Search Results

Search found 29788 results on 1192 pages for 'object lifetime'.

Page 8/1192 | < Previous Page | 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15  | Next Page >

  • Does command/query separation apply to a method that creates an object and returns its ID?

    - by Gilles
    Let's pretend we have a service that calls a business process. This process will call on the data layer to create an object of type A in the database. Afterwards we need to call again on another class of the data layer to create an instance of type B in the database. We need to pass some information about A for a foreign key. In the first method we create an object (modify state) and return it's ID (query) in a single method. In the second method we have two methods, one (createA) for the save and the other (getId) for the query. public void FirstMethod(Info info) { var id = firstRepository.createA(info); secondRepository.createB(id); } public void SecondMethod(Info info) { firstRepository.createA(info); var key = firstRepository.getID(info); secondRepository.createB(key); } From my understanding the second method follows command query separation more fully. But I find it wasteful and counter-intuitive to query the database to get the object we have just created. How do you reconcile CQS with such a scenario? Does only the second method follow CQS and if so is it preferable to use it in this case?

    Read the article

  • If an entity is composed, is it still a god object?

    - by Telastyn
    I am working on a system to configure hardware. Unfortunately, there is tons of variety in the hardware, which means there's a wide variety of capabilities and configurations depending on what specific hardware the software connects to. To deal with this, we're using a Component Based Entity design where the "hardware" class itself is a very thin container for components that are composed at runtime based on what capabilities/configuration are available. This works great, and the design itself has worked well elsewhere (particularly in games). The problem is that all this software does is configure the hardware. As such, almost all of the code is a component of the hardware instance. While the consumer only ever works against the strongly typed interfaces for the components, it could be argued that the class that represents an instance of the hardware is a God Object. If you want to do anything to/with the hardware, you query an interface and work with it. So, even if the components of an object are modular and decoupled well, is their container a God Object and the downsides associated with the anti-pattern?

    Read the article

  • How to make this OO?

    - by John
    Hello, Sorry for the poor title,I'm new to OOP so I don't know what is the term for what I need to do. I have, say, 10 different Objects that inherit one Object.They have different amount and type of class members,but all of them have one property in common - Visible. type TObj1=class(TObject) private a:integer; ...(More members) Visible:Boolean; end; TObj2=class(TObject) private b:String; ...(More members) Visible:Boolean; end; ...(Other 8 objects) For each of them I have a variable. var Obj1:TObj1; Obj2:TObj2; Obj3:TObj3; ....(Other 7 objects) Rule 1: Only one object can be initialized at a time(others have to be freed) to be visible. For this rule I have a global variable var CurrentVisibleObj:TObject; //Because they all inherit TObject Finally there is a procedure that changes visibility. procedure ChangeObjVisibility(newObj:TObject); begin CurrentVisibleObj.Free; //Free the old object CurrentVisibleObj:=newObj; //assign the new object CurrentVisibleObj:= ??? //Create new object CurrentVisibleObj.Visible:=true; //Set visibility to new object end; There is my problem,I don't know how to initialize it,because the derived class is unknown. How do I do this? I simplified the explanation,in the project there are TFrames each having different controls and I have to set visible/not visible the same way(By leaving only one frame initialized). Sorry again for the title,I'm very new to OOP.

    Read the article

  • Using Stub Objects

    - by user9154181
    Having told the long and winding tale of where stub objects came from and how we use them to build Solaris, I'd like to focus now on the the nuts and bolts of building and using them. The following new features were added to the Solaris link-editor (ld) to support the production and use of stub objects: -z stub This new command line option informs ld that it is to build a stub object rather than a normal object. In this mode, it accepts the same command line arguments as usual, but will quietly ignore any objects and sharable object dependencies. STUB_OBJECT Mapfile Directive In order to build a stub version of an object, its mapfile must specify the STUB_OBJECT directive. When producing a non-stub object, the presence of STUB_OBJECT causes the link-editor to perform extra validation to ensure that the stub and non-stub objects will be compatible. ASSERT Mapfile Directive All data symbols exported from the object must have an ASSERT symbol directive in the mapfile that declares them as data and supplies the size, binding, bss attributes, and symbol aliasing details. When building the stub objects, the information in these ASSERT directives is used to create the data symbols. When building the real object, these ASSERT directives will ensure that the real object matches the linking interface presented by the stub. Although ASSERT was added to the link-editor in order to support stub objects, they are a general purpose feature that can be used independently of stub objects. For instance you might choose to use an ASSERT directive if you have a symbol that must have a specific address in order for the object to operate properly and you want to automatically ensure that this will always be the case. The material presented here is derived from a document I originally wrote during the development effort, which had the dual goals of providing supplemental materials for the stub object PSARC case, and as a set of edits that were eventually applied to the Oracle Solaris Linker and Libraries Manual (LLM). The Solaris 11 LLM contains this information in a more polished form. Stub Objects A stub object is a shared object, built entirely from mapfiles, that supplies the same linking interface as the real object, while containing no code or data. Stub objects cannot be used at runtime. However, an application can be built against a stub object, where the stub object provides the real object name to be used at runtime, and then use the real object at runtime. When building a stub object, the link-editor ignores any object or library files specified on the command line, and these files need not exist in order to build a stub. Since the compilation step can be omitted, and because the link-editor has relatively little work to do, stub objects can be built very quickly. Stub objects can be used to solve a variety of build problems: Speed Modern machines, using a version of make with the ability to parallelize operations, are capable of compiling and linking many objects simultaneously, and doing so offers significant speedups. However, it is typical that a given object will depend on other objects, and that there will be a core set of objects that nearly everything else depends on. It is necessary to impose an ordering that builds each object before any other object that requires it. This ordering creates bottlenecks that reduce the amount of parallelization that is possible and limits the overall speed at which the code can be built. Complexity/Correctness In a large body of code, there can be a large number of dependencies between the various objects. The makefiles or other build descriptions for these objects can become very complex and difficult to understand or maintain. The dependencies can change as the system evolves. This can cause a given set of makefiles to become slightly incorrect over time, leading to race conditions and mysterious rare build failures. Dependency Cycles It might be desirable to organize code as cooperating shared objects, each of which draw on the resources provided by the other. Such cycles cannot be supported in an environment where objects must be built before the objects that use them, even though the runtime linker is fully capable of loading and using such objects if they could be built. Stub shared objects offer an alternative method for building code that sidesteps the above issues. Stub objects can be quickly built for all the shared objects produced by the build. Then, all the real shared objects and executables can be built in parallel, in any order, using the stub objects to stand in for the real objects at link-time. Afterwards, the executables and real shared objects are kept, and the stub shared objects are discarded. Stub objects are built from a mapfile, which must satisfy the following requirements. The mapfile must specify the STUB_OBJECT directive. This directive informs the link-editor that the object can be built as a stub object, and as such causes the link-editor to perform validation and sanity checking intended to guarantee that an object and its stub will always provide identical linking interfaces. All function and data symbols that make up the external interface to the object must be explicitly listed in the mapfile. The mapfile must use symbol scope reduction ('*'), to remove any symbols not explicitly listed from the external interface. All global data exported from the object must have an ASSERT symbol attribute in the mapfile to specify the symbol type, size, and bss attributes. In the case where there are multiple symbols that reference the same data, the ASSERT for one of these symbols must specify the TYPE and SIZE attributes, while the others must use the ALIAS attribute to reference this primary symbol. Given such a mapfile, the stub and real versions of the shared object can be built using the same command line for each, adding the '-z stub' option to the link for the stub object, and omiting the option from the link for the real object. To demonstrate these ideas, the following code implements a shared object named idx5, which exports data from a 5 element array of integers, with each element initialized to contain its zero-based array index. This data is available as a global array, via an alternative alias data symbol with weak binding, and via a functional interface. % cat idx5.c int _idx5[5] = { 0, 1, 2, 3, 4 }; #pragma weak idx5 = _idx5 int idx5_func(int index) { if ((index 4)) return (-1); return (_idx5[index]); } A mapfile is required to describe the interface provided by this shared object. % cat mapfile $mapfile_version 2 STUB_OBJECT; SYMBOL_SCOPE { _idx5 { ASSERT { TYPE=data; SIZE=4[5] }; }; idx5 { ASSERT { BINDING=weak; ALIAS=_idx5 }; }; idx5_func; local: *; }; The following main program is used to print all the index values available from the idx5 shared object. % cat main.c #include <stdio.h> extern int _idx5[5], idx5[5], idx5_func(int); int main(int argc, char **argv) { int i; for (i = 0; i The following commands create a stub version of this shared object in a subdirectory named stublib. elfdump is used to verify that the resulting object is a stub. The command used to build the stub differs from that of the real object only in the addition of the -z stub option, and the use of a different output file name. This demonstrates the ease with which stub generation can be added to an existing makefile. % cc -Kpic -G -M mapfile -h libidx5.so.1 idx5.c -o stublib/libidx5.so.1 -zstub % ln -s libidx5.so.1 stublib/libidx5.so % elfdump -d stublib/libidx5.so | grep STUB [11] FLAGS_1 0x4000000 [ STUB ] The main program can now be built, using the stub object to stand in for the real shared object, and setting a runpath that will find the real object at runtime. However, as we have not yet built the real object, this program cannot yet be run. Attempts to cause the system to load the stub object are rejected, as the runtime linker knows that stub objects lack the actual code and data found in the real object, and cannot execute. % cc main.c -L stublib -R '$ORIGIN/lib' -lidx5 -lc % ./a.out ld.so.1: a.out: fatal: libidx5.so.1: open failed: No such file or directory Killed % LD_PRELOAD=stublib/libidx5.so.1 ./a.out ld.so.1: a.out: fatal: stublib/libidx5.so.1: stub shared object cannot be used at runtime Killed We build the real object using the same command as we used to build the stub, omitting the -z stub option, and writing the results to a different file. % cc -Kpic -G -M mapfile -h libidx5.so.1 idx5.c -o lib/libidx5.so.1 Once the real object has been built in the lib subdirectory, the program can be run. % ./a.out [0] 0 0 0 [1] 1 1 1 [2] 2 2 2 [3] 3 3 3 [4] 4 4 4 Mapfile Changes The version 2 mapfile syntax was extended in a number of places to accommodate stub objects. Conditional Input The version 2 mapfile syntax has the ability conditionalize mapfile input using the $if control directive. As you might imagine, these directives are used frequently with ASSERT directives for data, because a given data symbol will frequently have a different size in 32 or 64-bit code, or on differing hardware such as x86 versus sparc. The link-editor maintains an internal table of names that can be used in the logical expressions evaluated by $if and $elif. At startup, this table is initialized with items that describe the class of object (_ELF32 or _ELF64) and the type of the target machine (_sparc or _x86). We found that there were a small number of cases in the Solaris code base in which we needed to know what kind of object we were producing, so we added the following new predefined items in order to address that need: NameMeaning ...... _ET_DYNshared object _ET_EXECexecutable object _ET_RELrelocatable object ...... STUB_OBJECT Directive The new STUB_OBJECT directive informs the link-editor that the object described by the mapfile can be built as a stub object. STUB_OBJECT; A stub shared object is built entirely from the information in the mapfiles supplied on the command line. When the -z stub option is specified to build a stub object, the presence of the STUB_OBJECT directive in a mapfile is required, and the link-editor uses the information in symbol ASSERT attributes to create global symbols that match those of the real object. When the real object is built, the presence of STUB_OBJECT causes the link-editor to verify that the mapfiles accurately describe the real object interface, and that a stub object built from them will provide the same linking interface as the real object it represents. All function and data symbols that make up the external interface to the object must be explicitly listed in the mapfile. The mapfile must use symbol scope reduction ('*'), to remove any symbols not explicitly listed from the external interface. All global data in the object is required to have an ASSERT attribute that specifies the symbol type and size. If the ASSERT BIND attribute is not present, the link-editor provides a default assertion that the symbol must be GLOBAL. If the ASSERT SH_ATTR attribute is not present, or does not specify that the section is one of BITS or NOBITS, the link-editor provides a default assertion that the associated section is BITS. All data symbols that describe the same address and size are required to have ASSERT ALIAS attributes specified in the mapfile. If aliased symbols are discovered that do not have an ASSERT ALIAS specified, the link fails and no object is produced. These rules ensure that the mapfiles contain a description of the real shared object's linking interface that is sufficient to produce a stub object with a completely compatible linking interface. SYMBOL_SCOPE/SYMBOL_VERSION ASSERT Attribute The SYMBOL_SCOPE and SYMBOL_VERSION mapfile directives were extended with a symbol attribute named ASSERT. The syntax for the ASSERT attribute is as follows: ASSERT { ALIAS = symbol_name; BINDING = symbol_binding; TYPE = symbol_type; SH_ATTR = section_attributes; SIZE = size_value; SIZE = size_value[count]; }; The ASSERT attribute is used to specify the expected characteristics of the symbol. The link-editor compares the symbol characteristics that result from the link to those given by ASSERT attributes. If the real and asserted attributes do not agree, a fatal error is issued and the output object is not created. In normal use, the link editor evaluates the ASSERT attribute when present, but does not require them, or provide default values for them. The presence of the STUB_OBJECT directive in a mapfile alters the interpretation of ASSERT to require them under some circumstances, and to supply default assertions if explicit ones are not present. See the definition of the STUB_OBJECT Directive for the details. When the -z stub command line option is specified to build a stub object, the information provided by ASSERT attributes is used to define the attributes of the global symbols provided by the object. ASSERT accepts the following: ALIAS Name of a previously defined symbol that this symbol is an alias for. An alias symbol has the same type, value, and size as the main symbol. The ALIAS attribute is mutually exclusive to the TYPE, SIZE, and SH_ATTR attributes, and cannot be used with them. When ALIAS is specified, the type, size, and section attributes are obtained from the alias symbol. BIND Specifies an ELF symbol binding, which can be any of the STB_ constants defined in <sys/elf.h>, with the STB_ prefix removed (e.g. GLOBAL, WEAK). TYPE Specifies an ELF symbol type, which can be any of the STT_ constants defined in <sys/elf.h>, with the STT_ prefix removed (e.g. OBJECT, COMMON, FUNC). In addition, for compatibility with other mapfile usage, FUNCTION and DATA can be specified, for STT_FUNC and STT_OBJECT, respectively. TYPE is mutually exclusive to ALIAS, and cannot be used in conjunction with it. SH_ATTR Specifies attributes of the section associated with the symbol. The section_attributes that can be specified are given in the following table: Section AttributeMeaning BITSSection is not of type SHT_NOBITS NOBITSSection is of type SHT_NOBITS SH_ATTR is mutually exclusive to ALIAS, and cannot be used in conjunction with it. SIZE Specifies the expected symbol size. SIZE is mutually exclusive to ALIAS, and cannot be used in conjunction with it. The syntax for the size_value argument is as described in the discussion of the SIZE attribute below. SIZE The SIZE symbol attribute existed before support for stub objects was introduced. It is used to set the size attribute of a given symbol. This attribute results in the creation of a symbol definition. Prior to the introduction of the ASSERT SIZE attribute, the value of a SIZE attribute was always numeric. While attempting to apply ASSERT SIZE to the objects in the Solaris ON consolidation, I found that many data symbols have a size based on the natural machine wordsize for the class of object being produced. Variables declared as long, or as a pointer, will be 4 bytes in size in a 32-bit object, and 8 bytes in a 64-bit object. Initially, I employed the conditional $if directive to handle these cases as follows: $if _ELF32 foo { ASSERT { TYPE=data; SIZE=4 } }; bar { ASSERT { TYPE=data; SIZE=20 } }; $elif _ELF64 foo { ASSERT { TYPE=data; SIZE=8 } }; bar { ASSERT { TYPE=data; SIZE=40 } }; $else $error UNKNOWN ELFCLASS $endif I found that the situation occurs frequently enough that this is cumbersome. To simplify this case, I introduced the idea of the addrsize symbolic name, and of a repeat count, which together make it simple to specify machine word scalar or array symbols. Both the SIZE, and ASSERT SIZE attributes support this syntax: The size_value argument can be a numeric value, or it can be the symbolic name addrsize. addrsize represents the size of a machine word capable of holding a memory address. The link-editor substitutes the value 4 for addrsize when building 32-bit objects, and the value 8 when building 64-bit objects. addrsize is useful for representing the size of pointer variables and C variables of type long, as it automatically adjusts for 32 and 64-bit objects without requiring the use of conditional input. The size_value argument can be optionally suffixed with a count value, enclosed in square brackets. If count is present, size_value and count are multiplied together to obtain the final size value. Using this feature, the example above can be written more naturally as: foo { ASSERT { TYPE=data; SIZE=addrsize } }; bar { ASSERT { TYPE=data; SIZE=addrsize[5] } }; Exported Global Data Is Still A Bad Idea As you can see, the additional plumbing added to the Solaris link-editor to support stub objects is minimal. Furthermore, about 90% of that plumbing is dedicated to handling global data. We have long advised against global data exported from shared objects. There are many ways in which global data does not fit well with dynamic linking. Stub objects simply provide one more reason to avoid this practice. It is always better to export all data via a functional interface. You should always hide your data, and make it available to your users via a function that they can call to acquire the address of the data item. However, If you do have to support global data for a stub, perhaps because you are working with an already existing object, it is still easilily done, as shown above. Oracle does not like us to discuss hypothetical new features that don't exist in shipping product, so I'll end this section with a speculation. It might be possible to do more in this area to ease the difficulty of dealing with objects that have global data that the users of the library don't need. Perhaps someday... Conclusions It is easy to create stub objects for most objects. If your library only exports function symbols, all you have to do to build a faithful stub object is to add STUB_OBJECT; and then to use the same link command you're currently using, with the addition of the -z stub option. Happy Stubbing!

    Read the article

  • constructor function's object literal returns toString() method but no other method

    - by JohnMerlino
    I'm very confused with javascript methods defined in objects and the "this" keyword. In the below example, the toString() method is invoked when Mammal object instantiated: function Mammal(name){ this.name=name; this.toString = function(){ return '[Mammal "'+this.name+'"]'; } } var someAnimal = new Mammal('Mr. Biggles'); alert('someAnimal is '+someAnimal); Despite the fact that the toString() method is not invoked on the object someAnimal like this: alert('someAnimal is '+someAnimal.toString()); It still returns 'someAnimal is [Mammal "Mr. Biggles"]' . That doesn't make sense to me because the toString() function is not being called anywhere. Then to add even more confusion, if I change the toString() method to a method I make up such as random(): function Mammal(name){ this.name=name; this.random = function(){ return Math.floor(Math.random() * 15); } } var someAnimal = new Mammal('Mr. Biggles'); alert(someAnimal); It completely ignores the random method (despite the fact that it is defined the same way was the toString() method was) and returns: [object object] Another issue I'm having trouble understanding with inheritance is the value of "this". For example, in the below example function person(w,h){ width.width = w; width.height = h; } function man(w,h,s) { person.call(this, w, h); this.sex = s; } "this" keyword is being send to the person object clearly. However, does "this" refer to the subclass (man) or the super class (person) when the person object receives it? Thanks for clearing up any of the confusion I have with inheritance and object literals in javascript.

    Read the article

  • java: assigning object reference IDs for custom serialization

    - by Jason S
    For various reasons I have a custom serialization where I am dumping some fairly simple objects to a data file. There are maybe 5-10 classes, and the object graphs that result are acyclic and pretty simple (each serialized object has 1 or 2 references to another that are serialized). For example: class Foo { final private long id; public Foo(long id, /* other stuff */) { ... } } class Bar { final private long id; final private Foo foo; public Bar(long id, Foo foo, /* other stuff */) { ... } } class Baz { final private long id; final private List<Bar> barList; public Baz(long id, List<Bar> barList, /* other stuff */) { ... } } The id field is just for the serialization, so that when I am serializing to a file, I can write objects by keeping a record of which IDs have been serialized so far, then for each object checking whether its child objects have been serialized and writing the ones that haven't, finally writing the object itself by writing its data fields and the IDs corresponding to its child objects. What's puzzling me is how to assign id's. I thought about it, and it seems like there are three cases for assigning an ID: dynamically-created objects -- id is assigned from a counter that increments reading objects from disk -- id is assigned from the number stored in the disk file singleton objects -- object is created prior to any dynamically-created object, to represent a singleton object that is always present. How can I handle these properly? I feel like I'm reinventing the wheel and there must be a well-established technique for handling all the cases.

    Read the article

  • Deriving an HTMLElement Object from jQuery Object

    - by Jasconius
    I'm doing a fairly exhaustive series of DOM manipulations where a few elements (specifically form elements) have some events. I am dynamically creating (actually cloning from a source element) several boxes and assigning a change() event to them. The change event executes, and within the context of the event, "this" is the HTML Element Object. What I need to do at this point however is determine a contact for this HTML Element Object. I have these objects stored already as jQuery entities in assorted arrays, but obviously [HTMLElement Object] != [Object Object] And the trick is that I cannot cast $(this) and make a valid comparison since that would create a new object and the pointer would be different. So... I've been banging my head against this for a while. In the past I've been able to circumvent this problem by doing an innerHTML comparison, but in this case the objects I am comparing are 100% identical, just there's lots of them. Therefore I need a solid comparison. This would be easy if I could somehow derive the HTMLElement object from my originating jQuery object. Thoughts, other ideas? Help. :(

    Read the article

  • Convert JSON flattened for forms back to an object

    - by George Jempty
    I am required (please therefore no nit-picking the requirement, I've already nit-picked it, and this is the req) to convert certain form fields that have "object nesting" embedded in the field names, back to the object(s) themselves. Below are some typical form field names: phones_0_patientPhoneTypeId phones_0_phone phones_1_patientPhoneTypeId phones_1_phone The form fields above were derived from an object such as the one toward the bottom (see "Data"), and that is the format of the object I need to reassemble. It can be assumed that any form field with a name that contains the underscore _ character needs to undergo this conversion. Also that the segment of the form field between underscores, if numeric, signifies a Javascript array, otherwise an object. I found it easy to devise a (somewhat naive) implementation for the "flattening" of the original object for use by the form, but am struggling going in the other direction; below the object/data below I'm pasting my current attempt. One problem (perhaps the only one?) with it is that it does not currently properly account for array indexes, but this might be tricky because the object will subsequently be encoded as JSON, which will not account for sparse arrays. So if "phones_1" exists, but "phones_0" does not, I would nevertheless like to ensure that a slot exists for phones[0] even if that value is null. Implementations that tweak what I have begun, or are entirely different, encouraged. If interested let me know if you'd like to see my code for the "flattening" part that is working. Thanks in advance Data: var obj = { phones: [{ "patientPhoneTypeId": 4, "phone": "8005551212" }, { "patientPhoneTypeId": 2, "phone": "8885551212" }]}; Code to date: var unflattened = {}; for (var prop in values) { if (prop.indexOf('_') > -1) { var lastUnderbarPos = prop.lastIndexOf('_'); var nestedProp = prop.substr(lastUnderbarPos + 1); var nesting = prop.substr(0, lastUnderbarPos).split("_"); var nestedRef, isArray, isObject; for (var i=0, n=nesting.length; i<n; i++) { if (i===0) { nestedRef = unflattened; } if (i < (n-1)) { // not last if (/^\d+$/.test(nesting[i+1])) { isArray = true; isObject = false; } else { isArray = true; isObject = false; } var currProp = nesting[i]; if (!nestedRef[currProp]) { if (isArray) { nestedRef[currProp] = []; } else if (isObject) { nestedRef[currProp] = {}; } } nestedRef = nestedRef[currProp]; } else { nestedRef[nestedProp] = values[prop]; } } }

    Read the article

  • Using an object in an if statement... (Android)

    - by James Rattray
    I have an object variable Object test = Spinner.getSelectedItem(); -It gets the selected item from the Spinner (called spinner) and names the item 'test' I want to do an if statement related to that object e.g: 'if (test = "hello") { //do something }' But it appears not to work.... Can someone give me some help? -Do I have to use a different if? or convert the object to string etc.? Thanks alot... James

    Read the article

  • Scala passing type parameters to object

    - by Shahzad Mian
    In Scala v 2.7.7 I have a file with class Something[T] extends Other { } object Something extends OtherConstructor[Something] { } This throws the error: class Something takes type parameters object Something extends OtherConstructor[Something] { However, I can't do this object Something[T] extends OtherConstructor[Something[T]] { } It throws an error: error: ';' expected but '[' found. Is it possible to send type parameters to object? Or should I change and simply use Otherconstructor

    Read the article

  • Code Contracts Vs. Object Initializers (.net 4.0)

    - by Mystagogue
    At face value, it would seem that object initializers present a problem for .net 4.0 "code contracts", where normally the invariant should be established by the time the object constructor is finished. Presumably, however, object-initializers require properties to be set after construction is complete. My question is if the invariants of "code contracts" are able to handle object initializers, "as if" the properties were set before the constructor completes? That would be very nice indeed!!

    Read the article

  • Check if an object is defined in html

    - by Manikanta
    In HTML, I have an object tag as follows: <OBJECT ID="objectid" CLASSID="some-class-id" CODEBASE="some-codebase"> I have written a function in JavaScript to access this object. I checked the null value as follows: if(objectid==null){-----} i want to check if the object is undefined or is empty. Do we have any functions to check so?

    Read the article

  • So what *did* Alan Kay really mean by the term "object-oriented"?

    - by Charlie Flowers
    Reportedly, Alan Kay is the inventor of the term "object oriented". And he is often quoted as having said that what we call OO today is not what he meant. For example, I just found this on Google: I made up the term 'object-oriented', and I can tell you I didn't have C++ in mind -- Alan Kay, OOPSLA '97 I vaguely remember hearing something pretty insightful about what he did mean. Something along the lines of "message passing". Do you know what he meant? Can you fill in more details of what he meant and how it differs from today's common OO? Please share some references if you have any. Thanks.

    Read the article

  • Where, in an object oriented system should you, if at all, choose (C-style) structs over classes?

    - by Anto
    C and most likely many other languages provide a struct keyword for creating structures (or something in a similar fashion). These are (at least in C), from a simplified point of view like classes, but without polymorphism, inheritance, methods, and so on. Think of an object-oriented (or multi paradigm) language with C-style structs. Where would you choose them over classes? Now, I don't believe they are to be used with OOP as classes seem to replace their purposes, but I wonder if there are situations where they could be preferred over classes in otherwise object-oriented programs and in what kind of situations. Are there such situations?

    Read the article

  • Should I pass an object into a constructor, or instantiate in class?

    - by Prisoner
    Consider these two examples: Passing an object to a constructor class ExampleA { private $config; public function __construct($config) { $this->config = $config; } } $config = new Config; $exampleA = new ExampleA($config); Instantiating a class class ExampleB { private $config; public function __construct() { $this->config = new Config; } } $exampleA = new ExampleA(); Which is the correct way to handle adding an object as a property? When should I use one over the other? Does unit testing affect what I should use?

    Read the article

  • How to design this procedural application into object oriented format?

    - by DavidL
    I'm building an application that basically pulls json data from a bunch of websites, processes it in some way and then writes it to a file. It is very easy to write this in a procedural way. I was wondering how this could be done in an object oriented way. Currently, the application looks something like this: res = get_json(link); process(res); write(res); Even if writing this in an object oriented way is not the best idea, tell me how it could be done because I have trouble with it.

    Read the article

  • Nested function inside literal Object...

    - by Andrea
    Hello guys, if in a literal object i try to reference a function using "this" inside a nested property/function, this don't work. Why? A nested property have it's own scope? For example, i want to call f1 from inside d.f2: var object = { a: "Var a", b: "Var b", c: "Var c", f1: function() { alert("This is f1"); }, d: { f2: function() { this.f1(); } }, e: { f3: function() { alert("This is f3"); } } } object.f1(); // Work object.d.f2(); // Don't Work. object.e.f3(); // Work Thanks, Andrea.

    Read the article

  • Implementation of a general-purpose object structure (property bag)

    - by Thomas Wanner
    We need to implement some general-purpose object structure, much like an object in dynamic languages, that would give us a possibility of creating the whole object graph on-the-fly. This class has to be serializable and somehow user friendly. So far we have made some experiments with class derived from Dictionary<string, object> using the dot notation path to store properties and collections in the object tree. We have also find an article that implements something similar, but it doesn't seem to fit completely into our picture either. Do you know about some good implementations / libraries that deal with a similar problem or do you have any (non-trivial) ideas that could help us with our own implementation ? Also, I probably have to say that we are using .NET 3.5, so we can't take advantage of the new features in .NET 4.0 like dynamic type etc. (as far as I know it's also not possible to use any subset of it in .NET 3.5 solution).

    Read the article

  • stringtemplate .net dynamic object

    - by Mark Milford
    Hi I am using string template to render some content, but the content may be variable so not sure how to pass it in (using .net / c#) Basic idea is I have a List which need to end up as parameters, e.g. List<KeyValuePair<string, object>> ret = new List<KeyValuePair<string, object>>(); ret.Add(new KeyValuePair<string, object>("elem1", true)); ret.Add(new KeyValuePair(string, object>("elem2", false)); Now I want these to show up in string template as: $item.elem1$ $item.elem2$ I can get them to be $elem1$ or $elem2$ but i need them inside of a structure. So I in effect need to convince the string template setAttribute that I'm passing in an object with properties elem1 and elem2 when in fact I have a List of KeyValuePairs. Thanks

    Read the article

  • accessing embedded object with jquery not working in firefox 3.6

    - by taber
    Hi, this code in my plugin used to work just fine: jQuery('#embedded_obj', context).get(0).getVersion(); and in html... <object id="embedded_obj" type="application/x-versionchecker-1.0.0.1"</object Basically trying to get the properties from an embedded object. But it looks like get(0) is returning an html object instead of the actual embedded object. For example, if I do: var launcher = jQuery('#embedded_obj', context).get(0); for(prop in launcher){ alert(prop + ': ' + launcher[prop]); } ... it alerts things like "getElementByNode," "scrollWidth," "clientLeft," "clientTop" etc. Again this worked before Firefox 3.6. Has anyone else seen this or have any ideas/suggestions? Thanks!

    Read the article

  • differences between using wmode="transparent", "opaque", "window" for an embedded object on webpage

    - by Jian Lin
    when embedding a Flash object with the <object and <embed tag, there is an attribute called "wmode". It seems that most of the time, wmode="transparent" is the same as wmode="opaque" as the Flash doesn't actually have any transparent color so that the bottom HTML element is to be shown. As a result, "opaque" should be faster than "transparent" since it require less processing for transparency, yet most of the time i see Flash object embedded with "transparent" instead of "opaque". "opaque" is needed so that other HTML element won't be covered up by the Flash object. (such as a menu item that pops up an extra sub-menu won't be covered up by the Flash object). By the way, is there formal documentation for wmode's "opaque", "transparent", and "window"? I was only able to find blogs that describe it but not the formal documentation. thanks.

    Read the article

  • Scope of object properties & methods

    - by Anish
    In the article Show love to the object literal, it's said: When we have several scripts in a page, the global variables & functions will get overwritten if their name repeats. One solution is to make the variables as properties & functions as methods of an object, and access them via the object name. But will this prevent the issue of variables getting into the global namespace? <script> var movie = { name: "a", trailer: function(){ //code } }; </script> In the above code which elements gets added to the global namespace? a) Just the object name - movie b) Object name as well as the properties and methods inside it – movie, movie.name, movie.trailer()

    Read the article

  • slowly rotate an object towards another object

    - by numerical25
    I have an object that points in the direction of another object (i.e. it rotates to the direction that the second objects x and y coordinates are at) below is the code I use. var distx = target.x - x; var disty = target.y - y; var angle:Number = Math.atan2(disty, distx); var vx:Number = Math.cos(angle) * cspeed; var vy:Number = Math.sin(angle) * cspeed; rotation = angle * 180/Math.PI; x += vx; y += vy; as you can see. Not only does it rotate towards the target object, but it also moves towards it too. When I play the movie, the object instantly points to the targeted object and moves towards it. I would like for it to slowly turn towards the object instead of instantly turning towards it. anyone know how to do this.

    Read the article

  • c# object initializer complexity. best practice

    - by Andrew Florko
    I was too excited when object initializer appeared in C#. MyClass a = new MyClass(); a.Field1 = Value1; a.Field2 = Value2; can be rewritten shorter: MyClass a = new MyClass { Field1 = Value1, Field2 = Value2 } Object initializer code is more obvious but when properties number come to dozen and some of the assignment deals with nullable values it's hard to debug where the "null reference error" is. Studio shows the whole object initializer as error point. Nowadays I use object initializer for straightforward assignment only for error-free properties. How do you use object initializer for complex assignment or it's a bad practice to use dozen of assigments at all? Thank you in advance!

    Read the article

  • Interview question: difference between object and object-oriented languages.

    - by Bar
    My friend was asked the following question: what's the difference between object language and object-oriented language? It's a little unintelligible question. What does term «object language» correspond to? Does that mean «pure» object-oriented language, like the Wikipedia article says: Languages called "pure" OO languages, because everything in them is treated consistently as an object, from primitives such as characters and punctuation, all the way up to whole classes, prototypes, blocks, modules, etc. They were designed specifically to facilitate, even enforce, OO methods. Examples: Smalltalk, Eiffel, Ruby, JADE, VB.NET.

    Read the article

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