Search Results

Search found 41160 results on 1647 pages for 'custom object'.

Page 8/1647 | < Previous Page | 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15  | Next Page >

• In Ruby, why does inspect() print out some kind of object id which is different from what object_id(

  - by Jian Lin

  When the p function is used to print out an object, it may give an ID, and it is different from what object_id() gives. What is the reason for the different numbers? >> a = Point.new => #<Point:0x4684abc> >> a.object_id => 36971870 >> a.__id__ => 36971870 >> "%X" % a.object_id => "234255E"

  Read the article

• What is happening in Crockford's object creation technique?

  - by Chris Noe

  There are only 3 lines of code, and yet I'm having trouble fully grasping this: Object.create = function (o) { function F() {} F.prototype = o; return new F(); }; newObject = Object.create(oldObject); (from Prototypal Inheritance) 1) Object.create() starts out by creating an empty function called F. I'm thinking that a function is a kind of object. Where is this F object being stored? Globally I guess. 2) Next our oldObject, passed in as o, becomes the prototype of function F. Function (i.e., object) F now "inherits" from our oldObject, in the sense that name resolution will route through it. Good, but I'm curious what the default prototype is for an object, Object? Is that also true for a function-object? 3) Finally, F is instantiated and returned, becoming our newObject. Is the "new" operation strictly necessary here? Doesn't F already provide what we need, or is there a critical difference between function-objects and non-function-objects? Clearly it won't be possible to have a constructor function using this technique. What happens the next time Object.create() is called? Is global function F overwritten? Surely it is not reused, because that would alter previously configured objects. And what happens if multiple threads call Object.create(), is there any sort of synchronization to prevent race conditions on F?

  Read the article

• Configurable Objects - Introduction

  - by Anthony Shorten

  One of the interesting facilities in the framework is Configurable Object functionality (it is also known as Task Optimization and also known as Cool Tools). The idea is that any implementation can create their own views of the base product objects and services and implement functionality against those new views. For example, in Oracle Utilities Customer Care and Billing, there is a Person object. That object is used to store and manage information about individuals as well as companies. In the base product you would use the Person Maintenance screen and fill in some of the screen when you wanted to register or maintain and individual as well and fill out other parts of the screen when you wanted to register or maintain a company. This can be somewhat confusing to some customers. Using Configurable Objects this can be simplified. A business object can be created that is a view of the any object. For example, you could create a Human business object which would cover the aspects of the Person object pertaining to an individual and a Company business object to cover the aspects unique to a company. Even the tag names (i.e. Field Names) in the object can be changed to be more what the implementation is familiar with. The object can also restructure the object. For example, a common identifier for an individual in the USA is the Social Security number, this value is a Person Identifier (as this varies in each country). In the new Human object you can remap the Person Identifier as a Social Security number. To define a Business Object you use a schema editor built into the browser user interface and use a mapping language to setup the business objects. An example of the language is shown below in an extract of the schema for the Human business object. As you can see there are mapping as well as formatting and other tags. This information can be built manually or using a wizard which generates the base structure for you to alter. This is all stored as meta data when saved. Once a Business object is built it can be used as basis for code, other business objects (we support inheritance), called by a screen (called a UI Map) or even as a Web Service. This is just a start with Configurable Objects as you can also create views of base services called Business Services, Service Scripts used for non-object or complex object processing (as well as other things), UI Maps used for screens and Data Areas to reuse definitions across multiple objects. Configurable Objects are powerful and I only really touched on them here. Over the next few months I hope to add lots more entries about them.

  Read the article

• Qt 4.6 Adding objects and sub-objects to QWebView window object (C++ & Javascript)

  - by Cor

  I am working with Qt's QWebView, and have been finding lots of great uses for adding to the webkit window object. One thing I would like to do is nested objects... for instance: in Javascript I can... var api = new Object; api.os = new Object; api.os.foo = function(){} api.window = new Object(); api.window.bar = function(){} obviously in most cases this would be done through a more OO js-framework. This results in a tidy structure of: >>>api ------------------------------------------------------- - api Object {os=Object, more... } - os Object {} foo function() - win Object {} bar function() ------------------------------------------------------- Right now I'm able to extend the window object with all of the qtC++ methods and signals I need, but they all have 'seem' to have to be in a root child of "window". This is forcing me to write a js wrapper object to get the hierarchy that I want in the DOM. >>>api ------------------------------------------------------- - api Object {os=function, more... } - os_foo function() - win_bar function() ------------------------------------------------------- This is a pretty simplified example... I want objects for parameters, etc... Does anyone know of a way to pass an child object with the object that extends the WebFrame's window object? Here's some example code of how I'm adding the object: mainwindow.h #ifndef MAINWINDOW_H #define MAINWINDOW_H #include <QtGui/QMainWindow> #include <QWebFrame> #include "mainwindow.h" #include "happyapi.h" class QWebView; class QWebFrame; QT_BEGIN_NAMESPACE class MainWindow : public QMainWindow { Q_OBJECT public: MainWindow(QWidget *parent = 0); private slots: void attachWindowObject(); void bluesBros(); private: QWebView *view; HappyApi *api; QWebFrame *frame; }; #endif // MAINWINDOW_H mainwindow.cpp #include <QDebug> #include <QtGui> #include <QWebView> #include <QWebPage> #include "mainwindow.h" #include "happyapi.h" MainWindow::MainWindow(QWidget *parent) : QMainWindow(parent) { view = new QWebView(this); view->load(QUrl("file:///Q:/example.htm")); api = new HappyApi(this); QWebPage *page = view->page(); frame = page->mainFrame(); attachWindowObject(); connect(frame, SIGNAL(javaScriptWindowObjectCleared()), this, SLOT(attachWindowObject())); connect(api, SIGNAL(win_bar()), this, SLOT(bluesBros())); setCentralWidget(view); }; void MainWindow::attachWindowObject() { frame->addToJavaScriptWindowObject(QString("api"), api); }; void MainWindow::bluesBros() { qDebug() << "foo and bar are getting the band back together!"; }; happyapi.h #ifndef HAPPYAPI_H #define HAPPYAPI_H #include <QObject> class HappyApi : public QObject { Q_OBJECT public: HappyApi(QObject *parent); public slots: void os_foo(); signals: void win_bar(); }; #endif // HAPPYAPI_H happyapi.cpp #include <QDebug> #include "happyapi.h" HappyApi::HappyApi(QObject *parent) : QObject(parent) { }; void HappyApi::os_foo() { qDebug() << "foo called, it want's it's bar back"; }; I'm reasonably new to C++ programming (coming from a web and python background). Hopefully this example will serve to not only help other new users, but be something interesting for a more experienced c++ programmer to elaborate on. Thanks for any assistance that can be provided. :)

  Read the article

• Executing Custom Actions immediately in WIX

  - by jbloomer

  Is there any way to execute a custom action in WIX as soon as the first dialog (welcome) appears? The requirement is to check prerequisites, and some of those require a custom action. The custom action could be executed as we click to the next dialog, but then the standard WIX prereqs are determined apart from our custom prereq. (The custom action we need is to check that IIS 6 Metabase Compatibility is turned on and a registry search does not work on x64 machines with a 32-bit installer)

  Read the article

• Accessing a dictionary value by custom object value in Python?

  - by Sam

  So I have a square that's made up of a series of points. At every point there is a corresponding value. What I want to do is build a dictionary like this: class Point: def __init__(self, x, y): self._x = x self._y = y square = {} for x in range(0, 5): for y in range(0, 5): point = Point(x,y) square[point] = None However, if I later create a new point object and try to access the value of the dictionary with the key of that point it doesn't work.. square[Point(2,2)] Traceback (most recent call last): File "<pyshell#19>", line 1, in <module> square[Point(2,2)] KeyError: <__main__.Point instance at 0x02E6C378> I'm guessing that this is because python doesn't consider two objects with the same properties to be the same object? Is there any way around this? Thanks

  Read the article

• .NET (C#) passing messages from a custom control to main application

  - by zer0c00l

  A custom windows form control named 'tweet' is in a dll. The custom control has couple of basic controls to display a tweet. I add this custom control to my main application. This custom control has a button named "retweet", when some user clicks this "retweet" button, i need to send some message to the main application. Unfortunately the this tweet control has no idea about this main application (both or in their own namespaces) How can i send messages from this custom control to the main application?

  Read the article

• Can an object oriented program be seen as a Finite State Machine?

  - by Peretz

  This might be a philosophical/fundamental question, but I just want to clarify it. In my understanding a Finite State Machine is a way of modeling a system in which the system's output will not only depend on the current inputs, but also the current state of the system. Additionally, as the name suggests it, a finite state machine can be segmented in a finite N number of states with its respective state and behavior. If this is correct, shouldn't every single object with data and function members be a state in our object oriented model, making any object oriented design a finite state machine? If that is not the interpretation of a FSM in object design, what exactly people mean when they implement a FSM in software? am I missing something? Thanks

  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

• Questioning one of the arguments for dependency injection: Why is creating an object graph hard?

  - by oberlies

  Dependency injection frameworks like Google Guice give the following motivation for their usage (source): To construct an object, you first build its dependencies. But to build each dependency, you need its dependencies, and so on. So when you build an object, you really need to build an object graph. Building object graphs by hand is labour intensive (...) and makes testing difficult. But I don't buy this argument: Even without dependency injection, I can write classes which are both easy to instantiate and convenient to test. E.g. the example from the Guice motivation page could be rewritten in the following way: class BillingService { private final CreditCardProcessor processor; private final TransactionLog transactionLog; // constructor for tests, taking all collaborators as parameters BillingService(CreditCardProcessor processor, TransactionLog transactionLog) { this.processor = processor; this.transactionLog = transactionLog; } // constructor for production, calling the (productive) constructors of the collaborators public BillingService() { this(new PaypalCreditCardProcessor(), new DatabaseTransactionLog()); } public Receipt chargeOrder(PizzaOrder order, CreditCard creditCard) { ... } } So there may be other arguments for dependency injection (which are out of scope for this question!), but easy creation of testable object graphs is not one of them, is it?

  Read the article

• Is there an alternative to the term "calling object"?

  - by ybakos

  Let's suppose you've got a class defined (in pseudocode): class Puppy { // ... string sound = "Rawr!"; void bark() { print(sound); } } And say, given a Puppy instance, you call it's bark() method: Puppy p; p.bark(); Notice how bark() uses the member variable sound. In many contexts, I've seen folks describe sound as the member variable of the "calling object." My question is, what's a better term to use than "calling object?" To me, the object is not doing any calling. We know that member functions are in a way just functions with an implicit this or self parameter. I've come up with "receiving object," or "message recipient," which makes sense if you're down with the "messaging" paradigm. Do any of you happy hackers have a term that you like to use? I feel it should mean "the object upon which a method is called" and TOUWAMIC just doesn't cut it.

  Read the article

• spl_object_hash for PHP < 5.2 (unique ID for object instances)

  - by Rowan

  I'm trying to get unique IDs for object instances in PHP 5+. The function, spl_object_hash() is available from PHP 5.2 but I'm wondering if there's a workaround for older versions. There are a couple of functions in the comments on php.net but they're not working for me. The first (simplified): function spl_object_hash($object){ if (is_object($object)){ return md5((string)$object); } return null; } does not work with native objects (such as DOMDocument), and the second: function spl_object_hash($object){ if (is_object($object)){ ob_start(); var_dump($object); $dump = ob_get_contents(); ob_end_clean(); if (preg_match('/^object\(([a-z0-9_]+)\)\#(\d)+/i', $dump, $match)) { return md5($match[1] . $match[2]); } } return null; } looks like it could be a major performance buster! Does anybody have anything up their sleeve?

  Read the article

• PHP: How do I access child properties from a method in a base object?

  - by Nick

  I'd like for all of my objects to be able to return a JSON string of themselves. So I created a base class for all of my objects to extend, with an AsJSON() method: class BaseObject { public function AsJSON() { $JSON=array(); foreach ($this as $key = $value) { if(is_null($value)) continue; $JSON[$key] = $value; } return json_encode($JSON); } } And then extend my child classes from that: class Package extends BaseObject { ... } So in my code, I expect to do this: $Box = new Package; $Box-SetID('123'); $Box-SetName('12x8x6'); $Box-SetBoxX('12'); $Box-SetBoxY('8'); $Box-SetBoxZ('6'); echo $Box-AsJSON(); But the JSON string it returns only contains the BaseClass's properties, not the child properties. How do I modify my AsJSON() function so that $this refers to the child's properties, not the parent's?

  Read the article

• Why "object reference not set to an instance of an object" doesn't tell us which object?

  - by Saeed Neamati

  We're launching a system, and we sometimes get the famous exception NullReferenceException with the message Object reference not set to an instance of an object. However, in a method where we have almost 20 objects, having a log which says an object is null, is really of no use at all. It's like telling you, when you are the security agent of a seminar, that a man among 100 attendees is a terrorist. That's really of no use to you at all. You should get more information, if you want to detect which man is the threatening man. Likewise, if we want to remove the bug, we do need to know which object is null. Now, something has obsessed my mind for several months, and that is: Why .NET doesn't give us the name, or at least the type of the object reference, which is null?. Can't it understand the type from reflection or any other source? Also, what are the best practices to understand which object is null? Should we always test nullability of objects in these contexts manually and log the result? Is there a better way?

  Read the article

• Associating an object with another object for GC clearup

  - by thecoop

  Is there any way of associating an object instance (object A) with a second object (object B) in a generalised way, so that when B gets collected A becomes eligable for collection? The same behaviour that would happen if B had an instance variable pointing to A, but without explicitly changing the class definition of B, and being able to do this in a dynamic way? The same sort of effect could be done by using the Component.Disposed event in a funky way, but I don't want to make B disposable EDIT I'm basically creating a cache of objects that are associated with a single 'root' object, and I don't want the cache to be static, as there can be lots of root objects using different caches, so lots of memory will be used up when a root object is no longer used but the cached objects are still around. So, I want a collection of cached objects to be associated with each 'root' object, without changing the root object definition. Sort of like metadata of an extra object reference attached to each root object instance. That way, each collection will get collected when the root object is collected, and not hang around like they would if a static cache was used.

  Read the article

• NHibernate Pitfalls: Custom Types and Detecting Changes

  - by Ricardo Peres

  This is part of a series of posts about NHibernate Pitfalls. See the entire collection here. NHibernate supports the declaration of properties of user-defined types, that is, not entities, collections or primitive types. These are used for mapping a database columns, of any type, into a different type, which may not even be an entity; think, for example, of a custom user type that converts a BLOB column into an Image. User types must implement interface NHibernate.UserTypes.IUserType. This interface specifies an Equals method that is used for comparing two instances of the user type. If this method returns false, the entity is marked as dirty, and, when the session is flushed, will trigger an UPDATE. So, in your custom user type, you must implement this carefully so that it is not mistakenly considered changed. For example, you can cache the original column value inside of it, and compare it with the one in the other instance. Let’s see an example implementation of a custom user type that converts a Byte[] from a BLOB column into an Image: 1: [Serializable] 2: public sealed class ImageUserType : IUserType 3: { 4: private Byte[] data = null; 5: 6: public ImageUserType() 7: { 8: this.ImageFormat = ImageFormat.Png; 9: } 10: 11: public ImageFormat ImageFormat 12: { 13: get; 14: set; 15: } 16: 17: public Boolean IsMutable 18: { 19: get 20: { 21: return (true); 22: } 23: } 24: 25: public Object Assemble(Object cached, Object owner) 26: { 27: return (cached); 28: } 29: 30: public Object DeepCopy(Object value) 31: { 32: return (value); 33: } 34: 35: public Object Disassemble(Object value) 36: { 37: return (value); 38: } 39: 40: public new Boolean Equals(Object x, Object y) 41: { 42: return (Object.Equals(x, y)); 43: } 44: 45: public Int32 GetHashCode(Object x) 46: { 47: return ((x != null) ? x.GetHashCode() : 0); 48: } 49: 50: public override Int32 GetHashCode() 51: { 52: return ((this.data != null) ? this.data.GetHashCode() : 0); 53: } 54: 55: public override Boolean Equals(Object obj) 56: { 57: ImageUserType other = obj as ImageUserType; 58: 59: if (other == null) 60: { 61: return (false); 62: } 63: 64: if (Object.ReferenceEquals(this, other) == true) 65: { 66: return (true); 67: } 68: 69: return (this.data.SequenceEqual(other.data)); 70: } 71: 72: public Object NullSafeGet(IDataReader rs, String[] names, Object owner) 73: { 74: Int32 index = rs.GetOrdinal(names[0]); 75: Byte[] data = rs.GetValue(index) as Byte[]; 76: 77: this.data = data as Byte[]; 78: 79: if (data == null) 80: { 81: return (null); 82: } 83: 84: using (MemoryStream stream = new MemoryStream(this.data ?? new Byte[0])) 85: { 86: return (Image.FromStream(stream)); 87: } 88: } 89: 90: public void NullSafeSet(IDbCommand cmd, Object value, Int32 index) 91: { 92: if (value != null) 93: { 94: Image data = value as Image; 95: 96: using (MemoryStream stream = new MemoryStream()) 97: { 98: data.Save(stream, this.ImageFormat); 99: value = stream.ToArray(); 100: } 101: } 102: 103: (cmd.Parameters[index] as DbParameter).Value = value ?? DBNull.Value; 104: } 105: 106: public Object Replace(Object original, Object target, Object owner) 107: { 108: return (original); 109: } 110: 111: public Type ReturnedType 112: { 113: get 114: { 115: return (typeof(Image)); 116: } 117: } 118: 119: public SqlType[] SqlTypes 120: { 121: get 122: { 123: return (new SqlType[] { new SqlType(DbType.Binary) }); 124: } 125: } 126: } In this case, we need to cache the original Byte[] data because it’s not easy to compare two Image instances, unless, of course, they are the same.

  Read the article

• Use a custom value object or a Guid as an entity identifier in a distributed system?

  - by Kazark

  tl;dr I've been told that in domain-driven design, an identifier for an entity could be a custom value object, i.e. something other than Guid, string, int, etc. Can this really be advisable in a distributed system? Long version I will invent an situation analogous to the one I am currently facing. Say I have a distributed system in which a central concept is an egg. The system allows you to order eggs and see spending reports and inventory-centric data such as quantity on hand, usage, valuation and what have you. There area variety of services backing these behaviors. And say there is also another app which allows you to compose recipes that link to a particular egg type. Now egg type is broken down by the species—ostrich, goose, duck, chicken, quail. This is fine and dandy because it means that users don't end up with ostrich eggs when they wanted quail eggs and whatnot. However, we've been getting complaints because jumbo chicken eggs are not even close to equivalent to small ones. The price is different, and they really aren't substitutable in recipes. And here we thought we were doing users a favor by not overwhelming them with too many options. Currently each of the services (say, OrderSubmitter, EggTypeDefiner, SpendingReportsGenerator, InventoryTracker, RecipeCreator, RecipeTracker, or whatever) are identifying egg types with an industry-standard integer representation the species (let's call it speciesCode). We realize we've goofed up because this change could effect every service. There are two basic proposed solutions: Use a predefined identifier type like Guid as the eggTypeID throughout all the services, but make EggTypeDefiner the only service that knows that this maps to a speciesCode and eggSizeCode (and potentially to an isOrganic flag in the future, or whatever). Use an EggTypeID value object which is a combination of speciesCode and eggSizeCode in every service. I've proposed the first solution because I'm hoping it better encapsulates the definition of what an egg type is in the EggTypeDefiner and will be more resilient to changes, say if some people now want to differentiate eggs by whether or not they are "organic". The second solution is being suggested by some people who understand DDD better than I do in the hopes that less enrichment and lookup will be necessary that way, with the justification that in DDD using a value object as an ID is fine. Also, they are saying that EggTypeDefiner is not a domain and EggType is not an entity and as such should not have a Guid for an ID. However, I'm not sure the second solution is viable. This "value object" is going to have to be serialized into JSON and URLs for GET requests and used with a variety of technologies (C#, JavaScript...) which breaks encapsulation and thus removes any behavior of the identifier value object (is either of the fields optional? etc.) Is this a case where we want to avoid something that would normally be fine in DDD because we are trying to do DDD in a distributed fashion? Summary Can it be a good idea to use a custom value object as an identifier in a distributed system (solution #2)?

  Read the article

• Custom PCI bracket with support, for custom PCB?

  - by newbiez

  I am considering to put a custom PCB card that I made, into my computer. It won't go on any PCI connector, it plugs in on a USB connector on the motherboard, via a ribbon cable. I need thou to plug a device to it; which means that either I leave the PCB outside the case, hanging by the ribbon (bad idea), or I could put it in a PCI slot, using a bracket. The issue is that the brackets that I have, do not have tabs, so I have no way to screw the PCB on them. I was hoping to find something that would allow me to put the PCB on it, and then just fit it in the PCI bracket opening, like this: http://www.idotpc.com/TheStore/pc/viewPrd.asp?idproduct=1203&idcategory=0 This one won't fit the bill since the holes are too close apart, compared to the one that I have already on the PCB (and can't make more holes). Do you know if there is a place where they make universal PCI bracket mounting systems for custom PCB? I just need one, so can't even order a custom one (they ask me 120 dollars for one). Thanks in advance!

  Read the article

• JavaScriptSerializer deserialize object "collection" as property in object failing

  - by bill

  Hi All, I have a js object structured like: object.property1 = "some string"; object.property2 = "some string"; object.property3.property1 = "some string"; object.property3.property2 = "some string"; object.property3.property2 = "some string"; i'm using JSON.stringify(object) to pass this with ajax request. When i try to deserialize this using JavaScriptSerializer.Deserialize as a Dictionary i get the following error: No parameterless constructor defined for type of 'System.String'. This exact same process is working for regular object with non "collection" properties.. thanks for any help!

  Read the article

• Object mapping in objective-c (iphone) from JSON

  - by freshfunk

  For my iPhone app, I'm consuming a RESTful service and getting JSON. I've found libraries to deserialize this into an NSDictionary. However, I'm wondering if there are any libraries to deserialize the JSON/NSDictionary/Property List into my object (an arbitrary one on my side). The java equivalent would be the object-relational mappers although the sort of object mapping I'm looking for is relatively straightforward (simple data types, no complex relationships, etc.). I noticed that Objective-C does have introspection so it seems theoretically possible but I haven't found a library to do it. Or is there a simple way to load an object from an NSDictionary/Property List object that doesn't require modification every time the object changes? For example: { "id" : "user1", "name" : "mister foobar" "age" : 20 } gets loaded into object @interface User : NSObject { NSString *id; NSString *name; int *age; }

  Read the article

• Can I add custom methods/attributes to built-in Python types?

  - by sfjedi

  For example—say I want to add a helloWorld() method to Python's dict type. Can I do this? JavaScript has a prototype object that behaves this way. Maybe it's bad design and I should subclass the dict object, but then it only works on the subclasses and I want it to work on any and all future dictionaries. Here's how it would go down in JavaScript: String.prototype.hello = function() { alert("Hello, " + this + "!"); } "Jed".hello() //alerts "Hello, Jed!" Here's a useful link with more examples— http://www.javascriptkit.com/javatutors/proto3.shtml

  Read the article

• using an existing object in ajax-called php files?

  - by noname

  i have in my index.php created an object and set some property values. then i use jquery ajax to call some php files and i want to use the object created. i tried this one but it didn´t work: ---- in index.php ---- // Create a new object session_start(); $object = new stdClass(); $object->value = 'something'; $object->other_value = 'something else'; // Save the object in the user's session $_SESSION['object'] = $object; ---- Then in the next page that loads from AJAX ---- // Start the session saved from last time session_start(); // Get the object out $object = $_SESSION['object']; // Prints "something" print $object->value; how do i accomplish this. cause i dont want to recreate the object in every ajaxcalled php script. thanks in advance!

  Read the article

• What's the benefit of object-oriented programming over procedural programming?

  - by niko

  I'm trying to understand the difference between procedural languages like C and object-oriented languages like C++. I've never used C++, but I've been discussing with my friends on how to differentiate the two. I've been told C++ has object-oriented concepts as well as public and private modes for definition of variables: things C does not have. I've never had to use these for while developing programs in Visual Basic.NET: what are the benefits of these? I've also been told that if a variable is public, it can be accessed anywhere, but it's not clear how that's different from a global variable in a language like C. It's also not clear how a private variable differs from a local variable. Another thing I've heard is that, for security reasons, if a function needs to be accessed it should be inherited first. The use-case is that an administrator should only have as much rights as they need and not everything, but it seems a conditional would work as well: if ( login == "admin") { // invoke the function } Why is this not ideal? Given that there seems to be a procedural way to do everything object-oriented, why should I care about object-oriented programming?

  Read the article

• Questioning the motivation for dependency injection: Why is creating an object graph hard?

  - by oberlies

  Dependency injection frameworks like Google Guice give the following motivation for their usage (source): To construct an object, you first build its dependencies. But to build each dependency, you need its dependencies, and so on. So when you build an object, you really need to build an object graph. Building object graphs by hand is labour intensive (...) and makes testing difficult. But I don't buy this argument: Even without dependency injection, I can write classes which are both easy to instantiate and convenient to test. E.g. the example from the Guice motivation page could be rewritten in the following way: class BillingService { private final CreditCardProcessor processor; private final TransactionLog transactionLog; // constructor for tests, taking all collaborators as parameters BillingService(CreditCardProcessor processor, TransactionLog transactionLog) { this.processor = processor; this.transactionLog = transactionLog; } // constructor for production, calling the (productive) constructors of the collaborators public BillingService() { this(new PaypalCreditCardProcessor(), new DatabaseTransactionLog()); } public Receipt chargeOrder(PizzaOrder order, CreditCard creditCard) { ... } } So dependency injection may really be an advantage in advanced use cases, but I don't need it for easy construction and testability, do I?

  Read the article

• Is the Entity Component System architecture object oriented by definition?

  - by tieTYT

  Is the Entity Component System architecture object oriented, by definition? It seems more procedural or functional to me. My opinion is that it doesn't prevent you from implementing it in an OO language, but it would not be idiomatic to do so in a staunchly OO way. It seems like ECS separates data (E & C) from behavior (S). As evidence: The idea is to have no game methods embedded in the entity. And: The component consists of a minimal set of data needed for a specific purpose Systems are single purpose functions that take a set of entities which have a specific component I think this is not object oriented because a big part of being object oriented is combining your data and behavior together. As evidence: In contrast, the object-oriented approach encourages the programmer to place data where it is not directly accessible by the rest of the program. Instead, the data is accessed by calling specially written functions, commonly called methods, which are bundled in with the data. ECS, on the other hand, seems to be all about separating your data from your behavior.

  Read the article

< Previous Page | 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15  | Next Page >