Search Results

Search found 12953 results on 519 pages for 'abstract methods'.

facebook twitter digg google delicious technorati stumbleupon myspace wordpress linkedin gmail igoogle windows live tumblr viadeo yahoo buzz yahoo mail yahoo bookmarks favorites email print

Page 69/519 | < Previous Page | 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76  | Next Page >

  • How can I provide users with the functionality of the DBUnit DatabaseOperation methods from a web in

    - by reckoner
    I am currently updating a java-based web application which allows database developers to create stored procedure regression test suites for database testing. Currently, for test setup, execution and clean-up stages, the user is provided with text boxes where they are able to enter SQL code which is executed by the isql command. I would like to extend the application to use DB Unit’s DatabaseOperation methods to provide more ways to setup the state of the database than just SQL statements. The main reason for using Db Unit rather than just SQL statements is to be able to create and store xml and xls DataSets on a server where they can be associated with their test cases and used for data setup. My question is: How can I provide users with the functionality of the DBUnit DatabaseOperation methods from a web interface? I have considered: Creating a simple programming language and a parser to read some simple syntax involving the DB Unit method names which accept a parameter being the file location to an xml or xls DataSet. I was thinking of allowing the user to register the files they need with the web app which would catalogue them and provide each file with an identifier which could passed as a parameter to the methods in this simple programming language. Creating an XML DTD which provides the user with the ability to specify operations and parameters. If I went this approach, how can I execute the methods and their parameters that I parse from the XML document? Creating a table in the database which stores the method and a FK relation to a catalogued DataSet file, however I don’t think this would be good solution due to the fact that data entry would be tedious. Thanks for your help.

    Read the article

  • How do I call +class methods in Objective C without referencing the class?

    - by TimM
    I have a series of "policy" objects which I thought would be convenient to implement as class methods on a set of policy classes. I have specified a protocol for this, and created classes to conform to (just one shown below) @protocol Counter +(NSInteger) countFor: (Model *)model; @end @interface CurrentListCounter : NSObject <Counter> +(NSInteger) countFor: (Model *)model; @end I then have an array of the classes that conform to this protocol (like CurrentListCounter does) +(NSArray *) availableCounters { return [[[NSArray alloc] initWithObjects: [CurrentListCounter class],[AllListsCounter class], nil] autorelease]; } Notice how I am using the classes like objects (and this might be my problem - in Smalltalk classes are objects like everything else - I'm not sure if they are in Objective-C?) My exact problem is when I want to call the method when I take one of the policy objects out of the array: id<Counter> counter = [[MyModel availableCounters] objectAtIndex: self.index]; return [counter countFor: self]; I get a warning on the return statement - it says -countFor: not found in protocol (so its assuming its an instance method where I want to call a class method). However as the objects in my array are instances of class, they are now like instance methods (or conceptually they should be). Is there a magic way to call class methods? Or is this just a bad idea and I should just create instances of my policy objects (and not use class methods)?

    Read the article

  • Refactoring. Your way to reduce code complexity of big class with big methods

    - by Andrew Florko
    I have a legacy class that is rahter complex to maintain: class OldClass { method1(arg1, arg2) { ... 200 lines of code ... } method2(arg1) { ... 200 lines of code ... } ... method20(arg1, arg2, arg3) { ... 200 lines of code ... } } methods are huge, unstructured and repetitive (developer loved copy/paste aprroach). I want to split each method into 3-5 small functions, whith one pulic method and several helpers. What will you suggest? Several ideas come to my mind: Add several private helper methods to each method and join them in #region (straight-forward refactoring) Use Command pattern (one command class per OldClass method in a separate file). Create helper static class per method with one public method & several private helper methods. OldClass methods delegate implementation to appropriate static class (very similiar to commands). ? Thank you in advance!

    Read the article

  • What are some good methods to improve personal password management?

    - by danilo
    I want to improve my personal password management. I usually use secure passwords, but overuse them for too many different places. My questions: What methods do you use to create passwords, e.g. for different online sites/logins? What methods do you use to remember those passwords? Memory? Pen&Paper? Software storage? Is there some good way to store my passwords somewhere, so I can always have access to them when I need them (e.g. a webbased solution on my own server) but at the same way keep them away from unwanted access? Edit: Someone on another site mentioned http://passwordmaker.org/. Have you had any good or bad experiences with that software?

    Read the article

  • Explicit method tables in C# instead of OO - good? bad?

    - by FunctorSalad
    Hi! I hope the title doesn't sound too subjective; I absolutely do not mean to start a debate on OO in general. I'd merely like to discuss the basic pros and cons for different ways of solving the following sort of problem. Let's take this minimal example: you want to express an abstract datatype T with functions that may take T as input, output, or both: f1 : Takes a T, returns an int f2 : Takes a string, returns a T f3 : Takes a T and a double, returns another T I'd like to avoid downcasting and any other dynamic typing. I'd also like to avoid mutation whenever possible. 1: Abstract-class-based attempt abstract class T { abstract int f1(); // We can't have abstract constructors, so the best we can do, as I see it, is: abstract void f2(string s); // The convention would be that you'd replace calls to the original f2 by invocation of the nullary constructor of the implementing type, followed by invocation of f2. f2 would need to have side-effects to be of any use. // f3 is a problem too: abstract T f3(double d); // This doesn't express that the return value is of the *same* type as the object whose method is invoked; it just expresses that the return value is *some* T. } 2: Parametric polymorphism and an auxilliary class (all implementing classes of TImpl will be singleton classes): abstract class TImpl<T> { abstract int f1(T t); abstract T f2(string s); abstract T f3(T t, double d); } We no longer express that some concrete type actually implements our original spec -- an implementation is simply a type Foo for which we happen to have an instance of TImpl. This doesn't seem to be a problem: If you want a function that works on arbitrary implementations, you just do something like: // Say we want to return a Bar given an arbitrary implementation of our abstract type Bar bar<T>(TImpl<T> ti, T t); At this point, one might as well skip inheritance and singletons altogether and use a 3 First-class function table class /* or struct, even */ TDictT<T> { readonly Func<T,int> f1; readonly Func<string,T> f2; readonly Func<T,double,T> f3; TDict( ... ) { this.f1 = f1; this.f2 = f2; this.f3 = f3; } } Bar bar<T>(TDict<T> td; T t); Though I don't see much practical difference between #2 and #3. Example Implementation class MyT { /* raw data structure goes here; this class needn't have any methods */ } // It doesn't matter where we put the following; could be a static method of MyT, or some static class collecting dictionaries static readonly TDict<MyT> MyTDict = new TDict<MyT>( (t) => /* body of f1 goes here */ , // f2 (s) => /* body of f2 goes here */, // f3 (t,d) => /* body of f3 goes here */ ); Thoughts? #3 is unidiomatic, but it seems rather safe and clean. One question is whether there are any performance concerns with it. I don't usually need dynamic dispatch, and I'd prefer if these function bodies get statically inlined in places where the concrete implementing type is known statically. Is #2 better in that regard?

    Read the article

  • "is not abstact and does not override abstract method."

    - by Chris Bolton
    So I'm pretty new to android development and have been trying to piece together some code bits. Here's what I have so far: package com.teslaprime.prirt; import android.app.Activity; import android.os.Bundle; import android.view.View; import android.widget.ArrayAdapter; import android.widget.Button; import android.widget.EditText; import android.widget.ListView; import android.widget.AdapterView.OnItemClickListener; import java.util.ArrayList; import java.util.List; public class TaskList extends Activity { List<Task> model = new ArrayList<Task>(); ArrayAdapter<Task> adapter = null; @Override public void onCreate(Bundle savedInstanceState) { super.onCreate(savedInstanceState); setContentView(R.layout.main); Button add = (Button) findViewById(R.id.add); add.setOnClickListener(onAdd); ListView list = (ListView) findViewById(R.id.tasks); adapter = new ArrayAdapter<Task>(this,android.R.layout.simple_list_item_1,model); list.setAdapter(adapter); list.setOnItemClickListener(new OnItemClickListener() { public void onItemClick(View v, int position, long id) { adapter.remove(position); } });} private View.OnClickListener onAdd = new View.OnClickListener() { public void onClick(View v) { Task task = new Task(); EditText name = (EditText) findViewById(R.id.taskEntry); task.name = name.getText().toString(); adapter.add(task); } }; } and here are the errors I'm getting: compile: [javac] /opt/android-sdk/tools/ant/main_rules.xml:384: warning: 'includeantruntime' was not set, defaulting to build.sysclasspath=last; set to false for repeatable builds [javac] Compiling 2 source files to /home/chris-kun/code/priRT/bin/classes [javac] /home/chris-kun/code/priRT/src/com/teslaprime/prirt/TaskList.java:30: <anonymous com.teslaprime.prirt.TaskList$1> is not abstract and does not override abstract method onItemClick(android.widget.AdapterView<?>,android.view.View,int,long) in android.widget.AdapterView.OnItemClickListener [javac] list.setOnItemClickListener(new OnItemClickListener() { [javac] ^ [javac] /home/chris-kun/code/priRT/src/com/teslaprime/prirt/TaskList.java:32: remove(com.teslaprime.prirt.Task) in android.widget.ArrayAdapter<com.teslaprime.prirt.Task> cannot be applied to (int) [javac] adapter.remove(position); [javac] ^ [javac] 2 errors BUILD FAILED /opt/android-sdk/tools/ant/main_rules.xml:384: Compile failed; see the compiler error output for details. Total time: 2 seconds any ideas?

    Read the article

  • How can i convert this to a factory/abstract factory?

    - by Amitd
    I'm using MigraDoc to create a pdf document. I have business entities similar to the those used in MigraDoc. public class Page{ public List<PageContent> Content { get; set; } } public abstract class PageContent { public int Width { get; set; } public int Height { get; set; } public Margin Margin { get; set; } } public class Paragraph : PageContent{ public string Text { get; set; } } public class Table : PageContent{ public int Rows { get; set; } public int Columns { get; set; } //.... more } In my business logic, there are rendering classes for each type public interface IPdfRenderer<T> { T Render(MigraDoc.DocumentObjectModel.Section s); } class ParagraphRenderer : IPdfRenderer<MigraDoc.DocumentObjectModel.Paragraph> { BusinessEntities.PDF.Paragraph paragraph; public ParagraphRenderer(BusinessEntities.PDF.Paragraph p) { paragraph = p; } public MigraDoc.DocumentObjectModel.Paragraph Render(MigraDoc.DocumentObjectModel.Section s) { var paragraph = s.AddParagraph(); // add text from paragraph etc return paragraph; } } public class TableRenderer : IPdfRenderer<MigraDoc.DocumentObjectModel.Tables.Table> { BusinessEntities.PDF.Table table; public TableRenderer(BusinessEntities.PDF.Table t) { table =t; } public MigraDoc.DocumentObjectModel.Tables.Table Render(Section obj) { var table = obj.AddTable(); //fill table based on table } } I want to create a PDF page as : var document = new Document(); var section = document.AddSection();// section is a page in pdf var page = GetPage(1); // get a page from business classes foreach (var content in page.Content) { //var renderer = createRenderer(content); // // get Renderer based on Business type ?? // renderer.Render(section) } For createRenderer() i can use switch case/dictionary and return type. How can i get/create the renderer generically based on type ? How can I use factory or abstract factory here? Or which design pattern better suits this problem?

    Read the article

  • Is Abstract Factory Pattern implemented correctly for given scenario.... ???

    - by Amit
    First thing... I am novice to pattern world, so correct me if wrong anywhere Scenario: There are multiple companies providing multiple products of diff size so there are 3 entities i.e. Companies, Their Product and size of product I have implement Abstract Pattern on this i.e. so that I will create instance of IProductFactory interface to get desired product... Is below implementation of Abstract Factory Pattern correct ??? If not then please correct the approach + Also tell me if any other pattern can be used for such scenario Thanks in advance... public enum Companies { Samsung = 0, LG = 1, Philips = 2, Sony = 3 } public enum Product { PlasmaTv = 0, DVD = 1 } public enum ProductSize { FortyTwoInch, FiftyFiveInch } interface IProductFactory { IPhilips GetPhilipsProduct(); ISony GetSonyProduct(); } interface ISony { string CreateProducts(Product product, ProductSize size); } interface IPhilips { string CreateProducts(Product product, ProductSize size); } class ProductFactory : IProductFactory { public IPhilips GetPhilipsProduct() { return new Philips(); } public ISony GetSonyProduct() { return new Sony(); } } class Philips : IPhilips { #region IPhilips Members public string CreateProducts(Product product, ProductSize size) {// I have ingnore size for now.... string output = string.Empty; if (product == Product.PlasmaTv) { output = "Plasma TV Created !!!"; } else if (product == Product.DVD) { output = "DVD Created !!!"; } return output; } #endregion } class Sony : ISony {// I have ingnore size for now.... #region ISony Members public string CreateProducts(Product product, ProductSize size) { string output = string.Empty; if (product == Product.PlasmaTv) { output = "Plasma TV Created !!!"; } else if (product == Product.DVD) { output = "DVD Created !!!"; } return output; } #endregion } IProductFactory prodFactory = new ProductFactory(); IPhilips philipsObj = prodFactory.GetPhilipsProduct(); MessageBox.Show(philipsObj.CreateProducts(Product.DVD, ProductSize.FortyTwoInch)); or //ISony sonyObj = prodFactory.GetSonyProduct(); //MessageBox.Show(sonyObj.CreateProducts(Product.DVD, ProductSize.FortyTwoInch));

    Read the article

  • How and where do we write try catch block to handle Exception

    - by Arpita
    We are using C# language to develope a Windows application. Our windows application consists of three layers (UI,Business and DataAccess layer). In Business Layer there are some public (business) methods through which UI communicates wilh Business layer classes. These public methods also have some private methods to implement the required functionality. There are some methods in DataAcess layer which are called from Business layer class. In this situatuion where should i wrte try-catch? a) In Business Layer Public methods b) In Busyness Layer Private methods c) In DataAccess Layer methods d) In UI methods from where Business methods are called.

    Read the article

  • Why can't I declare C# methods virtual and static?

    - by Luke
    I have a helper class that is just a bunch of static methods and would like to subclass the helper class. Some behavior is unique depending on the subclass so I would like to call a virtual method from the base class, but since all the methods are static I can't create a plain virtual method (need object reference in order to access virtual method). Is there any way around this? I guess I could use a singleton.. HelperClass.Instance.HelperMethod() isn't so much worse than HelperClass.HelperMethod(). Brownie points for anyone that can point out some languages that support virtual static methods. Edit: OK yeah I'm crazy. Google search results had me thinking I wasn't for a bit there.

    Read the article

  • C#/Resharper 5 structural search, detect and warn if any non-virtual public methods on classes with

    - by chillitom
    Hi All, I'm using LinFu's dynamic proxy to add some advice to some classes. The problem is that the proxied objects can only intercept virtual methods and will return the return type's default value for non-virtual methods. I can tell whether a class is proxied or not based whether the class or any of it's method has an interception attribute, e.g. [Transaction] Is it possible to write a ReSharper 5 structural search that would warn if any non-virtual public methods are defined on a class with an interception attribute. E.g. Ok public class InterceptedClass { [Transaction] public virtual void TransactionalMethod() { ... } public virtual void AnotherMethod() { ... } } Bad public class InterceptedClass { [Transaction] public virtual void TransactionalMethod() { ... } public void AnotherMethod() // non-virtual method will not be called by proxy { ... } } Many Thanks.

    Read the article

  • How can I add methods from a Java class as global functions in Javascript using Rhino?

    - by gooli
    I have a simple Java class that has some methods: public class Utils { public void deal(String price, int amount) { // .... } public void bid(String price, int amount) { // .... } public void offer(String price, int amount) { // .... } } I would like to create an instance of this class and allow the Javascript code to call the methods directly, like so: deal("1.3736", 100000); bid("1.3735", 500000); The only way I could figure out for now was to use ScriptEngine engine = new ScriptEngineManager().getEngineByName("js"); engine.put("utils", new Utils()); and then use utils.deal(...) in the Javascript code. I can also write wrapper functions in Javascript for each method, but there should be a simpler way to do this automatically for all the public methods of a class.

    Read the article

  • IOC - Should util classes with static helper methods be wired up with IOC?

    - by Greg
    Hi, Just trying to still get my head around IOC principles. Q1: Static Methods - Should util classes with static helper methods be wired up with IOC? For example if I have a HttpUtils class with a number of static methods, should I be trying to pass it to other business logic classes via IOC? Follow on questions for this might be: Q2: Singletons - What about things like logging where you may typically get access to it via a Logger.getInstance() type call. Would you normally leave this as is, and NOT use IOC for injecting the logger into business classes that need it? Q3: Static Classes - I haven't really used this concept, but are there any guidelines for how you'd typically handle this if you were moving to an IOC based approach. Thanks in advance.

    Read the article

  • Python Introspection: How to get varnames of class methods?

    - by daccle
    I want to get the names of the keyword arguments of the methods of a class. I think I understood how to get the names of the methods and how to get the variable names of a specific method, but I don't get how to combine these: class A(object): def A1(self, test1=None): self.test1 = test1 def A2(self, test2=None): self.test2 = test2 def A3(self): pass def A4(self, test4=None, test5=None): self.test4 = test4 self.test5 = test5 a = A() # to get the names of the methods: for methodname in a.__class__.__dict__.keys(): print methodname # to get the variable names of a specific method: for varname in a.A1.__func__.__code__.co_varnames: print varname # I want to have something like this: for function in class: print function.name for varname in function: print varname # desired output: A1 self test1 A2 self test2 A3 self A4 self test4 test5

    Read the article

  • Is there a design pattern for injecting methods into a class?

    - by glenn I.
    I have a set of classes that work together (I'm coding in javascript). There is one parent class and a number of child classes that are instantiated by the parent class. I have a number of clients of these classes that each need to add on one more methods to the parent or child classes. Rather than having each client inherit from these classes, which is doable but messy because of the child classes, I am having these clients pass functions into the parent class when they instantiate the main class. The main class creates the methods dynamically and the clients can call the methods like they were there all along. My questions are: is this a sensible thing to do? what would the design pattern be for what I am doing?

    Read the article

  • Rails Metaprogramming: How to add instance methods at runtime?

    - by Larry K
    I'm defining my own AR class in Rails that will include dynamically created instance methods for user fields 0-9. The user fields are not stored in the db directly, they'll be serialized together since they'll be used infrequently. Is the following the best way to do this? Alternatives? Where should the start up code for adding the methods be called from? class Info < ActiveRecord::Base end # called from an init file to add the instance methods parts = [] (0..9).each do |i| parts.push "def user_field_#{i}" # def user_field_0 parts.push "get_user_fields && @user_fields[#{i}]" parts.push "end" end Info.class_eval parts.join

    Read the article

  • How can I add similar functionality to a number of methods in java?

    - by Roman
    I have a lot of methods for logging, like logSomeAction, logAnotherAction etc. Now I want all these methods make a small pause after printing messages (Thread.sleep). If I do it manually, I would do something like this: //before: public static void logSomeAction () { System.out.println (msg(SOME_ACTION)); } //after: public static void logSomeAction () { System.out.println (msg(SOME_ACTION)); try { Thread.sleep (2000); } catch (InterruptedException ignored) { } } I remember that Java has proxy classes and some other magic-making tools. Is there any way avoid copy-n-pasting N sleep-blocks to N logging methods?

    Read the article

  • Does Visual Studio 2010 support something like Eclipse's "Generate delegate methods"?

    - by devoured elysium
    Eclipse allows us to define a class as: interface MyInterface { void methodA(); int methodB(); } class A : MyInterface { MyInterface myInterface; } and then with this "Generate delegate methods", it will implement all needed methods for the interface, redirecting their logic to myInterface's methods: class A : MyInterface { MyInterface myInterface; public void methodA() { myInterface.methodA(); } public int methodB() { return myInterface.methodB(); } } Is it possible to accomplish the same with VS2010? And with R#? Thanks

    Read the article

  • Is there a way to only have StyleCop documenation requirements SA1600 on public methods/properties?

    - by AlSki
    I've been using XMLDoc for a few years now, and have definitely grown into the mindset for supplying quality documentation for public methods and properties. However under StyleCop (and particularly its Resharper highlighting) I've noticed that the documentation requirements apply to identically to public, internal, protected and private methods. This seems a little counter-intuative to me, so I would ideally like to suppress it down to suggestions at least for private methods. Unfortunately it does seem as if the suppress setting is only across all public, internal, private, etc. Am I missing something or is this by design?

    Read the article

  • Conceptual inheritance implementation

    - by TheSENDER
    Hi there, I'm writing a spatial data structure and I have a doubt about what's the best NODE implementation. According to my design I have an abstract node entity and three classes which inherit from it: EMPTYNODE, FULLNODE, INTERNALNODE. The first one has no particular data. The second one has 1 reference to a generic element. The third one has 2 references to other nodes. I have found several ways to implement this situation (that I have already coded) but I can't decide what's the best. The first solution that I have found is to use a single class Node that potentially performs all the operation in this way: private static class Node { private Elem elem = null; private Node left = null, right = null; public Elem getElem() { assert isFull(); return elem; } public boolean isEmpty() { return elem == null && left == null; } public boolean isFull() { return elem != null; } public boolean isInternal() { return elem == null && left != null; } } The second solution is to write an explicit division by classes where every class offers only its methods. Obviously in this way we are obliged to perform several casts to the node objects. private static abstract class Node { public abstract boolean isEmpty(); public abstract boolean isFull(); public abstract boolean isInternal(); } private static class FullNode extends Node{ private ITriangle elem; @Override public boolean isEmpty() { return false; } @Override public final boolean isFull() { return true; } @Override public final boolean isInternal() { return false; } public Elem getElem() { return elem; } } The third one solution is to use the inheritance allowing every classes to offer all the methods, but the object type should by check by "isEmpty()" and similar methods. In case of wrong call we'll throw an exception. private static abstract class Node { public abstract boolean isEmpty(); public abstract boolean isFull(); public abstract boolean isInternal(); public abstract Elem getElem(); } private static class Empty extends Node{ @Override public boolean isEmpty() { return true; } @Override public final boolean isFull() { return false; } @Override public final boolean isInternal() { return false; } @Override public Elem getElem() { throw new AssertionError(); } } What do you think about these three solutions? Which one would you use? Any other ideas? Thanks for your help. Every idea will be appreciated.

    Read the article

  • Static Vs Non-Static Method Performance C#

    - by dotnetguts
    Hello All, I have few global methods declared in public class in my asp.net web application. I have habbit of declaring all global methods in public class in following format public static string MethodName(parameters) { } I want to know how it would impact on performance point of view? 1) Which one is Better? Static Method or Non-Static Method? 2) Reason why it is better? Following link shows Non-Static methods are good because, static methods are using locks to be Thread-safe. The always do internally a Monitor.Enter() and Monitor.exit() to ensure Thread-safety. http://bytes.com/topic/c-sharp/answers/231701-static-vs-non-static-function-performance And Following link shows Static Methods are good static methods are normally faster to invoke on the call stack than instance methods. There are several reasons for this in the C# programming language. Instance methods actually use the 'this' instance pointer as the first parameter, so an instance method will always have that overhead. Instance methods are also implemented with the callvirt instruction in the intermediate language, which imposes a slight overhead. Please note that changing your methods to static methods is unlikely to help much on ambitious performance goals, but it can help a tiny bit and possibly lead to further reductions. http://dotnetperls.com/static-method I am little confuse which one to use? Thanks

    Read the article

  • Requesting feedback on my OO design

    - by Prog
    I'm working on an application that creates music by itself. I'm seeking feedback for my OO design so far. This question will focus on one part of the program. The application produces Tune objects, that are the final musical products. Tune is an abstract class with an abstract method play. It has two subclasses: SimpleTune and StructuredTune. SimpleTune owns a Melody and a Progression (chord sequence). It's play implementation plays these two objects simultaneously. StructuredTune owns two Tune instances. It's own play plays the two Tunes one after the other according to a pattern (currently only ABAB). Melody is an abstract class with an abstract play method. It has two subclasses: SimpleMelody and StructuredMelody. SimpleMelody is composed of an array of notes. Invoking play on it plays these notes one after the other. StructuredMelody is composed of an array of Melody objects. Invoking play on it plays these Melodyies one after the other. I think you're starting to see the pattern. Progression is also an abstract class with a play method and two subclasses: SimpleProgression and StructuredProgression, each composed differently and played differently. SimpleProgression owns an array of chords and plays them sequentially. StructuredProgression owns an array of Progressions and it's play implementation plays them sequentially. Every class has a corresponding Generator class. Tune, Melody and Progression are matched with corresponding abstract TuneGenerator, MelodyGenerator and ProgressionGenerator classes, each with an abstract generate method. For example MelodyGenerator defines an abstract Melody generate method. Each of the generators has two subclasses, Simple and Structured. So for example MelodyGenerator has a subclasses SimpleMelodyGenerator, with an implementation of generate that returns a SimpleMelody. (It's important to note that the generate methods encapsulate complex algorithms. They are more than mere factory method. For example SimpleProgressionGenerator.generate() implements an algorithm to compose a series of Chord objects, which are used to instantiate the returned SimpleProgression). Every Structured generator uses another generator internally. It is a Simple generator be default, but in special cases may be a Structured generator. Parts of this design are meant to allow the end-user through the GUI to choose what kind of music is to be created. For example the user can choose between a "simple tune" (SimpleTuneGenerator) and a "full tune" (StructuredTuneGenerator). Other parts of the system aren't subject to direct user-control. What do you think of this design from an OOD perspective? What potential problems do you see with this design? Please share with me your criticism, I'm here to learn. Apart from this, a more specific question: the "every class has a corresponding Generator class" part feels very wrong. However I'm not sure how I could design this differently and achieve the same flexibility. Any ideas?

    Read the article

facebook twitter digg google delicious technorati stumbleupon myspace wordpress linkedin gmail igoogle windows live tumblr viadeo yahoo buzz yahoo mail yahoo bookmarks favorites email print

< Previous Page | 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76  | Next Page >