Search Results

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

Page 79/585 | < Previous Page | 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86  | Next Page >

• Design Services for the Web

  Advertising and marketing is a huge industry, it spends billions of dollars globally and creates thousands of job opportunities. The advertising and marketing strategies also helped in the evolution ... [Author: Claudia Winifred - Web Design and Development - March 20, 2010]

  Read the article

• Web and Logo Design: Essential for Small Business

  In this era of life, no business can imagine to run without an attractive logo and the state of the art website. Every day, thousands of businesses are established all over the world, and double the ... [Author: Gisselle Gloria - Web Design and Development - October 05, 2009]

  Read the article

• Why should a class be anything other than "abstract" or "final/sealed"

  - by Nicolas Repiquet

  After 10+ years of java/c# programming, I find myself creating either: abstract classes: contract not meant to be instantiated as-is. final/sealed classes: implementation not meant to serve as base class to something else. I can't think of any situation where a simple "class" (i.e. neither abstract nor final/sealed) would be "wise programming". Why should a class be anything other than "abstract" or "final/sealed" ? EDIT This great article explains my concerns far better than I can.

  Read the article

• Updating an Entity through a Service

  - by GeorgeK

  I'm separating my software into three main layers (maybe tiers would be a better term): Presentation ('Views') Business logic ('Services' and 'Repositories') Data access ('Entities' (e.g. ActiveRecords)) What do I have now? In Presentation, I use read-only access to Entities, returned from Repositories or Services, to display data. $banks = $banksRegistryService->getBanksRepository()->getBanksByCity( $city ); $banksViewModel = new PaginatedList( $banks ); // some way to display banks; // example, not real code I find this approach quite efficient in terms of performance and code maintanability and still safe as long as all write operations (create, update, delete) are preformed through a Service: namespace Service\BankRegistry; use Service\AbstractDatabaseService; use Service\IBankRegistryService; use Model\BankRegistry\Bank; class Service extends AbstractDatabaseService implements IBankRegistryService { /** * Registers a new Bank * * @param string $name Bank's name * @param string $bik Bank's Identification Code * @param string $correspondent_account Bank's correspondent account * * @return Bank */ public function registerBank( $name, $bik, $correspondent_account ) { $bank = new Bank(); $bank -> setName( $name ) -> setBik( $bik ) -> setCorrespondentAccount( $correspondent_account ); if( null === $this->getBanksRepository()->getDefaultBank() ) $this->setDefaultBank( $bank ); $this->getEntityManager()->persist( $bank ); return $bank; } /** * Makes the $bank system's default bank * * @param Bank $bank * @return IBankRegistryService */ public function setDefaultBank( Bank $bank ) { $default_bank = $this->getBanksRepository()->getDefaultBank(); if( null !== $default_bank ) $default_bank->setDefault( false ); $bank->setDefault( true ); return $this; } } Where am I stuck? I'm struggling about how to update certain fields in Bank Entity. Bad solution #1: Making a series of setters in Service for each setter in Bank; - seems to be quite reduntant, increases Service interface complexity and proportionally decreases it's simplicity - something to avoid if you care about code maitainability. I try to follow KISS and DRY principles. Bad solution #2: Modifying Bank directly through it's native setters; - really bad. If you'll ever need to move modification into the Service, it will be pain. Business logic should remain in Business logic layer. Plus, there are plans on logging all of the actions and maybe even involve user permissions (perhaps, through decorators) in future, so all modifications should be made only through the Service. Possible good solution: Creating an updateBank( Bank $bank, $array_of_fields_to_update) method; - makes the interface as simple as possible, but there is a problem: one should not try to manually set isDefault flag on a Bank, this operation should be performed through setDefaultBank method. It gets even worse when you have relations that you don't want to be directly modified. Of course, you can just limit the fields that can be modified by this method, but how do you tell method's user what they can and cannot modify? Exceptions?

  Read the article

• How to structure my GUI agnostic project?

  - by Nezreli

  I have a project which loads from database a XML file which defines a form for some user. XML is transformed into a collection of objects whose classes derive from single parent. Something like Control - EditControl - TextBox Control - ContainterControl - Panel Those classes are responsible for creation of GUI controls for three different enviroments: WinForms, DevExpress XtraReports and WebForms. All three frameworks share mostly the same control tree and have a common single parent (Windows.Forms.Control, XrControl and WebControl). So, how to do it? Solution a) Control class has abstract methods Control CreateWinControl(); XrControl CreateXtraControl(); WebControl CreateWebControl(); This could work but the project has to reference all three frameworks and the classes are going to be fat with methods which would support all three implementations. Solution b) Each framework implementation is done in separate projects and have the exact class tree like the Core project. All three implementations are connected using a interface to the Core class. This seems clean but I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around it. Does anyone have a simpler solution or a suggestion how should I approach this task?

  Read the article

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

  - by user2368481

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

  Read the article

• Architecture Best Practice (MVC): Repository Returns Object & Object Member Accessed Directly or Repository Returns Object Member

  - by coderabbi

  Architecturally speaking, which is the preferable approach (and why)? $validation_date = $users_repository->getUser($user_id)->validation_date; Seems to violate Law of Demeter by accessing member of object returned by method call Seems to violate Encapsulation by accessing object member directly $validation_date = $users_repository->getUserValidationDate($user_id); Seems to violate Single Responsibility Principle as $users_repository no longer just returns User objects

  Read the article

• Why to say, my function is of IFly type rather than saying it's Airplane type

  - by Vishwas Gagrani

  Say, I have two classes: Airplane and Bird, both of them fly. Both implement the interface IFly. IFly declares a function StartFlying(). Thus both Airplane and Bird have to define the function, and use it as per their requirement. Now when I make a manual for class reference, what should I write for the function StartFlying? 1) StartFlying is a function of type IFly . 2) StartFlying is a function of type Airplane 3) StartFlying is a function of type Bird. My opinion is 2 and 3 are more informative. But what i see is that class references use the 1st one. They say what interface the function is declared in. Problem is, I really don't get any usable information from knowing StartFlying is IFly type. However, knowing that StartFlying is a function inside Airplane and Bird, is more informative, as I can decide which instance (Airplane or Bird ) to use. Any lights on this: how saying StartFlying is a function of type IFly, can help a programmer understanding how to use the function?

  Read the article

• Should all, none, or some overriden methods call Super?

  - by JoJo

  When designing a class, how do you decide when all overridden methods should call super or when none of the overridden methods should call super? Also, is it considered bad practice if your code logic requires a mixture of supered and non-supered methods like the Javascript example below? ChildClass = new Class.create(ParentClass, { /** * @Override */ initialize: function($super) { $super(); this.foo = 99; }, /** * @Override */ methodOne: function($super) { $super(); this.foo++; }, /** * @Override */ methodTwo: function($super) { this.foo--; } }); After delving into the iPhone and Android SDKs, I noticed that super must be called on every overridden method, or else the program will crash because something wouldn't get initialized. When deriving from a template/delegate, none of the methods are supered (obviously). So what exactly are these "je ne sais quoi" qualities that determine whether a all, none, or some overriden methods should call super?

  Read the article

• What's the equivalent name of "procedure" in OOP?

  - by AeroCross

  In several of my programming courses in the University, my teachers always told me the following: A function and a procedure are basically the same thing: the only difference is that a function returns a value, and the procedure doesn't. That means that this: function sum($a, $b) { return $a + $b; } ... is a function, and this: function sum($a, $b) { echo $a + $b; } ... is a procedure. In the same train of thought, I've seen that a method is the equivalent of a function in the OOP world. That means that this: class Example { function sum($a, $b) { return $a + $b; } } Is a method — but how do you call this? class Example { function sum($a, $b) { echo $a + $b; } } What's the equivalent name, or how do you call a method that doesn't returns anything?

  Read the article

• Where can I learn about every OOP concept?

  - by Mel

  I'm looking for some material that can explain all the concepts related to OOP that doesn't deviate too much from the point. I want something short and understandable for a beginner. I know some of these can be found on wikipedia, but wikipedia is full of minor and sometimes big mistakes and I don't think that is the best choice for learning something. Where should I start ? Also, please don't recommend books of 1000 pages or such.

  Read the article

• The Advantages of a Professional EBay Store Design

  As the economy continues to struggle, more and more people are looking for ways to bring in more money. Many of them have discovered the income potential that is possible from an EBay store. There ar... [Author: Nathan Busby - Web Design and Development - June 12, 2010]

  Read the article

• Empty interface to combine multiple interfaces

  - by user1109519

  Suppose you have two interfaces: interface Readable { public void read(); } interface Writable { public void write(); } In some cases the implementing objects can only support one of these but in a lot of cases the implementations will support both interfaces. The people who use the interfaces will have to do something like: // can't write to it without explicit casting Readable myObject = new MyObject(); // can't read from it without explicit casting Writable myObject = new MyObject(); // tight coupling to actual implementation MyObject myObject = new MyObject(); None of these options is terribly convenient, even more so when considering that you want this as a method parameter. One solution would be to declare a wrapping interface: interface TheWholeShabam extends Readable, Writable {} But this has one specific problem: all implementations that support both Readable and Writable have to implement TheWholeShabam if they want to be compatible with people using the interface. Even though it offers nothing apart from the guaranteed presence of both interfaces. Is there a clean solution to this problem or should I go for the wrapper interface? UPDATE It is in fact often necessary to have an object that is both readable and writable so simply seperating the concerns in the arguments is not always a clean solution. UPDATE2 (extracted as answer so it's easier to comment on) UPDATE3 Please beware that the primary usecase for this is not streams (although they too must be supported). Streams make a very specific distinction between input and output and there is a clear separation of responsibilities. Rather, think of something like a bytebuffer where you need one object you can write to and read from, one object that has a very specific state attached to it. These objects exist because they are very useful for some things like asynchronous I/O, encodings,...

  Read the article

• How do I start correctly in building database classes in c#?

  - by e4rthdog

  I am new in C# programming and in OOP. I need to dive into web applications for my company, and I need to do it fast and correct. So even that I know ASP.NET MVC is the way to go, I want to start with some simple applications with ASP.NET Webforms and then advance to MVC logic. Also regarding my db classes: I plan to create common database classes in order to be able to use them either from WinForms or ASP.NET applications. I also know that the way to go is to learn about ORM and EF. BUT I also want to start from where I am feeling comfortable and that is the traditional ADO.NET way. So about my Data Access Layer classes: Should I return my results in datasets or arraylists/lists? Should my methods do their own connect/disconnect from the db, or have separate methods and let the application maintain the connection?

  Read the article

• An ideal way to decode JSON documents in C?

  - by AzizAG

  Assuming I have an API to consume that uses JSON as a data transmission method, what is an ideal way to decode the JSON returned by each API resource? For example, in Java I'd create a class for each API resource then initiate an object of that class and consume data from it. for example: class UserJson extends JsonParser { public function UserJson(String document) { /*Initial document parsing goes here...*/ } //A bunch of getter methods . . . . } The probably do something like this: UserJson userJson = new UserJson(jsonString);//Initial parsing goes in the constructor String username = userJson.getName();//Parse JSON name property then return it as a String. Or when using a programming language with associative arrays(i.e., hash table) the decoding process doesn't require creating a class: (PHP) $userJson = json_decode($jsonString);//Decode JSON as key=>value $username = $userJson['name']; But, when I'm programming in procedural programming languages (C), I can't go with either method, since C is neither OOP nor supports associative arrays(by default, at least). What is the "correct" method of parsing pre-defined JSON strings(i.e., JSON documents specified by the API provider via examples or documentation)? The method I'm currently using is creating a file for each API resource to parse, the problem with this method is that it's basically a lousy version of the OOP method, as it looks exactly like the OOP method but doesn't provide any OOP benefits(e.g., can't pass an object of the parser, etc.). I've been thinking about encapsulating each API resource parser file in a publicly accessed structure(pointing all functions/publicly usable variables to the structure) then accessing the parser file code from within the structure(parser.parse(), parser.getName(), etc.). As this way looks a bit better than the my current method, it still just a rip off the OOP way, isn't it? Any suggestions for methods to parse JSON documents on procedural programming lanauges? Any comments on the methods I'm currently using(either 3 of them)?

  Read the article

• Breaking up a large PHP object used to abstract the database. Best practices?

  - by John Kershaw

  Two years ago it was thought a single object with functions such as $database->get_user_from_id($ID) would be a good idea. The functions return objects (not arrays), and the front-end code never worries about the database. This was great, until we started growing the database. There's now 30+ tables, and around 150 functions in the database object. It's getting impractical and unmanageable and I'm going to be breaking it up. What is a good solution to this problem? The project is large, so there's a limit to the extent I can change things. My current plan is to extend the current object for each table, then have the database object contain these. So, the above example would turn into (assume "user" is a table) $database->user->get_user_from_id($ID). Instead of one large file, we would have a file for every table.

  Read the article

• Why should I declare a class as an abstract class?

  - by Pied Piper

  I know the syntax, rules applied to abstract class and I want know usage of an abstract class Abstract class can not be instantiated directly but can be extended by other class What is the advantage of doing so? How it is different from an Interface? I know that one class can implement multiple interfaces but can only extend one abstract class. Is that only difference between an interface and an abstract class? I am aware about usage of an Interface. I have learned that from Event delegation model of AWT in Java. In which situations I should declare class as an abstract class? What is benefits of that?

  Read the article

• Should all, none, or some overridden methods call Super?

  - by JoJo

  When designing a class, how do you decide when all overridden methods should call super or when none of the overridden methods should call super? Also, is it considered bad practice if your code logic requires a mixture of supered and non-supered methods like the Javascript example below? ChildClass = new Class.create(ParentClass, { /** * @Override */ initialize: function($super) { $super(); this.foo = 99; }, /** * @Override */ methodOne: function($super) { $super(); this.foo++; }, /** * @Override */ methodTwo: function($super) { this.foo--; } }); After delving into the iPhone and Android SDKs, I noticed that super must be called on every overridden method, or else the program will crash because something wouldn't get initialized. When deriving from a template/delegate, none of the methods are supered (obviously). So what exactly are these "je ne sais quoi" qualities that determine whether a all, none, or some overriden methods should call super?

  Read the article

• Java word scramble game [closed]

  - by Dan

  I'm working on code for a word scramble game in Java. I know the code itself is full of bugs right now, but my main focus is getting a vector of strings broken into two separate vectors containing hints and words. The text file that the strings are taken from has a colon separating them. So here is what I have so far. public WordApp() { inputRow = new TextInputBox(); inputRow.setLocation(200,100); phrases = new Vector <String>(FileUtilities.getStrings()); v_hints = new Vector<String>(); v_words = new Vector<String>(); textBox = new TextBox(200,100); textBox.setLocation(200,200); textBox.setText(scrambled + "\n\n Time Left: \t" + seconds/10 + "\n Score: \t" + score); hintBox = new TextBox(200,200); hintBox.setLocation(300,400); hintBox.hide(); Iterator <String> categorize = phrases.iterator(); while(categorize.hasNext()) { int index = phrases.indexOf(":"); String element = categorize.next(); v_words.add(element.substring(0,index)); v_hints.add(element.substring(index +1)); phrases.remove(index); System.out.print(index); } The FileUtilities file was given to us by the pofessor, here it is. import java.util.*; import java.io.*; public class FileUtilities { private static final String FILE_NAME = "javawords.txt"; //------------------ getStrings ------------------------- // // returns a Vector of Strings // Each string is of the form: word:hint // where word contains no spaces. // The words and hints are read from FILE_NAME // // public static Vector<String> getStrings ( ) { Vector<String> words = new Vector<String>(); File file = new File( FILE_NAME ); Scanner scanFile; try { scanFile = new Scanner( file); } catch ( IOException e) { System.err.println( "LineInput Error: " + e.getMessage() ); return null; } while ( scanFile.hasNextLine() ) { // read the word and follow it by a colon String s = scanFile.nextLine().trim().toUpperCase() + ":"; if( s.length()>1 && scanFile.hasNextLine() ) { // append the hint and add to collection s+= scanFile.nextLine().trim(); words.add(s); } } // shuffle Collections.shuffle(words); return words; } }

  Read the article

• Functional programming compared to OOP with classes

  - by luckysmack

  I have been interested in some of the concepts of functional programming lately. I have used OOP for some time now. I can see how I would build a fairly complex app in OOP. Each object would know how to do things that object does. Or anything it's parents class does as well. So I can simply tell Person().speak() to make the person talk. But how do I do similar things in functional programming? I see how functions are first class items. But that function only does one specific thing. Would I simply have a say() method floating around and call it with an equivalent of Person() argument so I know what kind of thing is saying something? So I can see the simple things, just how would I do the comparable of OOP and objects in functional programming, so I can modularize and organize my code base? For reference, my primary experience with OOP is Python, PHP, and some C#. The languages that I am looking at that have functional features are Scala and Haskell. Though I am leaning towards Scala. Basic Example (Python): Animal(object): def say(self, what): print(what) Dog(Animal): def say(self, what): super().say('dog barks: {0}'.format(what)) Cat(Animal): def say(self, what): super().say('cat meows: {0}'.format(what)) dog = Dog() cat = Cat() dog.say('ruff') cat.say('purr')

  Read the article

• Do delegates defy OOP

  - by Dave Rook

  I'm trying to understand OOP so I can write better OOP code and one thing which keeps coming up is this concept of a delegate (using .NET). I could have an object, which is totally self contained (encapsulated); it knows nothing of the outside world... but then I attach a delegate to it. In my head, this is still quite well separated as the delegate only knows what to reference, but this by itself means it has to know about something else outside it's world! That a method exists within another class! Have I got myself it total muddle here, or is this a grey area, or is this actually down to interpretation (and if so, sorry as that will be off topic I'm sure). My question is, do delegates defy/muddy the OOP pattern?

  Read the article

• Database ERD design: 2 types user in one table

  - by Giskin Leow

  I have read this (Database design: 3 types of users, separate or one table?) I decided to put admin and normal user in one table since the attributes are similar: fullname, address, phone, email, gender ... Then I want to draw ERD, suddenly my mind pop out a question. How to draw? Customer make appointment and admin approve appointment. now only two tables, and admin, customer in same table. Help.

  Read the article

• Contract / Project / Line-Item hierarchy design considerations

  - by Ryan

  We currently have an application that allows users to create a Contract. A contract can have 1 or more Project. A project can have 0 or more sub-projects (which can have their own sub-projects, and so on) as well as 1 or more Line. Lines can have any number of sub-lines (which can have their own sub-lines, and so on). Currently, our design contains circular references, and I'd like to get away from that. Currently, it looks a bit like this: public class Contract { public List<Project> Projects { get; set; } } public class Project { public Contract OwningContract { get; set; } public Project ParentProject { get; set; } public List<Project> SubProjects { get; set; } public List<Line> Lines { get; set; } } public class Line { public Project OwningProject { get; set; } public List ParentLine { get; set; } public List<Line> SubLines { get; set; } } We're using the M-V-VM "pattern" and use these Models (and their associated view models) to populate a large "edit" screen where users can modify their contracts and the properties on all of the objects. Where things start to get confusing for me is when we add, for example, a Cost property to the Line. The issue is reflecting at the highest level (the contract) changes made to the lowest level. Looking for some thoughts as to how to change this design to remove the circular references. One thought I had was that the contract would have a Dictionary<Guid, Project> which would contain ALL projects (regardless of their level in hierarchy). The Project would then have a Guid property called "Parent" which could be used to search the contract's dictionary for the parent object. THe same logic could be applied at the Line level. Thanks! Any help is appreciated.

  Read the article

• What is the use of Association, Aggregation and Composition (Encapsulation) in Classes

  - by SahilMahajanMj

  I have gone through lots of theories about what is encapsulation and the three techniques of implementing it, which are Association, Aggregation and Composition. What i found is, Encapsulation Encapsulation is the technique of making the fields in a class private and providing access to the fields via public methods. If a field is declared private, it cannot be accessed by anyone outside the class, thereby hiding the fields within the class. For this reason, encapsulation is also referred to as data hiding. Encapsulation can be described as a protective barrier that prevents the code and data being randomly accessed by other code defined outside the class. Access to the data and code is tightly controlled by an interface. The main benefit of encapsulation is the ability to modify our implemented code without breaking the code of others who use our code. With this feature Encapsulation gives maintainability, flexibility and extensibility to our code. Association Association is a relationship where all object have their own lifecycle and there is no owner. Let’s take an example of Teacher and Student. Multiple students can associate with single teacher and single student can associate with multiple teachers but there is no ownership between the objects and both have their own lifecycle. Both can create and delete independently. Aggregation Aggregation is a specialize form of Association where all object have their own lifecycle but there is ownership and child object can not belongs to another parent object. Let’s take an example of Department and teacher. A single teacher can not belongs to multiple departments, but if we delete the department teacher object will not destroy. We can think about “has-a” relationship. Composition Composition is again specialize form of Aggregation and we can call this as a “death” relationship. It is a strong type of Aggregation. Child object dose not have their lifecycle and if parent object deletes all child object will also be deleted. Let’s take again an example of relationship between House and rooms. House can contain multiple rooms there is no independent life of room and any room can not belongs to two different house if we delete the house room will automatically delete. The question is: Now these all are real world examples. I am looking for some description about how to use these techniques in actual class code. I mean what is the point for using three different techniques for encapsulation, How these techniques could be implemented and How to choose which technique is applicable at time.

  Read the article

• Is OO-programming really as important as hiring companies place it?

  - by ale

  I am just finishing my masters degree (in computing) and applying for jobs.. I've noticed many companies specifically ask for an understanding of object orientation. Popular interview questions are about inheritance, polymorphism, accessors etc. Is OO really that crucial? I even had an interview for a programming job in C and half the interview was OO. In the real world, developing real applications, is object orientation nearly always used? Are key features like polymorphism used A LOT? I think my question comes from one of my weaknesses.. although I know about OO.. I don't seem to be able to incorporate it a great deal into my programs. I would be really interested to get peoples' thoughts on this!

  Read the article

< Previous Page | 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86  | Next Page >