Search Results

Search found 14602 results on 585 pages for 'objected oriented design'.

Page 6/585 | < Previous Page | 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13  | Next Page >

• How to practice object oriented programming?

  - by user1620696

  I've always programmed in procedural languages and currently I'm moving towards object orientation. The main problem I've faced is that I can't see a way to practice object orientation in an effective way. I'll explain my point. When I've learned PHP and C it was pretty easy to practice: it was just matter of choosing something and thinking about an algorithm for that thing. In PHP for example, it was matter os sitting down and thinking: "well, just to practice, let me build one application with an administration area where people can add products". This was pretty easy, it was matter of thinking of an algorithm to register some user, to login the user, and to add the products. Combining these with PHP features, it was a good way to practice. Now, in object orientation we have lots of additional things. It's not just a matter of thinking about an algorithm, but analysing requirements deeper, writing use cases, figuring out class diagrams, properties and methods, setting up dependency injection and lots of things. The main point is that in the way I've been learning object orientation it seems that a good design is crucial, while in procedural languages one vague idea was enough. I'm not saying that in procedural languages we can write good software without design, just that for sake of practicing it is feasible, while in object orientation it seems not feasible to go without a good design, even for practicing. This seems to be a problem, because if each time I'm going to practice I need to figure out tons of requirements, use cases and so on, it seems to become not a good way to become better at object orientation, because this requires me to have one whole idea for an app everytime I'm going to practice. Because of that, what's a good way to practice object orientation?

  Read the article

• good literature for teaching object oriented thinking in C [closed]

  - by Dipan Mehta

  Quite often C is the primary platform for the development. And when things are large scale, I have seen partitioning of the system as different objects is quite a natural thing. Some or many of the object orientated analysis and design principles are used here very well. This is not a debate question about whether or not C is a good candidate for object oriented programming or not. This is also NOT a question how to do OO in C. You can refer to this question and there are probably many such citations. As far as I am concerned, I have learned some of this things while working with many open source and commercial projects. (libjpeg, ffmpeg, Gstreamer which is based on GObject). I can probably extend a few references that explains some of these concepts such as - 1. Event Helix article, 2. Linux Mag article 3. one of my answers which links Schreiner's reference. Unfortunately, when we induct younger folks, it seems too hard to make them learn all of it the hard way. Usually, when we say it's C, a general reaction is to throw away all of the "Object thinking". Looking for help extending above references from those who have been in the similar areas of work. Are there any good formal literature that explains how Object thinking can be made to use while you are working in C? I have seen tons of book on general "object oriented paradigms" but they all focus on advanced languages mostly not in C. You see most C books - but most focus only on the syntax and the obfuscated corners of C and that's it. There are hardly ANY good reference, specially books or any systematic (I mean formal) literature on how to apply OO in C. This is very surprising given that so many large scale open source projects use C which are truly using this very well; but we hardly see any good formal literature on this subject.

  Read the article

• Design for a plugin based application

  - by Varun Naik

  I am working on application, details of which I cannot discuss here. We have core framework and the rest is designed as plug in. In the core framework we have a domain object. This domain object is updated by the plugins. I have defined an interface in which I have function as DomainObject doProcessing(DomainObject object) My intention here is I pass the domain object, the plug in will update it and return it. This updated object is then passed again to different plugin to be updated. I am not sure if this is a good approach. I don't like passing the DomainObject to plugin. Is there a better way I can achieve this? Should I just request data from plugin and update the domain object myself?

  Read the article

• Class Design and Structure Online Web Store

  - by Phorce

  I hope I have asked this in the right forum. Basically, we're designing an Online Store and I am designing the class structure for ordering a product and want some clarification on what I have so far: So a customer comes, selects their product, chooses the quantity and selects 'Purchase' (I am using the Facade Pattern - So subsystems execute when this action is performed). My class structure: < Order > < Product > <Customer > There is no inheritance, more Association < Order has < Product , < Customer has < Order . Does this structure look ok? I've noticed that I don't handle the "Quantity" separately, I was just going to add this into the "Product" class, but, do you think it should be a class of it's own? Hope someone can help.

  Read the article

• Object Oriented programming on 8-bit MCU Case Study

  - by Calvin Grier

  I see that there's a lot of questions related to OO Programming here. I'm actually trying to find a specific resource related to embedded OO approaches for an 8 bit MCU. Several years back (maybe 6) I was looking for material related to Object Oriented programming for resource constrained 8051 microprocessors. I found an article/website with a case history of a design group that used a very small RAM part, and implemented many Object based constructs during their C design and development. I believe it was an 8051. The project was a success, and managed to stay inside the very small ROM/RAM they had available. I'm attempting to find it again, but Google can't locate it. The article was well written, and recommended a "mixed" approach using C methods for inheritance and encapsulation - if I recall correctly. Can anyone help me locate this article?

  Read the article

• Caching factory design

  - by max

  I have a factory class XFactory that creates objects of class X. Instances of X are very large, so the main purpose of the factory is to cache them, as transparently to the client code as possible. Objects of class X are immutable, so the following code seems reasonable: # module xfactory.py import x class XFactory: _registry = {} def get_x(self, arg1, arg2, use_cache = True): if use_cache: hash_id = hash((arg1, arg2)) if hash_id in _registry: return _registry[hash_id] obj = x.X(arg1, arg2) _registry[hash_id] = obj return obj # module x.py class X: # ... Is it a good pattern? (I know it's not the actual Factory Pattern.) Is there anything I should change? Now, I find that sometimes I want to cache X objects to disk. I'll use pickle for that purpose, and store as values in the _registry the filenames of the pickled objects instead of references to the objects. Of course, _registry itself would have to be stored persistently (perhaps in a pickle file of its own, in a text file, in a database, or simply by giving pickle files the filenames that contain hash_id). Except now the validity of the cached object depends not only on the parameters passed to get_x(), but also on the version of the code that created these objects. Strictly speaking, even a memory-cached object could become invalid if someone modifies x.py or any of its dependencies, and reloads it while the program is running. So far I ignored this danger since it seems unlikely for my application. But I certainly cannot ignore it when my objects are cached to persistent storage. What can I do? I suppose I could make the hash_id more robust by calculating hash of a tuple that contains arguments arg1 and arg2, as well as the filename and last modified date for x.py and every module and data file that it (recursively) depends on. To help delete cache files that won't ever be useful again, I'd add to the _registry the unhashed representation of the modified dates for each record. But even this solution isn't 100% safe since theoretically someone might load a module dynamically, and I wouldn't know about it from statically analyzing the source code. If I go all out and assume every file in the project is a dependency, the mechanism will still break if some module grabs data from an external website, etc.). In addition, the frequency of changes in x.py and its dependencies is quite high, leading to heavy cache invalidation. Thus, I figured I might as well give up some safety, and only invalidate the cache only when there is an obvious mismatch. This means that class X would have a class-level cache validation identifier that should be changed whenever the developer believes a change happened that should invalidate the cache. (With multiple developers, a separate invalidation identifier is required for each.) This identifier is hashed along with arg1 and arg2 and becomes part of the hash keys stored in _registry. Since developers may forget to update the validation identifier or not realize that they invalidated existing cache, it would seem better to add another validation mechanism: class X can have a method that returns all the known "traits" of X. For instance, if X is a table, I might add the names of all the columns. The hash calculation will include the traits as well. I can write this code, but I am afraid that I'm missing something important; and I'm also wondering if perhaps there's a framework or package that can do all of this stuff already. Ideally, I'd like to combine in-memory and disk-based caching.

  Read the article

• How bad is it to have two methods with the same name but different signatures in two classes?

  - by Super User

  I have a design problem related to a public interface, the names of methods, and the understanding of my API and 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 has one public method named collision, and the second has one private method called _collision. The two methods differs in argument type and number. As an example let's say that _collision checks if the object is colliding with another object with certain conditions l, r, t, b (collide on the left side, right side, etc) and returns true or false. The public 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 it's better to avoid overloading the design with different names for methods that do almost the same thing, but in distinct contexts and classes. Is this clear enough to the reader or I should change the method's name?

  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

• A PHP design pattern for the model part [PHP Zend Framework]

  - by Matthieu

  I have a PHP MVC application using Zend Framework. As presented in the quickstart, I use 3 layers for the model part : Model (business logic) Data mapper Table data gateway (or data access object, i.e. one class per SQL table) The model is UML designed and totally independent of the DB. My problem is : I can't have multiple instances of the same "instance/record". For example : if I get, for example, the user "Chuck Norris" with id=5, this will create a new model instance wich members will be filled by the data mapper (the data mapper query the table data gateway that query the DB). Then, if I change the name to "Duck Norras", don't save it in DB right away, and re-load the same user in another variable, I have "synchronisation" problems... (different instances for the same "record") Right now, I use the Multiton pattern : like Singleton, but multiple instances indexed by a key (wich is the user ID in our example). But this is complicating my developpement a lot, and my testings too. How to do it right ?

  Read the article

• Interface Design Problem: Storing Result of Transactions

  - by jboyd

  Requirements: multiple sources of input (social media content) into a system multiple destinations of output (social media api's) sources and destinations WILL be added some pseudo: IContentProvider contentProvider = context.getBean("contentProvider"); List<Content> toPost = contentProvider.getContent(); for (Content c : toPost) { SocialMediaPresence smPresence = socialMediaService.getSMPresenceBySomeId(c.getDestId()); smPresence.hasTwitter(); smPresence.hasFacebook(); //just to show what this is smPresence.postContent(c); //post content could fail for some SM platforms, but shoulnd't be lost forever } So now I run out of steam, I need to know what content has been successfully posted, and if it hasn't gone too all platforms, or if another platform were added in the future that content needs to go out for it as well (therefore my content provider will need to not only know if content has gone out, but for what platforms). I'm not looking for code, although sample/pseudo is fine... I'm looking for an approach to this problem that I can implement

  Read the article

• Choosing a design pattern for a class that might change it's internal attributes

  - by the_drow

  I have a class that holds arbitrary state and it's defined like this: class AbstractFoo { }; template <class StatePolicy> class Foo : public StatePolicy, public AbstractFoo { }; The state policy contains only protected attributes that represent the state. The state might be the same for multiple behaviors and they can be replaced at runtime. All Foo objects have the same interface to abstract the state itself and to enable storing Foo objects in containers. I would like to find the least verbose and the most maintainable way to express this.

  Read the article

• Why is there no service-oriented language?

  - by Wolfgang

  Edit: To avoid further confusion: I am not talking about web services and such. I am talking about structuring applications internally, it's not about how computers communicate. It's about programming languages, compilers and how the imperative programming paradigm is extended. Original: In the imperative programming field, we saw two paradigms in the past 20 years (or more): object-oriented (OO), and service-oriented (SO) aka. component-based (CB). Both paradigms extend the imperative programming paradigm by introducing their own notion of modules. OO calls them objects (and classes) and lets them encapsulates both data (fields) and procedures (methods) together. SO, in contrast, separates data (records, beans, ...) from code (components, services). However, only OO has programming languages which natively support its paradigm: Smalltalk, C++, Java and all other JVM-compatibles, C# and all other .NET-compatibles, Python etc. SO has no such native language. It only comes into existence on top of procedural languages or OO languages: COM/DCOM (binary, C, C++), CORBA, EJB, Spring, Guice (all Java), ... These SO frameworks clearly suffer from the missing native language support of their concepts. They start using OO classes to represent services and records. This leads to designs where there is a clear distinction between classes that have methods only (services) and those that have fields only (records). Inheritance between services or records is then simulated by inheritance of classes. Technically, its not kept so strictly but in general programmers are adviced to make classes to play only one of the two roles. They use additional, external languages to represent the missing parts: IDL's, XML configurations, Annotations in Java code, or even embedded DSL like in Guice. This is especially needed, but not limited to, since the composition of services is not part of the service code itself. In OO, objects create other objects so there is no need for such facilities but for SO there is because services don't instantiate or configure other services. They establish an inner-platform effect on top of OO (early EJB, CORBA) where the programmer has to write all the code that is needed to "drive" SO. Classes represent only a part of the nature of a service and lots of classes have to be written to form a service together. All that boiler plate is necessary because there is no SO compiler which would do it for the programmer. This is just like some people did it in C for OO when there was no C++. You just pass the record which holds the data of the object as a first parameter to the procedure which is the method. In a OO language this parameter is implicit and the compiler produces all the code that we need for virtual functions etc. For SO, this is clearly missing. Especially the newer frameworks extensively use AOP or introspection to add the missing parts to a OO language. This doesn't bring the necessary language expressiveness but avoids the boiler platform code described in the previous point. Some frameworks use code generation to produce the boiler plate code. Configuration files in XML or annotations in OO code is the source of information for this. Not all of the phenomena that I mentioned above can be attributed to SO but I hope it clearly shows that there is a need for a SO language. Since this paradigm is so popular: why isn't there one? Or maybe there are some academic ones but at least the industry doesn't use one.

  Read the article

• Templates for forms, tabs etc? - Patterntap alternatives

  - by Marco Demaio

  I used to find http://www.patterntap.com quite useful to get design inspiration for forms, tabs, and other web elements etc. Unfortunately after the ZURB acquisition of Patterntap now they enforce you to sign in with your Twitter account in order to simply view larger images of patterns provided by the crowd. So in some way it's not free anymore. Do you know of alternatives to patterntap that are free and you are not obliged to sign in?

  Read the article

• Are UML class diagrams adequated to design javascript systems?

  - by Vandell

  Given that UML is oriented towards a more classic approach to object orientation, is it still usable in a reliable way to design javascript systems? One specific problem that I can see is that class diagrams are, in fact, a structural view of the system, and javascript is more behaviour driven, how can you deal with it? Please, keep in mind that I'm not talking abot the real world domain here, It's a model for the solution that I'm trying to achieve.

  Read the article

• Are UML class diagrams adequate to design javascript systems?

  - by Vandell

  Given that UML is oriented towards a more classic approach to object orientation, is it still usable in a reliable way to design javascript systems? One specific problem that I can see is that class diagrams are, in fact, a structural view of the system, and javascript is more behaviour driven, how can you deal with it? Please, keep in mind that I'm not talking abot the real world domain here, It's a model for the solution that I'm trying to achieve.

  Read the article

• How to deal with OOP design problems in interviews?

  - by haps10

  This is a question where I seek guidance from fellow/senior developers to get into my dream company - it's a pioneer in OOP and Agile. I've already failed once to clear an interview. One part I feel most challenging is to come up with a proper Object Oriented design(classes, interfaces, methods, interactions etc.) in a very short time for certain situations like Pacman, Game Of Life and so on. As the problems are unprecedented ones - my approach is mostly to try different things and then make decisions - which they feel is not clear and not what they expect from a developer with 5+ years of experience. I've already studied a few books on patterns, OOP - it didn't help me much and I think it'll take a bit more than that. Could some one please guide on what specifically shall I practice so that I can do better at design problems as above. I want to refine my approach and have a better thought process.

  Read the article

• OOP oriented PHP app source code samples and advice

  - by abel

  The day I have been dreading has arrived. I never felt OOP or good software design was important(I knew they were important, but I thought I could manage without them.). However having read otherwise almost everywhere on the interwebs, I started dreading the day when my client would ask me for new features in an existing app. The day has come and the pain is unbearable! I have never coded my PHP websites "properly"(PHP is my primary language and the bulk of my work. I am learning Python (using web2py)) I take care that the website doesn't fall apart in a daily use scenario. I code pages like I was creating a list of static html files with bits of "magic code" in each of them(this bugs me a lot). How do I make the whole app more or less a single object? For eg. How do I design the object model for an invoicing app? I use a lot of functions for doing any particular thing in the same fashion throughout the app(for eg. validation, generating ids, calculating taxes etc.). I know the basics of OOP in general. Can anyone point me to source code samples of functional apps written in php? Or can someone provide pointers so I can recode my existing apps in a more modular way.

  Read the article

• In database table design, how does "Virtual Goods" affect table design -- should we create an instan

  - by Jian Lin

  When we design a database table for a DVD rental company, we actually have a movie, which is an abstract idea, and a physical DVD, so for each rental, we have a many-to-many table with fields such as: TransactionID UserID DvdID RentedDate RentalDuration AmountPaid but what about with virtual goods? For example, if we let a user rent a movie online for 3 days, we don't actually have a DVD, so we may have a table: TransactionID UserID MovieID RentedDate RentalDuration AmountPaid should we create a record for each instance of "virtual good"? For example, what if this virtual good (the movie) can be authorized to be watched on 3 devices (with 3 device IDs), then should we then create a virtual good record in the VirtualGoods table, each with a VirtualGoodID and then another table that has VirtualGoodID DeviceID to match up the movie with the DeviceIDs? We can also just use the TransactionID as the VirtualGoodID. Are there circumstances where we may want to create a record to record this "virtual good" in a VirtualGoods table?

  Read the article

• When is an object oriented program truly object oriented?

  - by Syed Aslam

  Let me try to explain what I mean: Say, I present a list of objects and I need to get back a selected object by a user. The following are the classes I can think of right now: ListViewer Item App [Calling class] In case of a GUI application, usually click on a particular item is selection of the item and in case of a command line, some input, say an integer representing that item. Let us go with command line application here. A function lists all the items and waits for the choice of object, an integer. So here, I get the choice, is choice going to conceived as an object? And based on the choice, return back the object in the list. Does writing this program like the way explained above make it truly object oriented? If yes, how? If not, why? Or is the question itself wrong and I shouldn't be thinking along those lines?

  Read the article

• Good Literature for "Object oriented programming in C"

  - by Dipan Mehta

  This is not a debate question about whether or not C is a good candidate for Object oriented programming or not. Quite often C is the primary platform where the development is happening. I have seen, and hopefully learnt through crawling many open source and commercial projects - that while the language inherently doesn't stop you if you create "non-object" code. However, you can still think in the "Object" way and reasonably write code that captures this designs thinking. For those who has done this, OO way is still the best way to write code even when you are programming in C. While, I have learnt most of it through the hard way, are there any deep literature that can help educate the relatively young guys about how to do OO programming in C?

  Read the article

• What do you do if you reach a design dead-end in evolutionary methods like Agile or XP?

  - by Dipan Mehta

  As I was reading Martin Fowler's famous blog post Is Design Dead?, one of the striking impressions I got is that given the fact that in Agile Methodology and Extreme Programming, the design as well as programming is evolutionary, there are always points where things need to get refactored. It may be possible that when a programmer's level is good, and they understand design implications and don't make critical mistakes, the code continues to evolve. However, in a normal context, what is the ground reality in this context? In a normal day given some significant development goes into product, and when critical change occurs in requirement isn't it a constraint that how much ever we wish, fundamental design aspects cannot be modified? (without throwing away major part of the code). Is it not quite likely that one reaches dead-end on any further possible improvement on design and requirements? I am not advocating any non-Agile practice here, but I want to know from people who practice agile or iterative or evolutionary development methods, as for their real experiences. Have you ever reached such dead-ends? How have you managed to avoid it or escaped it? Or are there measures to ensure that design remains clean and flexible as it evolves?

  Read the article

• Making a design for a Problem [closed]

  - by Vaibhav Agarwal

  I have written many codes using OOPS and I am still to understand when is a code good enough to be accepted by experts. The thought procedure of every man is different and so is the design. My question is should I do something in particular to design my programs in such a way that they are good enough to be accepted by people. Other thing I have also read Head First Object Oriented Design but at last I feel that the way they design the problems is much different I would have designed them.

  Read the article

• Object Oriented Design of a Small Java Game

  - by user2733436

  This is the problem i am dealing with. I have to make a simple game of NIM. I am learning java using a book so far i have only coded programs that deal with 2 classes. This program would have about 4 classes i guess including the main class. My problem is i am having a difficult time designing classes how they will interact with each other. I really want to think and use a object oriented approach. So the first thing i did was design the Pile CLASS as it seemed the easiest and made the most sense to me in terms of what methods go in it. Here is what i have got down for the Pile Class so far. package Nim; import java.util.Random; public class Pile { private int initialSize; public Pile(){ } Random rand = new Random(); public void setPile(){ initialSize = (rand.nextInt(100-10)+10); } public void reducePile(int x){ initialSize = initialSize - x; } public int getPile(){ return initialSize; } public boolean hasStick(){ if(initialSize>0){ return true; } else { return false; } } } Now i need help in designing the Player Class. By that i mean i am not asking for anyone to write code for me as that defeats the purpose of learning i was just wondering how would i design the player class and what would go on it. My guess is that the player class would contain method for choosing move for computer and also receiving the move human user makes. Lastly i am guessing in the Game class i am guessing the turns would be handeled. I am really lost right now so i was wondering if someone can help me think through this problem it would be great. Starting with the player class would be appreciated. I know there are some solutions for this problem online but i refuse to look at because i want to develop my own approach to such problems and i am confident if i can get through this problem i can solve other problems. I apologize if this question is a bit poor but in specific i need help in designing the Player class.

  Read the article

• Are there design patterns or generalised approaches for particle simulations?

  - by romeovs

  I'm working on a project (for college) in C++. The goal is to write a program that can more or less simulate a beam of particles flying trough the LHC synchrotron. Not wanting to rush into things, me and my team are thinking about how to implement this and I was wondering if there are general design patterns that are used to solve this kind of problem. The general approach we came up with so far is the following: there is a World that holds all objects you can add objects to this world such as Particle, Dipole and Quadrupole time is cut up into discrete steps, and at each point in time, for each Particle the magnetic and electric forces that each object in the World generates are calculated and summed up (luckily electro-magnetism is linear). each Particle moves accordingly (using a simple estimation approach to solve the differential movement equations) save the Particle positions repeat This seems a good approach but, for instance, it is hard to take into account symmetries that might be present (such as the magnetic field of each Quadrupole) and is this thus suboptimal. To take into account such symmetries as that of the Quadrupole field, it would be much easier to (also) make space discrete and somehow store form of the Quadrupole field somewhere. (Since 2532 or so Quadrupoles are stored this should lead to a massive gain of performance, not having to recalculate each Quadrupole field) So, are there any design patterns? Is the World-approach feasible or is it old-fashioned, bad programming? What about symmetry, how is that generally taken into acount?

  Read the article

• Can I assume interface oriented programming as a good object oriented programming?

  - by david

  I have been programming for decades but I have not been used to object oriented programming. But for recenet years, I had a great opportunity to learn OOP, its principles, and a lot of patterns that are great. Since I've learned OOP, I tried to apply them to a couple of projects and found those projects successful. Unfortunately I didn't follow extreme programming that suggests writing test first, mainly because their time frame were tight. What I did for those projects were Identify all necessary classes and create them with proper properties and methods whenever there is dependency between classes, write interface between them see if there is any patterns for certain relationships between classes to replace By successful, I meant that it was quick development effort, the classes can be reused better, and flexible enough so that another programmer does not have to change something else to fix another part. But I wonder if this is a good practice. Of course, I know I need to put writing unit tests first in my work process. But other than that, is there any problem with this approach - creating lots of interfaces - in long term?

  Read the article

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