Search Results

Search found 30234 results on 1210 pages for 'object oriented'.

Page 6/1210 | < Previous Page | 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13  | Next Page >

  • Object inheritance and method parameters/return types - Please check my logic

    - by user2368481
    I'm preparing for a test and doing practice questions, this one in particular I am unsure I did correctly: We are given a very simple UML diagram to demonstrate inheritance: I hope this is clear, it shows that W inherits from V and so on: |-----Y V <|----- W<|-----| |-----X<|----Z and this code: public X method1(){....} method2(new Y()); method2(method1()); method2(method3()); The questions and my answers: Q: What types of objects could method1 actually return? A: X and Z, since the method definition includes X as the return type and since Z is a kind of X is would be OK to return either. Q: What could the parameter type of method2 be? A: Since method2 in the code accepts Y, X and Z (as the return from method1), the parameter type must be either V or W, as Y,X and Z inherit from both of these. Q: What could return type of method3 be? A: Return type of method3 must be V or W as this would be consistent with answer 2.

    Read the article

  • Object construction design

    - by James
    I recently started to use c# to interface with a database, and there was one part of the process that appeared odd to me. When creating a SqlCommand, the method I was lead to took the form: SqlCommand myCommand = new SqlCommand("Command String", myConnection); Coming from a Java background, I was expecting something more similar to SqlCommand myCommand = myConnection.createCommand("Command String"); I am asking, in terms of design, what is the difference between the two? The phrase "single responsibility" has been used to suggest that a connection should not be responsible for creating SqlCommands, but I would also say that, in my mind, the difference between the two is partly a mental one of the difference between a connection executing a command and a command acting on a connection, the latter of which seems less like what I have been lead to believe OOP should be. There is also a part of me wondering if the two should be completely separate, and should only come together in some sort of connection.execute(command) method. Can anyone help clear up these differences? Are any of these methods "more correct" than the others from an OO point of view? (P.S. the fact that c# is used is completely irrelevant. It just highlighted to me that different approaches were used)

    Read the article

  • Using visitor pattern with large object hierarchy

    - by T. Fabre
    Context I've been using with a hierarchy of objects (an expression tree) a "pseudo" visitor pattern (pseudo, as in it does not use double dispatch) : public interface MyInterface { void Accept(SomeClass operationClass); } public class MyImpl : MyInterface { public void Accept(SomeClass operationClass) { operationClass.DoSomething(); operationClass.DoSomethingElse(); // ... and so on ... } } This design was, however questionnable, pretty comfortable since the number of implementations of MyInterface is significant (~50 or more) and I didn't need to add extra operations. Each implementation is unique (it's a different expression or operator), and some are composites (ie, operator nodes that will contain other operator/leaf nodes). Traversal is currently performed by calling the Accept operation on the root node of the tree, which in turns calls Accept on each of its child nodes, which in turn... and so on... But the time has come where I need to add a new operation, such as pretty printing : public class MyImpl : MyInterface { // Property does not come from MyInterface public string SomeProperty { get; set; } public void Accept(SomeClass operationClass) { operationClass.DoSomething(); operationClass.DoSomethingElse(); // ... and so on ... } public void Accept(SomePrettyPrinter printer) { printer.PrettyPrint(this.SomeProperty); } } I basically see two options : Keep the same design, adding a new method for my operation to each derived class, at the expense of maintainibility (not an option, IMHO) Use the "true" Visitor pattern, at the expense of extensibility (not an option, as I expect to have more implementations coming along the way...), with about 50+ overloads of the Visit method, each one matching a specific implementation ? Question Would you recommand using the Visitor pattern ? Is there any other pattern that could help solve this issue ?

    Read the article

  • Object desing problem for simple school application

    - by Aragornx
    I want to create simple school application that provides grades,notes,presence,etc. for students,teachers and parents. I'm trying to design objects for this problem and I'm little bit confused - because I'm not very experienced in class designing. Some of my present objects are : class PersonalData() { private String name; private String surename; private Calendar dateOfBirth; [...] } class Person { private PersonalData personalData; } class User extends Person { private String login; private char[] password; } class Student extends Person { private ArrayList<Counselor> counselors = new ArrayList<>(); } class Counselor extends Person { private ArrayList<Student> children = new ArrayList<>(); } class Teacher extends Person { private ArrayList<ChoolClass> schoolClasses = new ArrayList<>(); private ArrayList<Subject> subjects = new ArrayList<>(); } This is of course a general idea. But I'm sure it's not the best way. For example I want that one person could be a Teacher and also a Parent(Counselor) and present approach makes me to have two Person objects. I want that user after successful logging in get all roles that it has (Student or Teacher or (Teacher & Parent) ). I think I should make and use some interfaces but I'm not sure how to do this right. Maybe like this: interface Role { } interface TeacherRole implements Role { void addGrade( Student student, Grade grade, [...] ); } class Teacher implements TeacherRole { private Person person; [...] } class User extends Person{ ArrayList<Role> roles = new ArrayList<>(); } Please if anyone could help me to make this right or maybe just point me to some literature/article that covers practical objects design.

    Read the article

  • Structuring Access Control In Hierarchical Object Graph

    - by SB2055
    I have a Folder entity that can be Moderated by users. Folders can contain other folders. So I may have a structure like this: Folder 1 Folder 2 Folder 3 Folder 4 I have to decide how to implement Moderation for this entity. I've come up with two options: Option 1 When the user is given moderation privileges to Folder 1, define a moderator relationship between Folder 1 and User 1. No other relationships are added to the db. To determine if the user can moderate Folder 3, I check and see if User 1 is the moderator of any parent folders. This seems to alleviate some of the complexity of handling updates / moved entities / additions under Folder 1 after the relationship has been defined, and reverting the relationship means I only have to deal with one entity. Option 2 When the user is given moderation privileges to Folder 1, define a new relationship between User 1 and Folder 1, and all child entities down to the grandest of grandchildren when the relationship is created, and if it's ever removed, iterate back down the graph to remove the relationship. If I add something under Folder 2 after this relationship has been made, I just copy all Moderators into the new Entity. But when I need to show only the top-level Folders that a user is Moderating, I need to query all folders that have a parent folder that the user does not moderate, as opposed to option 1, where I just query any items that the user is moderating. Thoughts I think it comes down to determining if users will be querying for all parent items more than they'll be querying child items... if so, then option 1 seems better. But I'm not sure. Is either approach better than the other? Why? Or is there another approach that's better than both? I'm using Entity Framework in case it matters.

    Read the article

  • Is the "impossible object" possible in computer graphics?

    - by CPP_Person
    This may be a silly question but I want to know the answer to it. I saw this thing called the "impossible object", while they're many different images of this online, it's suppost to be impossible geometry. Here is an example: Now as far as logic goes, I know you don't have to obey it in games, such as a flying cow, or an impossible object. So that's out of the way, but what stands in my way is whether or not there is a way to draw this onto a 3D scene. Like is there a way to represent it as a 3D object? Thanks!

    Read the article

  • Nhibernate/Hibernate, lookup tables and object design

    - by Simon G
    Hi, I've got two tables. Invoice with columns CustomerID, InvoiceDate, Value, InvoiceTypeID (CustomerID and InvoiceDate make up a composite key) and InvoiceType with InvoiceTypeID and InvoiceTypeName columns. I know I can create my objects like: public class Invoice { public virtual int CustomerID { get; set; } public virtual DateTime InvoiceDate { get; set; } public virtual decimal Value { get; set; } public virtual InvoiceType InvoiceType { get; set; } } public class InvoiceType { public virtual InvoiceTypeID { get; set; } public virtual InvoiceTypeName { get; set; } } So the generated sql would look something like: SELECT CustomerID, InvoiceDate, Value, InvoiceTypeID FROM Invoice WHERE CustomerID = x AND InvoiceDate = y SELECT InvoiceTypeID, InvoiceTypeName FROM InvoiceType WHERE InvoiceTypeID = z But rather that having two select queries executed to retrieve the data I would rather have one. I would also like to avoid using child object for simple lookup lists. So my object would look something like: public class Invoice { public virtual int CustomerID { get; set; } public virtual DateTime InvoiceDate { get; set; } public virtual decimal Value { get; set; } public virtual InvoiceTypeID { get; set; } public virtual InvoiceTypeName { get; set; } } And my sql would look something like: SELECT CustomerID, InvoiceDate, Value, InvoiceTypeID FROM Invoice INNER JOIN InvoiceType ON Invoice.InvoiceTypeID = InvoiceType.InvoiceTypeID WHERE CustomerID = x AND InvoiceDate = y My question is how do I create the mapping for this? I've tried using join but this tried to join using CustomerID and InvoiceDate, am I missing something obvious? Thanks

    Read the article

  • Who are the outspoken critics of Object-Oriented design?

    - by Xepoch
    Sure, object-oriented techniques are great and have stuck around for a while. I know only less than a handful of critics of the OO principles. It seems as though most non-OO designs and architectures are shunned, yet we continue to write a lot of good software in C and solve a lot of data changes via awk/sed and countless other examples. Correct tool for the correct job, yes? I'm having a hard time finding articles, presentations, or published criticisms of OO (even Fred Brooks has blessed information hiding). Are there any well-known, published and/or outspoken critics of OO?

    Read the article

  • What would you do if your client required you not to use object-oriented programming?

    - by gunbuster363
    Would you try to persuade your client that using object-oriented programming is much cleaner? Or would you try to follow what he required and give him crappy code? Now I am writing a program to simulate the activity of ants in a grid. The ant can move around, pick up things and drop things. The problem is while the action of the ants and the positions of each ant can be tracked by class attributes easily (and we can easily create many instances of such ants) my client said that since he has a background in functional programming he would like the simulation to be made using functional programming. What would you do?

    Read the article

  • Is Ruby on Rails' Active Record an example of Aspect-Oriented Programming?

    - by B Seven
    From Clean Code, about Cross-Cutting Concerns: Note that concerns like persistence tend to cut across the natural object boundaries of a domain. You want to persist all your objects using generally the same strategy, for example, using a particular DBMS... Is Active Record an example of aspect-oriented programming? In AOP, modular constructs called aspects specify which points in the system should have their behavior modified in some consistent way to support a particular concern. This specification is done using a succinct declarative or programmatic mechanism. If Active Record is an example of AOP, what is the "aspect"? Is it the class declaration that inherits from Active Record? class Foo < ActiveRecord::Base

    Read the article

  • Which programming language to go for in order to learn Object Oriented Programming? [closed]

    - by Maxood
    If someone has a good grasp in logic and procedural programming then which language to start with for learning OOP. Also why C++ is mostly taught at schools whereas Java is a pure Object Oriented language(also language for making android apps)? Why not Objective C is being taught for making apps on the iPhone? I am seeking for the right answer keeping in view of these 2 factors: Background of the learner in procedural programming Economic or job market market demand of programming languages Here is a list of 10 programming languages, i would like to seek justifications for: Java C++ Objective C Scala C# PHP Python Java Javascript (not sure if it is a fully featured OOP language) 10.Ruby (not sure if it is a fully featured OOP language)

    Read the article

  • controlling an object through another object ?

    - by Stefano Borini
    Today I've seen the following pattern: you have an object A and an object B. Object B accepts a pointer to A at its constructor. Once B is created, there's a method B.doCalc() that performs a calculation (internally using A's information). The result is obtained with method B.getResult(). In order to perform another calculation, A is modified, and B.doCalc() is called again. What is your opinion on this choice ? I would have designed it differently, but I want to hear your voice. Edit : note that my main objection is to modify A to have a different result from B, without touching B. Although similar, I think that just this discipline expresses a much better feeling of what's going on. Instead of a = new A a.whatever = 5 b = new B(a) b.doCalc() res = b.getResult() a.whatever = 6 b.doCalc() res = b.getResult() You get the a pointer object from b itself. a = new A a.whatever = 5 b = new B(a) b.doCalc() res = b.getResult() a = b.getAPointer() a.whatever = 6 b.doCalc() res = b.getResult() because it makes more explicit the fact that a is taken from b and then modified. I still don't like it, though...

    Read the article

  • Learning to think in the Object Oriented Way

    - by SpikETidE
    Hi Everyone.... I am a programmer trying to learn to code in the object oriented paradigm... I mainly work with PHP and i thought of learning the zend framework... So, felt I need to learn to code in OO PHP.... The problem is, having done code using functions for quite a long time, i just can't get my head to think in the OO way.... Also felt that probably I am not the only one facing this problem since the beginning of time... So, how did you people learn object oriented programming... especially how did you succeed in "unlearning" to code using functions... and learn to see you code as objects...? Is there any good resource books or sites where one could find help...?? Thanks for sharing your knowledge and experiences...

    Read the article

  • Uncaught TypeError: Object [object Object] has no method 'onAdded'

    - by user3604227
    I am using ExtJS4 with Java servlets. I am following the MVC architecture for ExtJS. I am trying a simple example of displaying a border layout but it doesnt work and I get the following error in ext-all.js in the javascript console: Uncaught TypeError: Object [object Object] has no method 'onAdded' Here is my code: app.js Ext.Loader.setConfig({ enabled : true }); Ext.application({ name : 'IN', appFolder : 'app', controllers : [ 'Items' ], launch : function() { console.log('in LAUNCH-appjs'); Ext.create('Ext.container.Viewport', { items : [ { xtype : 'borderlyt' } ] }); } }); Items.js (controller) Ext.define('IN.controller.Items', { extend : 'Ext.app.Controller', views : [ 'item.Border' ], init : function() { this.control({ 'viewport > panel' : { render : this.onPanelRendered } }); }, onPanelRendered : function() { console.log('The panel was rendered'); } }); Border.js (view) Ext.define('IN.view.item.Border',{extend : 'Ext.layout.container.Border', alias : 'widget.borderlyt', title : 'Border layout' , autoShow : true, renderTo : Ext.getBody(), defaults : { split : true, layout : 'border', autoScroll : true, height : 800, width : 500 }, items : [ { region : 'north', html : "Header here..", id : 'mainHeader' }, { region : 'west', width : 140, html : "Its West..", }, { region : 'south', html : "This is my temp footer content", height : 30, margins : '0 5 5 5', bodyPadding : 2, id : 'mainFooter' }, { id : 'mainContent', collapsible : false, region : 'center', margins : '5', border : true, } ] }); The folder structure for the Webcontent is as follows: WebContent app controller Items.js model store view item Border.js ext_js resources src ext_all.js index.html app.js Can someone help me resolve this error? Thanks in advance

    Read the article

  • Principles of Service-Oriented Architecture by Douwe P. van den Bos

    - by JuergenKress
    Today I hosted a session on the Principles of Service-Oriented Architecture for my colleagues at Capgemini. A very interesting session because everyone had a very clear view on the Oracle SOA Suite and a technical background. What we wanted to do was creating a common view on what a Service-Oriented Architecture is, what the benefits are that can be achieved and what is needed to create a Service-Oriented Architecture. During this very interactive session we moved from a clearly technology view on the matter (Oracle SOA Suite) to an architectural view slicing from business to technology. And this is where SOA really kicks in, because it is a philosophy. Here is the presentation on SlideShare: Principles of Service-Oriented Architecture. Read also the The Maturity of a Service-Oriented Architecture & SOA Maturity Models. Twitter & LinkedIn SOA & BPM Partner Community For regular information on Oracle SOA Suite become a member in the SOA & BPM Partner Community for registration please visit  www.oracle.com/goto/emea/soa (OPN account required) If you need support with your account please contact the Oracle Partner Business Center. Blog Twitter LinkedIn Mix Forum Technorati Tags: SOA Governance,SOA Community,Oracle SOA,Oracle BPM,BPM Community,OPN,Jürgen Kress,Douwe P. van den Bos

    Read the article

  • wcf web service in post method, object properties are null, although the object is not null

    - by Abdalhadi Kolayb
    i have this problem in post method when i send object parameter to the method, then the object is not null, but all its properties have the default values. here is data module: [DataContract] public class Products { [DataMember(Order = 1)] public int ProdID { get; set; } [DataMember(Order = 2)] public string ProdName { get; set; } [DataMember(Order = 3)] public float PrpdPrice { get; set; } } and here is the interface: [OperationContract] [WebInvoke( Method = "POST", UriTemplate = "AddProduct", ResponseFormat = WebMessageFormat.Json, BodyStyle = WebMessageBodyStyle.WrappedRequest, RequestFormat = WebMessageFormat.Json)] string AddProduct([MessageParameter(Name = "prod")]Products prod); public string AddProduct(Products prod) { ProductsList.Add(prod); return "return string"; } here is the json request: Content-type:application/json {"prod":[{"ProdID": 111,"ProdName": "P111","PrpdPrice": 111}]} but in the server the object received: {"prod":[{"ProdID": 0,"ProdName": NULL,"PrpdPrice": 0}]}

    Read the article

  • Returning a mock object from a mock object

    - by Songo
    I'm trying to return an object when mocking a parser class. This is the test code using PHPUnit 3.7 //set up the result object that I want to be returned from the call to parse method $parserResult= new ParserResult(); $parserResult->setSegment('some string'); //set up the stub Parser object $stubParser=$this->getMock('Parser'); $stubParser->expects($this->any()) ->method('parse') ->will($this->returnValue($parserResult)); //injecting the stub to my client class $fileHeaderParser= new FileWriter($stubParser); $output=$fileParser->writeStringToFile(); Inside my writeStringToFile() method I'm using $parserResult like this: writeStringToFile(){ //Some code... $parserResult=$parser->parse(); $segment=$parserResult->getSegment();//that's why I set the segment in the test. } Should I mock ParserResult in the first place, so that the mock returns a mock? Is it good design for mocks to return mocks? Is there a better approach to do this all?!

    Read the article

  • Add properties to stdClass object from another object

    - by Florin
    I would like to be able to do the following: $obj = new stdClass; $obj->status = "success"; $obj2 = new stdClass; $obj2->message = "OK"; How can I extend $obj so that it contains the properties of $obj2, eg: $obj->status //"success" $obj->message // "OK" I know I could use an array, add all properties to the array and then cast that back to object, but is there a more elegant way, something like this: extend($obj, $obj2); //adds all properties from $obj2 to $obj Thanks!

    Read the article

  • Ancillary Objects: Separate Debug ELF Files For Solaris

    - by Ali Bahrami
    We introduced a new object ELF object type in Solaris 11 Update 1 called the Ancillary Object. This posting describes them, using material originally written during their development, the PSARC arc case, and the Solaris Linker and Libraries Manual. ELF objects contain allocable sections, which are mapped into memory at runtime, and non-allocable sections, which are present in the file for use by debuggers and observability tools, but which are not mapped or used at runtime. Typically, all of these sections exist within a single object file. Ancillary objects allow them to instead go into a separate file. There are different reasons given for wanting such a feature. One can debate whether the added complexity is worth the benefit, and in most cases it is not. However, one important case stands out — customers with very large 32-bit objects who are not ready or able to make the transition to 64-bits. We have customers who build extremely large 32-bit objects. Historically, the debug sections in these objects have used the stabs format, which is limited, but relatively compact. In recent years, the industry has transitioned to the powerful but verbose DWARF standard. In some cases, the size of these debug sections is large enough to push the total object file size past the fundamental 4GB limit for 32-bit ELF object files. The best, and ultimately only, solution to overly large objects is to transition to 64-bits. However, consider environments where: Hundreds of users may be executing the code on large shared systems. (32-bits use less memory and bus bandwidth, and on sparc runs just as fast as 64-bit code otherwise). Complex finely tuned code, where the original authors may no longer be available. Critical production code, that was expensive to qualify and bring online, and which is otherwise serving its intended purpose without issue. Users in these risk adverse and/or high scale categories have good reasons to push 32-bits objects to the limit before moving on. Ancillary objects offer these users a longer runway. Design The design of ancillary objects is intended to be simple, both to help human understanding when examining elfdump output, and to lower the bar for debuggers such as dbx to support them. The primary and ancillary objects have the same set of section headers, with the same names, in the same order (i.e. each section has the same index in both files). A single added section of type SHT_SUNW_ANCILLARY is added to both objects, containing information that allows a debugger to identify and validate both files relative to each other. Given one of these files, the ancillary section allows you to identify the other. Allocable sections go in the primary object, and non-allocable ones go into the ancillary object. A small set of non-allocable objects, notably the symbol table, are copied into both objects. As noted above, most sections are only written to one of the two objects, but both objects have the same section header array. The section header in the file that does not contain the section data is tagged with the SHF_SUNW_ABSENT section header flag to indicate its placeholder status. Compiler writers and others who produce objects can set the SUNW_SHF_PRIMARY section header flag to mark non-allocable sections that should go to the primary object rather than the ancillary. If you don't request an ancillary object, the Solaris ELF format is unchanged. Users who don't use ancillary objects do not pay for the feature. This is important, because they exist to serve a small subset of our users, and must not complicate the common case. If you do request an ancillary object, the runtime behavior of the primary object will be the same as that of a normal object. There is no added runtime cost. The primary and ancillary object together represent a logical single object. This is facilitated by the use of a single set of section headers. One can easily imagine a tool that can merge a primary and ancillary object into a single file, or the reverse. (Note that although this is an interesting intellectual exercise, we don't actually supply such a tool because there's little practical benefit above and beyond using ld to create the files). Among the benefits of this approach are: There is no need for per-file symbol tables to reflect the contents of each file. The same symbol table that would be produced for a standard object can be used. The section contents are identical in either case — there is no need to alter data to accommodate multiple files. It is very easy for a debugger to adapt to these new files, and the processing involved can be encapsulated in input/output routines. Most of the existing debugger implementation applies without modification. The limit of a 4GB 32-bit output object is now raised to 4GB of code, and 4GB of debug data. There is also the future possibility (not currently supported) to support multiple ancillary objects, each of which could contain up to 4GB of additional debug data. It must be noted however that the 32-bit DWARF debug format is itself inherently 32-bit limited, as it uses 32-bit offsets between debug sections, so the ability to employ multiple ancillary object files may not turn out to be useful. Using Ancillary Objects (From the Solaris Linker and Libraries Guide) By default, objects contain both allocable and non-allocable sections. Allocable sections are the sections that contain executable code and the data needed by that code at runtime. Non-allocable sections contain supplemental information that is not required to execute an object at runtime. These sections support the operation of debuggers and other observability tools. The non-allocable sections in an object are not loaded into memory at runtime by the operating system, and so, they have no impact on memory use or other aspects of runtime performance no matter their size. For convenience, both allocable and non-allocable sections are normally maintained in the same file. However, there are situations in which it can be useful to separate these sections. To reduce the size of objects in order to improve the speed at which they can be copied across wide area networks. To support fine grained debugging of highly optimized code requires considerable debug data. In modern systems, the debugging data can easily be larger than the code it describes. The size of a 32-bit object is limited to 4 Gbytes. In very large 32-bit objects, the debug data can cause this limit to be exceeded and prevent the creation of the object. To limit the exposure of internal implementation details. Traditionally, objects have been stripped of non-allocable sections in order to address these issues. Stripping is effective, but destroys data that might be needed later. The Solaris link-editor can instead write non-allocable sections to an ancillary object. This feature is enabled with the -z ancillary command line option. $ ld ... -z ancillary[=outfile] ...By default, the ancillary file is given the same name as the primary output object, with a .anc file extension. However, a different name can be provided by providing an outfile value to the -z ancillary option. When -z ancillary is specified, the link-editor performs the following actions. All allocable sections are written to the primary object. In addition, all non-allocable sections containing one or more input sections that have the SHF_SUNW_PRIMARY section header flag set are written to the primary object. All remaining non-allocable sections are written to the ancillary object. The following non-allocable sections are written to both the primary object and ancillary object. .shstrtab The section name string table. .symtab The full non-dynamic symbol table. .symtab_shndx The symbol table extended index section associated with .symtab. .strtab The non-dynamic string table associated with .symtab. .SUNW_ancillary Contains the information required to identify the primary and ancillary objects, and to identify the object being examined. The primary object and all ancillary objects contain the same array of sections headers. Each section has the same section index in every file. Although the primary and ancillary objects all define the same section headers, the data for most sections will be written to a single file as described above. If the data for a section is not present in a given file, the SHF_SUNW_ABSENT section header flag is set, and the sh_size field is 0. This organization makes it possible to acquire a full list of section headers, a complete symbol table, and a complete list of the primary and ancillary objects from either of the primary or ancillary objects. The following example illustrates the underlying implementation of ancillary objects. An ancillary object is created by adding the -z ancillary command line option to an otherwise normal compilation. The file utility shows that the result is an executable named a.out, and an associated ancillary object named a.out.anc. $ cat hello.c #include <stdio.h> int main(int argc, char **argv) { (void) printf("hello, world\n"); return (0); } $ cc -g -zancillary hello.c $ file a.out a.out.anc a.out: ELF 32-bit LSB executable 80386 Version 1 [FPU], dynamically linked, not stripped, ancillary object a.out.anc a.out.anc: ELF 32-bit LSB ancillary 80386 Version 1, primary object a.out $ ./a.out hello worldThe resulting primary object is an ordinary executable that can be executed in the usual manner. It is no different at runtime than an executable built without the use of ancillary objects, and then stripped of non-allocable content using the strip or mcs commands. As previously described, the primary object and ancillary objects contain the same section headers. To see how this works, it is helpful to use the elfdump utility to display these section headers and compare them. The following table shows the section header information for a selection of headers from the previous link-edit example. Index Section Name Type Primary Flags Ancillary Flags Primary Size Ancillary Size 13 .text PROGBITS ALLOC EXECINSTR ALLOC EXECINSTR SUNW_ABSENT 0x131 0 20 .data PROGBITS WRITE ALLOC WRITE ALLOC SUNW_ABSENT 0x4c 0 21 .symtab SYMTAB 0 0 0x450 0x450 22 .strtab STRTAB STRINGS STRINGS 0x1ad 0x1ad 24 .debug_info PROGBITS SUNW_ABSENT 0 0 0x1a7 28 .shstrtab STRTAB STRINGS STRINGS 0x118 0x118 29 .SUNW_ancillary SUNW_ancillary 0 0 0x30 0x30 The data for most sections is only present in one of the two files, and absent from the other file. The SHF_SUNW_ABSENT section header flag is set when the data is absent. The data for allocable sections needed at runtime are found in the primary object. The data for non-allocable sections used for debugging but not needed at runtime are placed in the ancillary file. A small set of non-allocable sections are fully present in both files. These are the .SUNW_ancillary section used to relate the primary and ancillary objects together, the section name string table .shstrtab, as well as the symbol table.symtab, and its associated string table .strtab. It is possible to strip the symbol table from the primary object. A debugger that encounters an object without a symbol table can use the .SUNW_ancillary section to locate the ancillary object, and access the symbol contained within. The primary object, and all associated ancillary objects, contain a .SUNW_ancillary section that allows all the objects to be identified and related together. $ elfdump -T SUNW_ancillary a.out a.out.anc a.out: Ancillary Section: .SUNW_ancillary index tag value [0] ANC_SUNW_CHECKSUM 0x8724 [1] ANC_SUNW_MEMBER 0x1 a.out [2] ANC_SUNW_CHECKSUM 0x8724 [3] ANC_SUNW_MEMBER 0x1a3 a.out.anc [4] ANC_SUNW_CHECKSUM 0xfbe2 [5] ANC_SUNW_NULL 0 a.out.anc: Ancillary Section: .SUNW_ancillary index tag value [0] ANC_SUNW_CHECKSUM 0xfbe2 [1] ANC_SUNW_MEMBER 0x1 a.out [2] ANC_SUNW_CHECKSUM 0x8724 [3] ANC_SUNW_MEMBER 0x1a3 a.out.anc [4] ANC_SUNW_CHECKSUM 0xfbe2 [5] ANC_SUNW_NULL 0 The ancillary sections for both objects contain the same number of elements, and are identical except for the first element. Each object, starting with the primary object, is introduced with a MEMBER element that gives the file name, followed by a CHECKSUM that identifies the object. In this example, the primary object is a.out, and has a checksum of 0x8724. The ancillary object is a.out.anc, and has a checksum of 0xfbe2. The first element in a .SUNW_ancillary section, preceding the MEMBER element for the primary object, is always a CHECKSUM element, containing the checksum for the file being examined. The presence of a .SUNW_ancillary section in an object indicates that the object has associated ancillary objects. The names of the primary and all associated ancillary objects can be obtained from the ancillary section from any one of the files. It is possible to determine which file is being examined from the larger set of files by comparing the first checksum value to the checksum of each member that follows. Debugger Access and Use of Ancillary Objects Debuggers and other observability tools must merge the information found in the primary and ancillary object files in order to build a complete view of the object. This is equivalent to processing the information from a single file. This merging is simplified by the primary object and ancillary objects containing the same section headers, and a single symbol table. The following steps can be used by a debugger to assemble the information contained in these files. Starting with the primary object, or any of the ancillary objects, locate the .SUNW_ancillary section. The presence of this section identifies the object as part of an ancillary group, contains information that can be used to obtain a complete list of the files and determine which of those files is the one currently being examined. Create a section header array in memory, using the section header array from the object being examined as an initial template. Open and read each file identified by the .SUNW_ancillary section in turn. For each file, fill in the in-memory section header array with the information for each section that does not have the SHF_SUNW_ABSENT flag set. The result will be a complete in-memory copy of the section headers with pointers to the data for all sections. Once this information has been acquired, the debugger can proceed as it would in the single file case, to access and control the running program. Note - The ELF definition of ancillary objects provides for a single primary object, and an arbitrary number of ancillary objects. At this time, the Oracle Solaris link-editor only produces a single ancillary object containing all non-allocable sections. This may change in the future. Debuggers and other observability tools should be written to handle the general case of multiple ancillary objects. ELF Implementation Details (From the Solaris Linker and Libraries Guide) To implement ancillary objects, it was necessary to extend the ELF format to add a new object type (ET_SUNW_ANCILLARY), a new section type (SHT_SUNW_ANCILLARY), and 2 new section header flags (SHF_SUNW_ABSENT, SHF_SUNW_PRIMARY). In this section, I will detail these changes, in the form of diffs to the Solaris Linker and Libraries manual. Part IV ELF Application Binary Interface Chapter 13: Object File Format Object File Format Edit Note: This existing section at the beginning of the chapter describes the ELF header. There's a table of object file types, which now includes the new ET_SUNW_ANCILLARY type. e_type Identifies the object file type, as listed in the following table. NameValueMeaning ET_NONE0No file type ET_REL1Relocatable file ET_EXEC2Executable file ET_DYN3Shared object file ET_CORE4Core file ET_LOSUNW0xfefeStart operating system specific range ET_SUNW_ANCILLARY0xfefeAncillary object file ET_HISUNW0xfefdEnd operating system specific range ET_LOPROC0xff00Start processor-specific range ET_HIPROC0xffffEnd processor-specific range Sections Edit Note: This overview section defines the section header structure, and provides a high level description of known sections. It was updated to define the new SHF_SUNW_ABSENT and SHF_SUNW_PRIMARY flags and the new SHT_SUNW_ANCILLARY section. ... sh_type Categorizes the section's contents and semantics. Section types and their descriptions are listed in Table 13-5. sh_flags Sections support 1-bit flags that describe miscellaneous attributes. Flag definitions are listed in Table 13-8. ... Table 13-5 ELF Section Types, sh_type NameValue . . . SHT_LOSUNW0x6fffffee SHT_SUNW_ancillary0x6fffffee . . . ... SHT_LOSUNW - SHT_HISUNW Values in this inclusive range are reserved for Oracle Solaris OS semantics. SHT_SUNW_ANCILLARY Present when a given object is part of a group of ancillary objects. Contains information required to identify all the files that make up the group. See Ancillary Section. ... Table 13-8 ELF Section Attribute Flags NameValue . . . SHF_MASKOS0x0ff00000 SHF_SUNW_NODISCARD0x00100000 SHF_SUNW_ABSENT0x00200000 SHF_SUNW_PRIMARY0x00400000 SHF_MASKPROC0xf0000000 . . . ... SHF_SUNW_ABSENT Indicates that the data for this section is not present in this file. When ancillary objects are created, the primary object and any ancillary objects, will all have the same section header array, to facilitate merging them to form a complete view of the object, and to allow them to use the same symbol tables. Each file contains a subset of the section data. The data for allocable sections is written to the primary object while the data for non-allocable sections is written to an ancillary file. The SHF_SUNW_ABSENT flag is used to indicate that the data for the section is not present in the object being examined. When the SHF_SUNW_ABSENT flag is set, the sh_size field of the section header must be 0. An application encountering an SHF_SUNW_ABSENT section can choose to ignore the section, or to search for the section data within one of the related ancillary files. SHF_SUNW_PRIMARY The default behavior when ancillary objects are created is to write all allocable sections to the primary object and all non-allocable sections to the ancillary objects. The SHF_SUNW_PRIMARY flag overrides this behavior. Any output section containing one more input section with the SHF_SUNW_PRIMARY flag set is written to the primary object without regard for its allocable status. ... Two members in the section header, sh_link, and sh_info, hold special information, depending on section type. Table 13-9 ELF sh_link and sh_info Interpretation sh_typesh_linksh_info . . . SHT_SUNW_ANCILLARY The section header index of the associated string table. 0 . . . Special Sections Edit Note: This section describes the sections used in Solaris ELF objects, using the types defined in the previous description of section types. It was updated to define the new .SUNW_ancillary (SHT_SUNW_ANCILLARY) section. Various sections hold program and control information. Sections in the following table are used by the system and have the indicated types and attributes. Table 13-10 ELF Special Sections NameTypeAttribute . . . .SUNW_ancillarySHT_SUNW_ancillaryNone . . . ... .SUNW_ancillary Present when a given object is part of a group of ancillary objects. Contains information required to identify all the files that make up the group. See Ancillary Section for details. ... Ancillary Section Edit Note: This new section provides the format reference describing the layout of a .SUNW_ancillary section and the meaning of the various tags. Note that these sections use the same tag/value concept used for dynamic and capabilities sections, and will be familiar to anyone used to working with ELF. In addition to the primary output object, the Solaris link-editor can produce one or more ancillary objects. Ancillary objects contain non-allocable sections that would normally be written to the primary object. When ancillary objects are produced, the primary object and all of the associated ancillary objects contain a SHT_SUNW_ancillary section, containing information that identifies these related objects. Given any one object from such a group, the ancillary section provides the information needed to identify and interpret the others. This section contains an array of the following structures. See sys/elf.h. typedef struct { Elf32_Word a_tag; union { Elf32_Word a_val; Elf32_Addr a_ptr; } a_un; } Elf32_Ancillary; typedef struct { Elf64_Xword a_tag; union { Elf64_Xword a_val; Elf64_Addr a_ptr; } a_un; } Elf64_Ancillary; For each object with this type, a_tag controls the interpretation of a_un. a_val These objects represent integer values with various interpretations. a_ptr These objects represent file offsets or addresses. The following ancillary tags exist. Table 13-NEW1 ELF Ancillary Array Tags NameValuea_un ANC_SUNW_NULL0Ignored ANC_SUNW_CHECKSUM1a_val ANC_SUNW_MEMBER2a_ptr ANC_SUNW_NULL Marks the end of the ancillary section. ANC_SUNW_CHECKSUM Provides the checksum for a file in the c_val element. When ANC_SUNW_CHECKSUM precedes the first instance of ANC_SUNW_MEMBER, it provides the checksum for the object from which the ancillary section is being read. When it follows an ANC_SUNW_MEMBER tag, it provides the checksum for that member. ANC_SUNW_MEMBER Specifies an object name. The a_ptr element contains the string table offset of a null-terminated string, that provides the file name. An ancillary section must always contain an ANC_SUNW_CHECKSUM before the first instance of ANC_SUNW_MEMBER, identifying the current object. Following that, there should be an ANC_SUNW_MEMBER for each object that makes up the complete set of objects. Each ANC_SUNW_MEMBER should be followed by an ANC_SUNW_CHECKSUM for that object. A typical ancillary section will therefore be structured as: TagMeaning ANC_SUNW_CHECKSUMChecksum of this object ANC_SUNW_MEMBERName of object #1 ANC_SUNW_CHECKSUMChecksum for object #1 . . . ANC_SUNW_MEMBERName of object N ANC_SUNW_CHECKSUMChecksum for object N ANC_SUNW_NULL An object can therefore identify itself by comparing the initial ANC_SUNW_CHECKSUM to each of the ones that follow, until it finds a match. Related Other Work The GNU developers have also encountered the need/desire to support separate debug information files, and use the solution detailed at http://sourceware.org/gdb/onlinedocs/gdb/Separate-Debug-Files.html. At the current time, the separate debug file is constructed by building the standard object first, and then copying the debug data out of it in a separate post processing step, Hence, it is limited to a total of 4GB of code and debug data, just as a single object file would be. They are aware of this, and I have seen online comments indicating that they may add direct support for generating these separate files to their link-editor. It is worth noting that the GNU objcopy utility is available on Solaris, and that the Studio dbx debugger is able to use these GNU style separate debug files even on Solaris. Although this is interesting in terms giving Linux users a familiar environment on Solaris, the 4GB limit means it is not an answer to the problem of very large 32-bit objects. We have also encountered issues with objcopy not understanding Solaris-specific ELF sections, when using this approach. The GNU community also has a current effort to adapt their DWARF debug sections in order to move them to separate files before passing the relocatable objects to the linker. The details of Project Fission can be found at http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/DebugFission. The goal of this project appears to be to reduce the amount of data seen by the link-editor. The primary effort revolves around moving DWARF data to separate .dwo files so that the link-editor never encounters them. The details of modifying the DWARF data to be usable in this form are involved — please see the above URL for details.

    Read the article

  • Significant amount of the time, I can't think of a reason to have an object instead of a static class. Do objects have more benefits than I think?

    - by Prog
    I understand the concept of an object, and as a Java programmer I feel the OO paradigm comes rather naturally to me in practice. However recently I found myself thinking: Wait a second, what are actually the practical benefits of using an object over using a static class (with proper encapsulation and OO practices)? I could think of two benefits of using an object (both significant and powerful): Polymorphism: allows you to swap functionality dynamically and flexibly during runtime. Also allows to add new functionality 'parts' and alternatives to the system easily. For example if there's a Car class designed to work with Engine objects, and you want to add a new Engine to the system that the Car can use, you can create a new Engine subclass and simply pass an object of this class into the Car object, without having to change anything about Car. And you can decide to do so during runtime. Being able to 'pass functionality around': you can pass an object around the system dynamically. But are there any more advantages to objects over static classes? Often when I add new 'parts' to a system, I do so by creating a new class and instantiating objects from it. But recently when I stopped and thought about it, I realized that a static class would do just the same as an object, in a lot of the places where I normally use an object. For example, I'm working on adding a save/load-file mechanism to my app. With an object, the calling line of code will look like this: Thing thing = fileLoader.load(file); With a static class, it would look like this: Thing thing = FileLoader.load(file); What's the difference? Fairly often I just can't think of a reason to instantiate an object when a plain-old static-class would act just the same. But in OO systems, static classes are fairly rare. So I must be missing something. Are there any more advantages to objects other from the two that I listed? Please explain.

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13  | Next Page >