it also is a pain to refactor if serialNumber is a String everywhere else.

    Read the article

  • How do I drag my widgets without dragging other widgets?

    - by Cypher
    I have a bunch of drag-able widgets on screen. When I am dragging one of the widgets around, if I drag the mouse over another widget, that widget then gets "snagged" and is also dragged around. While this is kind of a neat thing and I can think of a few game ideas based on that alone, that was not intended. :-P Background Info I have a Widget class that is the basis for my user interface controls. It has a bunch of properties that define it's size, position, image information, etc. It also defines some events, OnMouseOver, OnMouseOut, OnMouseClick, etc. All of the event handler functions are virtual, so that child objects can override them and make use of their implementation without duplicating code. Widgets are not aware of each other. They cannot tell each other, "Hey, I'm dragging so bugger off!" Source Code Here's where the widget gets updated (every frame): public virtual void Update( MouseComponent mouse, KeyboardComponent keyboard ) { // update position if the widget is being dragged if ( this.IsDragging ) { this.Left -= (int)( mouse.LastPosition.X - mouse.Position.X ); this.Top -= (int)( mouse.LastPosition.Y - mouse.Position.Y ); } ... // define and throw other events if ( !this.WasMouseOver && this.IsMouseOver && mouse.IsButtonDown( MouseButton.Left ) ) { this.IsMouseDown = true; this.MouseDown( mouse, new EventArgs() ); } ... // define and throw other events } And here's the OnMouseDown event where the IsDraggable property gets set: public virtual void OnMouseDown( object sender, EventArgs args ) { if ( this.IsDraggable ) { this.IsDragging = true; } } Problem Looking at the source code, it's obvious why this is happening. The OnMouseDown event gets fired whenever the mouse is hovered over the Widget and when the left mouse button is "down" (but not necessarily in that order!). That means that even if I hold the mouse down somewhere else on screen, and simply move it over anything that IsDraggable, it will "hook" onto the mouse and go for a ride. So, now that it's obvious that I'm Doing It Wrong™, how do I do this correctly?

    Read the article

  • How will closures in Java impact the Java Community?

    - by Ryan Delucchi
    It is one of the most talked about features planned for Java: Closures. Many of us have been longing for them. Some of us (including I) have grown a bit impatient and have turned to scripting languages to fill the void. But, once closures have finally arrived to Java: how will they effect the Java Community? Will the advancement of VM-targetted scripting languages slow to a crawl, stay the same, or acclerate? Will people flock to the new closure syntax, thus turning Java code-bases all-around into more functionally structured implementations? Will we only see closures sprinkled in Java throughout? What will be the effect on tool/IDE support? How about performance? And finally, what will it mean for Java's continued adoption, as a language, compared with other languages that are rising in popularity? To provide an example of one of the latest proposed Java Closure syntax specs: public interface StringOperation { String invoke(String s); } // ... (new StringOperation() { public invoke(String s) { new StringBuilder(s).reverse().toString(); } }).invoke("abcd"); would become ... String reversed = { String s => new StringBuilder(s).reverse().toString() }.invoke("abcd"); [source: http://tronicek.blogspot.com/2007/12/closures-closure-is-form-of-anonymous_28.html]

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 557 558 559 560 561 562 563 564 565 566 567 568  | Next Page >