Search Results

Search found 60107 results on 2405 pages for 'data oriented'.

Page 60/2405 | < Previous Page | 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67  | Next Page >

• Understanding UML composition better

  - by Prog

  The technical difference between Composition and Aggregation in UML (and sometimes in programming too) is that with Composition, the lifetime of the objects composing the composite (e.g. an engine and a steering wheel in a car) is dependent on the composite object. While with Aggregation, the lifetime of the objects making up the composite is independent of the composite. However I'm not sure about something related to composition in UML. Say ClassA is composed of an object of ClassB: class ClassA{ ClassB bInstance; public ClassA(){ bInstance = new ClassB(); } } This is an example of composition, because bInstance is dependent on the lifetime of it's enclosing object. However, regarding UML notation - I'm not sure if I would notate the relationship between ClassA and ClassB with a filled diamond (composition) or a white diamond (aggregation). This is because while the lifetime of some ClassB instances is dependent of ClassA instances - there could be ClassB instances anywhere else in the program - not only within ClassA instances. The question is: if ClassA objects are composed of ClassB objects - but other ClassB objects are free to be used anywhere else in the program: Should the relationship between ClassA and ClassB be notated as aggregation or as composition?

  Read the article

• My Take on Hadoop World 2011

  - by Jean-Pierre Dijcks

  I’m sure some of you have read pieces about Hadoop World and I did see some headlines which were somewhat, shall we say, interesting? I thought the keynote by Larry Feinsmith of JP Morgan Chase & Co was one of the highlights of the conference for me. The reason was very simple, he addressed some real use cases outside of internet and ad platforms. The following are my notes, since the keynote was recorded I presume you can go and look at Hadoopworld.com at some point… On the use cases that were mentioned: ETL – how can I do complex data transformation at scale Doing Basel III liquidity analysis Private banking – transaction filtering to feed [relational] data marts Common Data Platform – a place to keep data that is (or will be) valuable some day, to someone, somewhere 360 Degree view of customers – become pro-active and look at events across lines of business. For example make sure the mortgage folks know about direct deposits being stopped into an account and ensure the bank is pro-active to service the customer Treasury and Security – Global Payment Hub [I think this is really consolidation of data to cross reference activity across business and geographies] Data Mining Bypass data engineering [I interpret this as running a lot of a large data set rather than on samples] Fraud prevention – work on event triggers, say a number of failed log-ins to the website. When they occur grab web logs, firewall logs and rules and start to figure out who is trying to log in. Is this me, who forget his password, or is it someone in some other country trying to guess passwords Trade quality analysis – do a batch analysis or all trades done and run them through an analysis or comparison pipeline One of the key requests – if you can say it like that – was for vendors and entrepreneurs to make sure that new tools work with existing tools. JPMC has a large footprint of BI Tools and Big Data reporting and tools should work with those tools, rather than be separate. Security and Entitlement – how to protect data within a large cluster from unwanted snooping was another topic that came up. I thought his Elephant ears graph was interesting (couldn’t actually read the points on it, but the concept certainly made some sense) and it was interesting – when asked to show hands – how the audience did not (!) think that RDBMS and Hadoop technology would overlap completely within a few years. Another interesting session was the session from Disney discussing how Disney is building a DaaS (Data as a Service) platform and how Hadoop processing capabilities are mixed with Database technologies. I thought this one of the best sessions I have seen in a long time. It discussed real use case, where problems existed, how they were solved and how Disney planned some of it. The planning focused on three things/phases: Determine the Strategy – Design a platform and evangelize this within the organization Focus on the people – Hire key people, grow and train the staff (and do not overload what you have with new things on top of their day-to-day job), leverage a partner with experience Work on Execution of the strategy – Implement the platform Hadoop next to the other technologies and work toward the DaaS platform This kind of fitted with some of the Linked-In comments, best summarized in “Think Platform – Think Hadoop”. In other words [my interpretation], step back and engineer a platform (like DaaS in the Disney example), then layer the rest of the solutions on top of this platform. One general observation, I got the impression that we have knowledge gaps left and right. On the one hand are people looking for more information and details on the Hadoop tools and languages. On the other I got the impression that the capabilities of today’s relational databases are underestimated. Mostly in terms of data volumes and parallel processing capabilities or things like commodity hardware scale-out models. All in all I liked this conference, it was great to chat with a wide range of people on Oracle big data, on big data, on use cases and all sorts of other stuff. Just hope they get a set of bigger rooms next time… and yes, I hope I’m going to be back next year!

  Read the article

• Why is it a good practice to wrap all primitives and Strings?

  - by Amogh Talpallikar

  According to Jeff Bay's Essay on Object Callisthenics, One of the practices is set to be "Wrap all primitives and Strings" Can anyone elaborate on this ? In languages where we already have wrappers for primitives like C# and Java. and In languages where Collections can have generics where you are sure of what type goes into the collection, do we need to wrap string's inside their own classes ? Does it have any other advantage ?

  Read the article

• Ways to ensure unique instances of a class?

  - by Peanut

  I'm looking for different ways to ensure that each instance of a given class is a uniquely identifiable instance. For example, I have a Name class with the field name. Once I have a Name object with name initialised to John Smith I don't want to be able to instantiate a different Name object also with the name as John Smith, or if instantiation does take place I want a reference to the orginal object to be passed back rather than a new object. I'm aware that one way of doing this is to have a static factory that holds a Map of all the current Name objects and the factory checks that an object with John Smith as the name doesn't already exist before passing back a reference to a Name object. Another way I could think of off the top of my head is having a static Map in the Name class and when the constructor is called throwing an exception if the value passed in for name is already in use in another object, however I'm aware throwing exceptions in a constructor is generally a bad idea. Are there other ways of achieving this?

  Read the article

• How to design a scalable notification system?

  - by Trent

  I need to write a notification system manager. Here is my requirements: I need to be able to send a Notification on different platforms, which may be totally different (for exemple, I need to be able to send either an SMS or an E-mail). Sometimes the notification may be the same for all recipients for a given platform, but sometimes it may be a notification per recipients (or several) per platform. Each notification can contain platform specific payload (for exemple an MMS can contains a sound or an image). The system need to be scalable, I need to be able to send a very large amount of notification without crashing either the application or the server. It is a two step process, first a customer may type a message and choose a platform to send to, and the notification(s) should be created to be processed either real-time either later. Then the system needs to send the notification to the platform provider. For now, I end up with some though but I don't know how scalable it will be or if it is a good design. I've though of the following objects (in a pseudo language): a generic Notification object: class Notification { String $message; Payload $payload; Collection<Recipient> $recipients; } The problem with the following objects is what if I've 1.000.000 recipients ? Even if the Recipient object is very small, it'll take too much memory. I could also create one Notification per recipient, but some platform providers requires me to send it in batch, meaning I need to define one Notification with several Recipients. Each created notification could be stored in a persistent storage like a DB or Redis. Would it be a good it to aggregate this later to make sure it is scalable? On the second step, I need to process this notification. But how could I distinguish the notification to the right platform provider? Should I use an object like MMSNotification extending an abstract Notification? or something like Notification.setType('MMS')? To allow to process a lot of notification at the same time, I think a messaging queue system like RabbitMQ may be the right tool. Is it? It would allow me to queue a lot of notification and have several worker to pop notification and process them. But what if I need to batch the recipients as seen above? Then I imagine a NotificationProcessor object for which I could I add NotificationHandler each NotificationHandler would be in charge to connect the platform provider and perform notification. I can also use an EventManager to allow pluggable behavior. Any feedbacks or ideas? Thanks for giving your time. Note: I'm used to work in PHP and it is likely the language of my choice.

  Read the article

• How do you educate your teammates without seeming condescending or superior?

  - by Dan Tao

  I work with three other guys; I'll call them Adam, Brian, and Chris. Adam and Brian are bright guys. Give them a problem; they will figure out a way to solve it. When it comes to OOP, though, they know very little about it and aren't particularly interested in learning. Pure procedural code is their MO. Chris, on the other hand, is an OOP guy all the way -- and a cocky, condescending one at that. He is constantly criticizing the work Adam and Brian do and talking to me as if I must share his disdain for the two of them. When I say that Adam and Brian aren't interested in learning about OOP, I suspect Chris is the primary reason. This hasn't bothered me too much for the most part, but there have been times when, looking at some code Adam or Brian wrote, it has pained me to think about how a problem could have been solved so simply using inheritance or some other OOP concept instead of the unmaintainable mess of 1,000 lines of code that ended up being written instead. And now that the company is starting a rather ambitious new project, with Adam assigned to the task of getting the core functionality in place, I fear the result. Really, I just want to help these guys out. But I know that if I come across as just another holier-than-thou developer like Chris, it's going to be massively counterproductive. I've considered: Team code reviews -- everybody reviews everybody's code. This way no one person is really in a position to look down on anyone else; besides, I know I could learn plenty from the other members on the team as well. But this would be time-consuming, and with such a small team, I have trouble picturing it gaining much traction as a team practice. Periodic e-mails to the team -- this would entail me sending out an e-mail every now and then discussing some concept that, based on my observation, at least one team member would benefit from learning about. The downside to this approach is I do think it could easily make me come across as a self-appointed expert. Keeping a blog -- I already do this, actually; but so far my blog has been more about esoteric little programming tidbits than straightforward practical advice. And anyway, I suspect it would get old pretty fast if I were constantly telling my coworkers, "Hey guys, remember to check out my new blog post!" This question doesn't need to be specifically about OOP or any particular programming paradigm or technology. I just want to know: how have you found success in teaching new concepts to your coworkers without seeming like a condescending know-it-all? It's pretty clear to me there isn't going to be a sure-fire answer, but any helpful advice (including methods that have worked as well as those that have proved ineffective or even backfired) would be greatly appreciated. UPDATE: I am not the Team Lead on this team. Chris is. UPDATE 2: Made community wiki to accord with the general sentiment of the community (fancy that).

  Read the article

• Circular dependency and object creation when attempting DDD

  - by Matthew

  I have a domain where an Organization has People. Organization Entity public class Organization { private readonly List<Person> _people = new List<Person>(); public Person CreatePerson(string name) { var person = new Person(organization, name); _people.Add(person); return person; } public IEnumerable<Person> People { get { return _people; } } } Person Entity public class Person { public Person(Organization organization, string name) { if (organization == null) { throw new ArgumentNullException("organization"); } Organization = organization; Name = name; } public Organization { get; private set; } public Name { get; private set; } } The rule for this relationship is that a Person must belong to exactly one Organization. The invariants I want to guarantee are: A person must have an organization this is enforced via the Person's constuctor An organization must know of its people this is why the Organization has a CreatePerson method A person must belong to only one organization this is why the organization's people list is not publicly mutable (ignoring the casting to List, maybe ToEnumerable can enforce that, not too concerned about it though) What I want out of this is that if a person is created, that the organization knows about its creation. However, the problem with the model currently is that you are able to create a person without ever adding it to the organizations collection. Here's a failing unit-test to describe my problem [Test] public void AnOrganizationMustKnowOfItsPeople() { var organization = new Organization(); var person = new Person(organization, "Steve McQueen"); CollectionAssert.Contains(organization.People, person); } What is the most idiomatic way to enforce the invariants and the circular relationship?

  Read the article

• Test interface implementation

  - by Michael

  I have a interface in our code base that I would like to be able to mock out for unit testing. I am writing a test implementation to allow the individual tests to be able to override the specific methods they are concerned with rather than implementing every method. I've run into a quandary over how the test implementation should behave if the test fails to override a method used by the method under test. Should I return a "non-value" (0, null) in the test implementation or throw a UnsupportedOperationException to explicitly fail the test?

  Read the article

• What is the value in hiding the details through abstractions? Isn't there value in transparency?

  - by user606723

  Background I am not a big fan of abstraction. I will admit that one can benefit from adaptability, portability and re-usability of interfaces etc. There is real benefit there, and I don't wish to question that, so let's ignore it. There is the other major "benefit" of abstraction, which is to hide implementation logic and details from users of this abstraction. The argument is that you don't need to know the details, and that one should concentrate on their own logic at this point. Makes sense in theory. However, whenever I've been maintaining large enterprise applications, I always need to know more details. It becomes a huge hassle digging deeper and deeper into the abstraction at every turn just to find out exactly what something does; i.e. having to do "open declaration" about 12 times before finding the stored procedure used. This 'hide the details' mentality seems to just get in the way. I'm always wishing for more transparent interfaces and less abstraction. I can read high level source code and know what it does, but I'll never know how it does it, when how it does it, is what I really need to know. What's going on here? Has every system I've ever worked on just been badly designed (from this perspective at least)? My philosophy When I develop software, I feel like I try to follow a philosophy I feel is closely related to the ArchLinux philosophy: Arch Linux retains the inherent complexities of a GNU/Linux system, while keeping them well organized and transparent. Arch Linux developers and users believe that trying to hide the complexities of a system actually results in an even more complex system, and is therefore to be avoided. And therefore, I never try to hide complexity of my software behind abstraction layers. I try to abuse abstraction, not become a slave to it. Question at heart Is there real value in hiding the details? Aren't we sacrificing transparency? Isn't this transparency valuable?

  Read the article

• New to Java and Spring. What are some good design principles for an inexperienced java developer like me?

  - by Imtiaz Ahmad

  I am learning Java and have written a few small useful programs. I am new to spring but have managed to understand the concept of dependency injection for decoupling. I'm trying to applying that in my development work in an enterprise setting. What are the 3 most important design patterns I should master (not for interview purposes but ones that I will use every day in as a good java developer)? Also what are some good java design considerations and practices in coding specifically in Java? My goal is write good decoupled and coherent programs that are easy to maintain that don't make me standout as a java rookie. Stuff like not beginning my package names with com. have already made me precariously visible in my team. But they know I have 2 years of coding experience and its not in java.

  Read the article

• Development: SDK for Social Net

  - by loldop

  I have a task: development sdk for social networking service like facebook, twitter and etc. At now i'm developing facebook-extension-sdk which based on facebook-ios-sdk 3.0. But not all social networking services have good sdks. And all time i improved my facebook-extension-sdk, when i see ugly code :( Please, advise me good techniques to development these sdks (like design-patterns or your own experience or good books/sites). Thanks!

  Read the article

• How can we protect the namespace of an object in Javascript?

  - by Eduard Florinescu

  Continuing from my previous question: Javascript simple code to understand prototype-based OOP basics Let's say we run into console this two separate objects(even if they are called child and parent there is no inheritance between them): var parent = { name: "parent", print: function(){ console.log("Hello, "+this.name); } }; var child = { name: "child", print: function(){ console.log("Hi, "+this.name); } }; parent.print() // This will print: Hello, parent child.print() // This will print: Hi, child temp =parent; parent = child; child = temp; parent.print() // This will now print: Hi, child child.print() // This will now print: Hello, parent Now suppose that parent is a library, as a HTML5 application in a browser this cannot do much harm because is practically running sandboxed, but now with the advent of the ChromeOS, FirefoxOS and other [Browser] OS they will also be linked to a native API, that would be a head out of the „sandbox”. Now if someone changes the namespace it would be harder for a code reviewer (either automated or not ) to spot an incorrect use if the namespaces changes. My question would be: Are there many ways in which the above situation can be done and what can be done to protect this namespaces? (Either in the javascript itself or by some static code analysis tool)

  Read the article

• If I define a property to prototype appears in the constructor of object, why?

  - by Eduard Florinescu

  I took the example from this question modified a bit: What is the point of the prototype method? function employee(name,jobtitle,born) { this.name=name; this.jobtitle=jobtitle; this.born=born; this.status="single" } employee.prototype.salary=10000000; var fred=new employee("Fred Flintstone","Caveman",1970); console.log(fred.salary); fred.salary=20000; console.log(fred.salary) And the output in console is this: What is the difference salary is in constructor but I still can access it with fred.salary, how can I see if is in constructor from code, status is still employee property how can I tell for example if name is the one of employee or has been touch by initialization? Why is salary in constructor, when name,jobtitle,born where "touched" by employee("Fred Flintstone","Caveman",1970); «constructor»?

  Read the article

• Can't I just use all static methods?

  - by Reddy S R

  What's the difference between the two UpdateSubject methods below? I felt using static methods is better if you just want to operate on the entities. In which situations should I go with non-static methods? public class Subject { public int Id {get; set;} public string Name { get; set; } public static bool UpdateSubject(Subject subject) { //Do something and return result return true; } public bool UpdateSubject() { //Do something on 'this' and return result return true; } } I know I will be getting many kicks from the community for this really annoying question but I could not stop myself asking it. Does this become impractical when dealing with inheritance?

  Read the article

• Is it a good practice to wrap all primitives and Strings?

  - by Amogh Talpallikar

  According to Jeff Bay's Essay on Object Callisthenics, One of the practices is set to be "Wrap all primitives and Strings" Can anyone elaborate on this ? In languages where we already have wrappers for primitives like C# and Java. and In languages where Collections can have generics where you are sure of what type goes into the collection, do we need to wrap string's inside their own classes ? Does it have any other advantage ?

  Read the article

• Manager/Container class vs static class methods

  - by Ben

  Suppose I a have a Widget class that is part of a framework used independently by many applications. I create Widget instances in many situations and their lifetimes vary. In addition to Widget's instance specified methods, I would like to be able to perform the follow class wide operations: Find a single Widget instance based on a unique id Iterate over the list of all Widgets Remove a widget from the set of all widgets In order support these operations, I have been considering two approaches: Container class - Create some container or manager class, WidgetContainer, which holds a list of all Widget instances, support iteration and provides methods for Widget addition, removal and lookup. For example in C#: public class WidgetContainer : IEnumerable<Widget { public void AddWidget(Widget); public Widget GetWidget(WidgetId id); public void RemoveWidget(WidgetId id); } Static class methods - Add static class methods to Widget. For example: public class Widget { public Widget(WidgetId id); public static Widget GetWidget(WidgetId id); public static void RemoveWidget(WidgetId id); public static IEnumerable<Widget AllWidgets(); } Using a container class has the added problem of how to access the container class. Make it a singleton?..yuck! Create some World object that provides access to all such container classes? I have seen many frameworks that use the container class approach, so what is the general consensus?

  Read the article

• When are Getters and Setters Justified

  - by Winston Ewert

  Getters and setters are often criticized as being not proper OO. On the other hand most OO code I've seen has extensive getters and setters. When are getters and setters justified? Do you try to avoid using them? Are they overused in general? If your favorite language has properties (mine does) then such things are also considered getters and setters for this question. They are same thing from an OO methodology perspective. They just have nicer syntax. Sources for Getter/Setter Criticism (some taken from comments to give them better visibility): http://www.javaworld.com/javaworld/jw-09-2003/jw-0905-toolbox.html http://typicalprogrammer.com/?p=23 http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?AccessorsAreEvil http://www.darronschall.com/weblog/2005/03/no-brain-getter-and-setters.cfm http://www.adam-bien.com/roller/abien/entry/encapsulation_violation_with_getters_and To state the criticism simply: Getters and Setters allow you to manipulate the internal state of objects from outside of the object. This violates encapsulation. Only the object itself should care about its internal state. And an example Procedural version of code. struct Fridge { int cheese; } void go_shopping(Fridge fridge) { fridge.cheese += 5; } Mutator version of code: class Fridge { int cheese; void set_cheese(int _cheese) { cheese = _cheese; } int get_cheese() { return cheese; } } void go_shopping(Fridge fridge) { fridge.set_cheese(fridge.get_cheese() + 5); } The getters and setters made the code much more complicated without affording proper encapsulation. Because the internal state is accessible to other objects we don't gain a whole lot by adding these getters and setters. The question has been previously discussed on Stack Overflow: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/565095/java-are-getters-and-setters-evil http://stackoverflow.com/questions/996179

  Read the article

• When should a method of a class return the same instance after modifying itself?

  - by modiX

  I have a class that has three methods A(), B() and C(). Those methods modify the own instance. While the methods have to return an instance when the instance is a separate copy (just as Clone()), I got a free choice to return void or the same instance (return this;) when modifying the same instance in the method and not returning any other value. When deciding for returning the same modified instance, I can do neat method chains like obj.A().B().C();. Would this be the only reason for doing so? Is it even okay to modify the own instance and return it, too? Or should it only return a copy and leave the original object as before? Because when returning the same modified instance the user would maybe admit the returned value is a copy, otherwise it would not be returned? If it's okay, what's the best way to clarify such things on the method?

  Read the article

• OO Design, how to model Tonal Harmony?

  - by David

  I have started to write a program in C++ 11 that would analyse chords, scales, and harmony. The biggest problem I am having in my design phase, is that the note 'C' is a note, a type of chord (Cmaj, Cmin, C7, etc), and a type of key (the key of Cmajor, Cminor). The same issue arises with intervals (minor 3rd, major 3rd). I am using a base class, Token, that is the base class for all 'symbols' in the program. so for example: class Token { public: typedef shared_ptr<Token> pointer_type; Token() {} virtual ~Token() {} }; class Command : public Token { public: Command() {} pointer_type execute(); } class Note : public Token; class Triad : public Token; class MajorTriad : public Triad; // CMajorTriad, etc class Key : public Token; class MinorKey : public Key; // Natural Minor, Harmonic minor,etc class Scale : public Token; As you can see, to create all the derived classes (CMajorTriad, C, CMajorScale, CMajorKey, etc) would quickly become ridiculously complex including all the other notes, as well as enharmonics. multiple inheritance would not work, ie: class C : public Note, Triad, Key, Scale class C, cannot be all of these things at the same time. It is contextual, also polymorphing with this will not work (how to determine which super methods to perform? calling every super class constructors should not happen here) Are there any design ideas or suggestions that people have to offer? I have not been able to find anything on google in regards to modelling tonal harmony from an OO perspective. There are just far too many relationships between all the concepts here.

  Read the article

• Dependency injection in constructor, method or just use a static class instead?

  - by gaetanm

  What is the best between: $dispatcher = new Dispatcher($request); $dispatcher->dispatch(); and $dispatcher = new Dispatcher(); $dispatcher->dispatch($request); or even Dispatcher::dispatch($request); Knowing that only one method of this class uses the $request instance. I naturally tend to the last solution because the class have no other states, but by I feel that it may not be the best OOP solution.

  Read the article

• Which topics should be covered in a basic undergraduate C++ course?

  - by Gulshan

  I have a young lecturer friend who is going to teach the undergraduate C++ course in CS. He asked me for some suggestions regarding how the course should be organized. Now I am asking you. I have seen many trends in universities which leads to a nasty experience of C++. So, please suggest from a professional programmer's point of view. For your information, the students going to take the course, have taken course like "Introduction to programming with C" in previous semester.

  Read the article

• Which open source PHP project has the 'perfect' OOP design I can learn from?

  - by aditya menon

  I am a newbie to OOP, and I learn best by example. You could say this question is similar to Which Scala open source projects should I study to learn best coding practices - but in PHP. I have heard-tell that Symfony has the best 'architecture' (I will not pretend I know what that exactly means), as well as Doctrine ORM. Is it worth it to spend many months reading the source code of these projects, trying to deduce the patterns used and learning new tricks? I have seen equal number of web pages dissing and liking Zend's codebase (will provide links if deemed necessary). Do you know of any other project that would make any veteran OOP developer shed tears of joy? Please let me add that practicality and scope of use is not a concern at all here - I just want to do: Pick a project that has a codebase deemed awesome by devs way better and greater than me. Write code that achieves what the project does. Compare results and try to learn what I don't know. Basically, an academic interest codebase. Any recommendations please?

  Read the article

• Design patterns and multiple programming languages

  - by Eduard Florinescu

  I am referring here to the design patterns found in the GOF book. First, how I see it, there are a few peculiarities to design pattern and knowing multiple languages, for example in Java you really need a singleton but in Python you can do without it you write a module, I saw somewhere a wiki trying to write all GOF patterns for JavaScript and all the entries were empty, I guess because it might be a daunting task to do that adaptation. If there is someone who is using design patterns and is programming multiple languages supporting the OOP paradigm and can give me a hint on how should I approach design patterns. An approach that might help me in all languages I use(Java, JavaScript, Python, Ruby): Can I write good application without knowing exactly the GOF design patterns or I might need just some of them which might be crucial and if yes which one, are there alternatives to GOF for specific languages, and should a programmer or a team make their own design patterns set?

  Read the article

• What simple game is good to learn OO principles?

  - by Bogdan Gavril

  I have to come up with a project propsal for my students, here are some details: The design should be gove over OO concepts: encapsulation, interfaces, inheritance, abstract classes Idealy a game, to keep interest high No GUI, just the console Effective time to finish this: ~ 6 days (1 person per proj) I have found one nice example of a game with carnivore and herbivore cells in a drop of water (array), it's a game of life twist. It is a bit too simple. Any ideeas? Aditional info: - language is C#

  Read the article

• LSP vs OCP / Liskov Substitution VS Open Close

  - by Kolyunya

  I am trying to understand the SOLID principles of OOP and I've come to the conclusion that LSP and OCP have some similarities (if not to say more). the open/closed principle states "software entities (classes, modules, functions, etc.) should be open for extension, but closed for modification". LSP in simple words states that any instance of Foo can be replaced with any instance of Bar which is derived from Foo and the program will work the same very way. I'm not a pro OOP programmer, but it seems to me that LSP is only possible if Bar, derived from Foo does not change anything in it but only extends it. That means that in particular program LSP is true only when OCP is true and OCP is true only if LSP is true. That means that they are equal. Correct me if I'm wrong. I really want to understand these ideas. Great thanks for an answer.

  Read the article

< Previous Page | 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67  | Next Page >