Search Results

Search found 29990 results on 1200 pages for 'object recognition'.

Page 57/1200 | < Previous Page | 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64  | Next Page >

• How to handle status columns in designing tables

  - by altsyset

  How to handle multiple statuses for a table entry, for example an item table may have an active, inactive, fast moving, and/or batch statuses. And I wanted to handle them in single column with VARCHAR type. Also I might set each of those attributes as a boolean with different columns. But I am not sure what consequences this might lead to. So if you have experienced such situations which one would be the best way to handle it?

  Read the article

• Designing a single look up entity

  - by altsyset

  In almost every application you have this look up entity that provides a dynamic references. This are things like type, category, etc. These entities will always have id, name, desc So at first I designed different entities for each look up. Like education_type, education_level, degree_type.... But on a second thought I decided to have on entity for each of these kinds of entities. But when I am done with the design and check the relation this entity will be referenced by almost all entities in the system and I don't believe that is appropriate. So What is your take on this? Can you give me some clear pros and cons?

  Read the article

• Interface hierarchy design for separate domains

  - by jerzi

  There are businesses and people. People could be liked and businesses could be commented on: class Like class Comment class Person implements iLikeTarget class Business implements iCommentTarget Likes and comments are performed by a user(person) so they are authored: class Like implements iAuthored class Comment implements iAuthored People's like could also be used in their history: class history class Like implements iAuthored, iHistoryTarget Now, a smart developer comes and says each history is attached to a user so history should be authored: interface iHistoryTarget extends iAuthored so it could be removed from class Like: class Person implements iLikeTarget class Business implements iCommentTarget class Like implements iHistoryTarget class Comment implements iAuthored class history interface iHistoryTarget extends iAuthored Here, another smart guy comes with a question: How could I capture the Authored fact in Like and Comment classes? He may knows nothing about history concept in the project. By scalling these kind of functionallities, interfaces may goes to their encapsulated types which cause more type strength, on the other hand explicitness suffered and also code end users will face much pain to process. So here is the question: Should I encapsulate those dependant types to their parent types (interface hierarchies) or not or explicitly repeat each type for every single level of my type system or ...?

  Read the article

• "Default approach" when creating a class from scratch: getters for everything, or limited access?

  - by Prog

  Until recently I always had getters (and sometimes setters but not always) for all the fields in my class. It was my 'default': very automatic and I never doubted it. However recently some discussions on this site made me realize maybe it's not the best approach. When you create a class, you often don't know exactly how it's going to be used in the future by other classes. So in that sense, it's good to have getters and setter for all of the fields in the class. So other classes could use it in the future any way they want. Allowing this flexibility doesn't require you to over engineer anything, only to provide getters. However some would say it's better to limit the access to a class, and only allow access to certain fields, while other fields stay completely private. What is your 'default' approach when building a class from scratch? Do you make getters for all the fields? Or do you always choose selectively which fields to expose through a getter and which to keep completely private?

  Read the article

• Is this a violation of the Liskov Substitution Principle?

  - by Paul T Davies

  Say we have a list of Task entities, and a ProjectTask sub type. Tasks can be closed at any time, except ProjectTasks which cannot be closed once they have a status of Started. The UI should ensure the option to close a started ProjectTask is never available, but some safeguards are present in the domain: public class Task { public Status Status { get; set; } public virtual void Close() { Status = Status.Closed; } } public ProjectTask : Task { public override void Close() { if (Status == Status.Started) throw new Exception("Cannot close a started Project Task"); base.Close(); } } Now when calling Close() on a Task, there is a chance the call will fail if it is a ProjectTask with the started status, when it wouldn't if it was a base Task. But this is the business requirements. It should fail. Can this be regarded as a violation?

  Read the article

• Is this JS code a good way for defining class with private methods?

  - by tigrou

  I was recently browsing a open source JavaScript project. The project is a straight port from another project in C language. It mostly use static methods, packed together in classes. Most classes are implemented using this pattern : Foo = (function () { var privateField = "bar"; var publicField = "bar";     function publicMethod() { console.log('this is public');     } function privateMethod() { console.log('this is private'); } return {   publicMethod : publicMethod, publicField : publicField }; })(); This was the first time I saw private methods implemented that way. I perfectly understand how it works, using a anonymous method. Here is my question : is this pattern a good practice ? What are the actual limitations or caveats ? Usually i declare my JavaScript classes like that : Foo = new function () { var privateField = "test"; this.publicField = "test";     this.publicMethod = function()     { console.log('this method is public'); privateMethod();     } function privateMethod() { console.log('this method is private'); } }; Other than syntax, is there any difference with the pattern show above ?

  Read the article

• Do functional generics exist or what is the correct name for them if they do?

  - by voroninp

  Consider the following generic class public class EntityChangeInfo<EntityType,TEntityKey> { ChangeTypeEnum ChangeType {get;} TEntityKeyType EntityKey {get;} } Here EntityType unambiguously defines TEntityKeyType. So it would be nice to have some kind of types' map public class EntityChangeInfo<EntityType,TEntityKey> with map < [ EntityType : Person -> TEntityKeyType : int] [ EntityType : Car -> TEntityKeyType : CarIdType ]> { ChangeTypeEnum ChangeType {get;} TEntityKeyType EntityKey {get;} } Another one example is: public class Foo<TIn> with map < [TIn : Person -> TOut1 : string, TOut2 : int, ..., TOutN : double ] [TIn : Car -> TOut1 : int, TOut2 :int, ..., TOutN : Price ] > { TOut1 Prop1 {get;set;} TOut2 Prop2 {get;set;} ... TOutN PropN {get;set;} } The reasonable question how this can be interpreted by the compiler? Well, for me it is just the sortcut for two structurally similar classes: public sealed class Foo<Person> { string Prop1 {get;set;} int Prop2 {get;set;} ... double PropN {get;set;} } public sealed class Foo<Car> { int Prop1 {get;set;} int Prop2 {get;set;} ... Price PropN {get;set;} } But besides this we could imaging some update of the Foo<: public class Foo<TIn> with map < [TIn : Person -> TOut1 : string, TOut2 : int, ..., TOutN : double ] [TIn : Car -> TOut1 : int, TOut2 :int, ..., TOutN : Price ] > { TOut1 Prop1 {get;set;} TOut2 Prop2 {get;set;} ... TOutN PropN {get;set;} public override string ToString() { return string.Format("prop1={0}, prop2={1},...propN={N-1}, Prop1, Prop2,...,PropN); } } This all can seem quite superficial but the idea came when I was designing the messages for our system. The very first class. Many messages with the same structrue should be discriminated by the EntityType. So the question is whether such construct exist in any programming language?

  Read the article

• Assigning an item to an existing array in a list within a dictionary [on hold]

  - by Rouke

  I have a Dictionary declared like: public var PoolDict : Dictionary.<String, List.<GameObject[]> >; I made a function to add items to the list and array function Add(key:String, obj:GameObject) { if(!PoolDict.ContainsKey(key)) { PoolDict[key] = new List.<GameObject[]>(); } //PlaceHolder - Not what will be in final version PoolDict[key].Add(null); //Attempts - Errors- How to add to existing array? PoolDict[key].Add(obj); PoolDict[key][0].Add(obj); } I'd like to replace the line after //PlaceHolder with code that will assign a gameObject to an existing array in a list that's associated with a key. How could this be done?

  Read the article

• Is there a better way to handle data abstraction in this example?

  - by sigil

  I'm building an application that retrieves Sharepoint list data via a web service SPlists.Lists. To create an instance of the web service, I have the following class: class SharepointServiceCreator { public SPlists.Lists createService() { listsService.Url = "http://wss/sites/SPLists/_vti_bin/lists.asmx"; listsService.Credentials = System.Net.CredentialCache.DefaultCredentials; SPlists.Lists listsService=new SPlists.Lists(); } } I'm concerned that this isn't good OOP abstraction, though, because in order to create this service elsewhere in my application, I would need the following code: class someClass { public void someMethod() { SharepointServiceCreator s=new SharepointServiceCreator() SPlists.Lists listService=s.createService() } } Having to use declare the instance of listService in someMethod as type SPlists.Lists seems wrong, because it means that someClass needs to know about how SharepointServiceCreator is implemented. Or is this ok?

  Read the article

• Bitmap & Object Collision Help

  - by MarkEz

  Is it possible to detect when an object and a bitmap collide. I have an arraylist of sprites that I am shooting with an image. I tried using this method here but as soon as the bitmap appears the sprite disappears, this is in the Sprite class: public boolean isCollision(Bitmap other) { if(other.getWidth() > x && other.getWidth() < x + width && >other.getHeight() > y && other.getHeight() < y + height); return true; }

  Read the article

• OOP Structure for web application

  - by Query

  Ok so I have a website in which users complete tasks to earn points. When they earn enough points, they rise in rank. The site from my understanding is very basic and only executes one query or two queries at most a page. There is a user table, a support ticket table, and an orders table. All of these contain a relational row for username. Our class was familiarized with OOP back in highschool with Java but that was for video games and I could grasp the concept on why you would need a class player and class enemy. However I don't understand it's web application. At least not in my situation. I understand the user class might contain stuff like: getUsername getPoints getEmail setEmail addPoints (does this belong here? OR only things the user can manipulate should be here?) etc.. But I'm at a loss with everything else such as user registration. Can you help give me a wire framework that I could wrap my head around? Pointing me to a good eBook would help greatly

  Read the article

• Should single purpose utility app use a class

  - by jmoreno

  When writing a small utility app, that does just one thing, should that one thing be encapsulated in a seperate class, or just let it be part of whatever class/module is used to start the application? I.e. Main would consist of 2 or three lines calling the constructor and then the DoIt methods, nothing else. Or should Main be the DoIt method, with whatever functions it needs added to the main class? Asking because I want to get some alternative perspective, but couldn't find a similar question. If my google-fu is bad and there's a dup, please close.

  Read the article

• OOP Design: relationship between entity classes

  - by beginner_

  I have at first sight a simple issue but can't wrap my head around on how to solve. I have an abstract class Compound. A Compound is made up of Structures. Then there is also a Container which holds 1 Compound. A "special" implementation of Compound has Versions. For that type of Compound I want the Container to hold the Versionof the Compound and not the Compound itself. You could say "just create an interface Containable" and a Container holds 1 Containable. However that won't work. The reason is I'm creating a framework and the main part of that framework is to simplify storing and especially searching for special data type held by Structure objects. Hence to search for Containers which contain a Compound made up of a specific Structure requires that the "Path" from Containerto Structure is well defined (Number of relationships or joins). I hope this was understandable. My question is how to design the classes and relationships to be able to do what I outlined.

  Read the article

• Search and Replace in MVC

  - by danip

  What would be a good MVC/OOP/GRASP/SOLID structure for a search/replace functionality. Methods: search/searchNext/replace/replaceAll. I'm interested only in the PHP arhitecture and how a professional developer would implement this in it's OWN FRAMEWORK. What names would you use for the classes? What subfolders would you used in your MODEL folder? How would you connect the MODELS/CONTROLLER? This is just a arhitecture question to understand better the principles of good OOP in practice. My current implementation is very simplistic using a service model: /controller/SearchReplaceController.php /models/services/SearchReplaceService.php The problem with this is I know I'm breaking SRP in the service but I found this somehow acceptable. Also creating a service does not feel like the best solution for this.

  Read the article

• OOP PHP make separate classes or one

  - by user2956219

  I'm studying OOP PHP and working on a small personal project but I have hard time grasping some concepts. Let's say I have a list of items, each item belongs to subcategory, and each subcategory belongs to category. So should I make separate classes for category (with methods to list all categories, add new category, delete category), class for subcategories and class for items? Or should I make creating, listing and deleting categories as methods for item class? Both category and subcategory are very simple and basically consist of ID, Name and parentID (for subcategory).

  Read the article

• Is there a pattern to restrict which classes can update another class?

  - by Mike

  Say I have a class ImportantInfo with a public writable property Data. Many classes will read this property but only a few will ever set it. Basically, if you want to update Data you should really know what you're doing. Is there a pattern I could use to make this explicit other than by documenting it? For example, some way to enforce that only classes that implement IUpdateImportantData can do it (this is just an example)? I'm not talking about security here, but more of a "hey, are you sure you want to do that?" kind of thing.

  Read the article

• What is the better design decision approach?

  - by palm snow

  I have two classes (MyFoo1 and MyFoo2) that share some common functionality. So far it does not seem like I need any polymorphic inheritence but at this point I am considering the following options: Have the common functionality in a utility class. Both of these classes call these methods from that utility class. Have an abstract class and implement common methods in that abstract class. Then derive MyFoo1 and MyFoo2 from that abstract class. Any suggestion on what would be a better design decision?

  Read the article

• Advice on approaching a significant rearrangement/refactoring?

  - by Prog

  I'm working on an application (hobby project, solo programmer, small-medium size), and I have recently redesigned a significant part of it. The program already works in it's current state, but I decided to reimplement things to improve the OO design. I'm about to implement this new design by refactoring a big part of the application. Thing is I'm not sure where to start. Obviously, by the nature of a rearrangement, the moment you change one part of the program several other parts (at least temporarily) break. So it's a little 'scary' to rearrange something in a piece of software that already works. I'm asking for advice or some general guidelines: how should I approach a significant refactoring? When you approach rearranging large parts of your application, where do you start? Note that I'm interested only in re-arranging the high-level structure of the app. I have no intention of rewriting local algorithms.

  Read the article

• "Collection Wrapper" pattern - is this common?

  - by Prog

  A different question of mine had to do with encapsulating member data structures inside classes. In order to understand this question better please read that question and look at the approach discussed. One of the guys who answered that question said that the approach is good, but if I understood him correctly - he said that there should be a class existing just for the purpose of wrapping the collection, instead of an ordinary class offering a number of public methods just to access the member collection. For example, instead of this: class SomeClass{ // downright exposing the concrete collection. Things[] someCollection; // other stuff omitted Thing[] getCollection(){return someCollection;} } Or this: class SomeClass{ // encapsulating the collection, but inflating the class' public interface. Thing[] someCollection; // class functionality omitted. public Thing getThing(int index){ return someCollection[index]; } public int getSize(){ return someCollection.length; } public void setThing(int index, Thing thing){ someCollection[index] = thing; } public void removeThing(int index){ someCollection[index] = null; } } We'll have this: // encapsulating the collection - in a different class, dedicated to this. class SomeClass{ CollectionWrapper someCollection; CollectionWrapper getCollection(){return someCollection;} } class CollectionWrapper{ Thing[] someCollection; public Thing getThing(int index){ return someCollection[index]; } public int getSize(){ return someCollection.length; } public void setThing(int index, Thing thing){ someCollection[index] = thing; } public void removeThing(int index){ someCollection[index] = null; } } This way, the inner data structure in SomeClass can change without affecting client code, and without forcing SomeClass to offer a lot of public methods just to access the inner collection. CollectionWrapper does this instead. E.g. if the collection changes from an array to a List, the internal implementation of CollectionWrapper changes, but client code stays the same. Also, the CollectionWrapper can hide certain things from the client code - from example, it can disallow mutation to the collection by not having the methods setThing and removeThing. This approach to decoupling client code from the concrete data structure seems IMHO pretty good. Is this approach common? What are it's downfalls? Is this used in practice?

  Read the article

• Should the 12-String be in it's own class and why?

  - by MayNotBe

  This question is regarding a homework project in my first Java programming class (online program). The assignment is to create a "stringed instrument" class using (among other things) an array of String names representing instrument string names ("A", "E", etc). The idea for the 12-string is beyond the scope of the assignment (it doesn't have to be included at all) but now that I've thought of it, I want to figure out how to make it work. Part of me feels like the 12-String should have it's own class, but another part of me feels that it should be in the guitar class because it's a guitar. I suppose this will become clear as I progress but I thought I would see what kind of response I get here. Also, why would they ask for a String[] for the instrument string names? Seems like a char[] makes more sense. Thank you for any insight. Here's my code so far (it's a work in progress): public class Guitar { private int numberOfStrings = 6; private static int numberOfGuitars = 0; private String[] stringNotes = {"E", "A", "D", "G", "B", "A"}; private boolean tuned = false; private boolean playing = false; public Guitar(){ numberOfGuitars++; } public Guitar(boolean twelveString){ if(twelveString){ stringNotes[0] = "E, E"; stringNotes[1] = "A, A"; stringNotes[2] = "D, D"; stringNotes[3] = "G, G"; stringNotes[4] = "B, B"; stringNotes[5] = "E, E"; numberOfStrings = 12; } } public int getNumberOfStrings() { return numberOfStrings; } public void setNumberOfStrings(int strings) { if(strings == 12 || strings == 6) { if(strings == 12){ stringNotes[0] = "E, E"; stringNotes[1] = "A, A"; stringNotes[2] = "D, D"; stringNotes[3] = "G, G"; stringNotes[4] = "B, B"; stringNotes[5] = "E, E"; numberOfStrings = strings; } if(strings == 6) numberOfStrings = strings; }//if else System.out.println("***ERROR***Guitar can only have 6 or 12 strings***ERROR***"); } public void getStringNotes() { for(int i = 0; i < stringNotes.length; i++){ if(i == stringNotes.length - 1) System.out.println(stringNotes[i]); else System.out.print(stringNotes[i] + ", "); }//for }

  Read the article

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

  - by Taytay

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

  Read the article

• Should Equality be commutative within a Class Hierachy?

  - by vossad01

  It is easy to define the Equals operation in ways that are not commutative. When providing equality against other types, there are obviously situations (in most languages) were equality not being commutative is unavoidable. However, within one's own inheritance hierarchy where the root base class defines an equality member, a programmer has more control. Thus you can create situations where (A = B) ? (B = A), where A and B both derive from base class T Substituting the = with the appropriate variation for a given language. (.Equals(_), ==, etc.) That seems wrong to me, however, I recognize I may be biased by background in Mathematics. I have not been in programming long enough to know what is standard/accepted/preferred practice when programming. Do most programmers just accept .Equals(_)may not be commutative and code defensibly. Do they expect commutativity and get annoyed if it is not. In short, when working in a class hierarchy, should effort me made to ensure Equality is commutative?

  Read the article

• Did Bjarne Stroustrup create the terms constructor/destructor when talking about objects?

  - by user104971

  I was watching this keynote and Bjarne Stroustrup (Creator of C++) claims that he hadn't yet invented the words constructor and destructor yet when he was giving an example of RAII. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IYBLXBJr0HU I know the concept of construction and destruction has been around a lot longer (even in C, a function that allocates and returns a struct and then a function that frees it etc.), but was Bjarne really the first to invent the terms?

  Read the article

• Deleting a game object

  - by Balls

  I tried doing this but it cause an access violation. void GameObjectFactory::Update() { for( std::list<GameObject*>::iterator it=gameObjectList.begin() ..... (*it)->Update(); } void Bomb::Update() { if( time == 2.0f ) { gameObjectFactory->Remove( this ); } } void GameObjectFactory::Remove( ... ) { gameObjectList.remove( ... ); } My thoughts would be to mark the object to be dead then let the factory handle it the on next frame for deletion. Is it the best and fastest way? What do you think?

  Read the article

• A programmer who doesn't get to program - where to turn? [closed]

  - by Just an Anon

  I'm in my mid 20's, and have been working as a full time programmer / developer for the last ~6 years, with several years of part-time freelancing before this, and three straight years of freelancing in the middle of this short career. I work mostly with PHP and the Drupal framework. By and large, I focus on programming custom pieces of functionality; these, of course, vary greatly from project to project. I've got years of solid experience with OOP (have done some Java & C# years ago, too) including intensive experience with front-end development, and even some design work. I've lead small teams (2-4 people) of developers. And of course, given the large amount of freelancing, I've got decent project- & client-management skills. My problem is staying motivated at any place of employment. In the time mentioned I've worked (full-time) at six local companies. The longest I've stayed at any company was just over a year. I find that I'll get hired and be very excited and motivated for the first few months, but the work quickly gets "stale." By that I mean that the interesting components (ie. the programming) get done, and the rest of the work turns into boring cleanup (move a button, add text, change colours, add a field). I don't get challenged, and I don't feel like I'm learning anything new. This happens repeatedly time and time again, and I always end up leaving for either a new opportunity, or to freelance. I'm wondering if perhaps I've painted myself into a corner with the rather niche work market (although with very high demand and good compensation) and need to explore other career choices. Another possibility is that I may be choosing the wrong places of employment, mostly small agencies, and need to look into working for a larger, more established firm. I find programming, writing code, and architecting solutions very rewarding. When I'm working on an interesting problem I lose all sense of time and 14-16 hours can fly by like minutes. I get the same exciting feeling when I'm doing high-level planning of a complex system, breaking up the work and figuring out how everything will tie-in together. I absolutely hate doing small, "stupid" changes that pose no challenge, yet seem to make up more and more of my work. I want to find a workplace where I will get to work on such tasks, be challenged, and improve in all areas of product development. This maybe a programming job, management, architecture of desktop apps, or may be managing a taco stand on a beach in Mexico - I don't know, and I need some advice and real-world feedback. What are some job areas worth exploring? The requirements are fairly simple: working with computers interacting with others challenging decent pay (I'm making just short of 90k / year with a month of vacation & some benefits, and would like to stay in this range, but am willing to take a temporary cut in pay for a more interesting position) Any advice would be much appreciated!

  Read the article

< Previous Page | 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64  | Next Page >