Search Results

Search found 15860 results on 635 pages for 'document oriented databas'.

Page 84/635 | < Previous Page | 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91  | Next Page >

  • Avoiding sub-type selection in view code

    - by John Donoghue
    Hi, I have some code where the model contains some classes like (vb.net pseudocode, but could be any OO language): Enum AttributeType Boolean Date String End Enum MustInherit Class Attibute Must Override Function Type As AttributeType End Class Class BooleanAttribute: Attribute Function Type As AttributeType Return AttributeType.Boolean End Function End Class And the view contains some code like: Select Case AttributeType Case Boolean //Display checkbox control Case Date //Display date picker control Case String //Display textbox control End Select I don't really like the code in the view, for the hopefully obvious reasons (what happens when I get a new attribute type etc). My question is, how should I replace it? I could easily add a method to the concrete classes, but that pollutes the model with UI stuff so that's a horrible idea. I could move the select into a factory, but that seems to be just hiding the problem. Can anybody advise a better approach?

    Read the article

  • Why Is Java Missing Access Specifiers?

    - by Tom Tresansky
    Does anyone understand why Java is missing: An access specifier which allows access by the class and all subclasses, but NOT by other classes in the same package? (Protected-minus) An access specifier which allows access by the class, all classes in the same package, AND all classes in any sub-package? (Default-plus) An access specifier which adds classes in sub-packages to the entities currently allowed access by protected? (Protected-plus) I wish I had more choices than protected and default. In particular, I'm interested in the Protected-plus option. Say I want to use a Builder/Factory patterned class to produce an object with many links to other objects. The constructors on the objects are all default, because I want to force you to use the factory class to produce instances, in order to make sure the linking is done correctly. I want to group the factories in a sub-package to keep them all together and distinct from the objects they are instantiating---this just seems like a cleaner package structure to me. No can do, currently. I have to put the builders in the same package as the objects they are constructing, in order to gain the access to defaults. But separating project.area.objects from project.area.objects.builders would be so nice. So why is Java lacking these options? And, is there anyway to fake it?

    Read the article

  • Sharing class member data between sub components

    - by Tim Gradwell
    I have an aggregate 'main' class which contains some data which I wish to share. The main class also has other class members. I want to share the data with these other class members. What is the correct / neatest way to do this? The specific example I have is as follows. The main class is a .net Form. I have some controls (actually controls within controls) on the main form which need access to the shared data. Main Form - DataX - DataY - Control1 -- Subcontrol1 - Control2 -- SubControl2 SubControls 1 and 2 both wish to access DataX and DataY. The trouble is, I feel like better practice (to reduce coupling), would be that either subcontrols should not know about Main Form, or Main Form should not know about subcontrols - probably the former. For subcontrols not to know about Main Form, would probably mean Main Form passing references to both Controls 1 and 2, which in turn would pass the references on to SubControls 1 and 2. Lots of lines of code which just forward the references. If I later added DataZ and DataW, and Controls 3 and 4 and SubControls 3 and 4, I'd have to add lots more reference forwarding code. It seems simpler to me to give SubControls 1 and 2 member references to Main Form. That way, any sub control could just ask for MainForm.DataX or MainForm.DataY and if I ever added new data, I could just access it directly from the sub controls with no hassle. But it still involves setting the 'MainForm' member references every time I add a new Control or Subcontrol. And it gives me a gut feeling of 'wrong'. As you might be able to tell I'm not happy with either of my solutions. Is there a better way? Thanks

    Read the article

  • Does this pattern have a name?

    - by LK7jb
    Disclaimer: I'm trying to learn proper OO programming/design, so I'm pretty new to this stuff. I guess this is a general design patterns question, but I'll base my example on a game engine or something that renders objects to the display. Consider the following: How can this sort of separation between physical objects (e.g., cubes, spheres, etc.) and the rendering mechanism be achieved in an extensible manner? This design is not set in stone, and perhaps I've got something wrong from the start. I'm just curious as to how a problem like this is solved in real world code.

    Read the article

  • How do I define my own operators in the Io programming language?

    - by klep
    I'm trying to define my own operator in Io, and I'm having a hard time. I have an object: MyObject := Object clone do( lst := list() !! := method(n, lst at(n)) ) But when I call it, like this: x := MyObject clone do(lst appendSeq(list(1, 2, 3))) x !! 2 But I get an exception that argument 0 to at must not be nil. How can I fix?

    Read the article

  • How can I call a Perl package I define in the same file?

    - by Robert S. Barnes
    I need to define some modules and use them all in the same file. No, I can't change the requirement. I would like to do something like the following: { package FooObj; sub new { ... } sub add_data { ... } } { package BarObj; use FooObj; sub new { ... # BarObj "has a" FooObj my $self = ( myFoo => FooObj->new() ); ... } sub some_method { ... } } my $bar = BarObj->new(); However, this results in the message: Can't locate FooObj.pm in @INC ... BEGIN failed... How do I get this to work?

    Read the article

  • Creating non-framework calsses in CakePHP

    - by Affian
    I'm making a tournament manager in CakePHP 1.3 and I have a tournament controller which is fine but I want to implement a interface that can be used to define how a tournament runs. the controller needs to load a concrete class that implements the TournamentStyle interface that defines how the tournament works. At the end of a round the TournamentStyle is used to calculate the scores and winners and generate the next round of matches. That gives me a .php file for the interface and other files for the various styles. My question is: where would I put these files and how would I load them into my tournament controller?

    Read the article

  • Separating code logic from the actual data structures. Best practices?

    - by Patrick
    I have an application that loads lots of data into memory (this is because it needs to perform some mathematical simulation on big data sets). This data comes from several database tables, that all refer to each other. The consistency rules on the data are rather complex, and looking up all the relevant data requires quite some hashes and other additional data structures on the data. Problem is that this data may also be changed interactively by the user in a dialog. When the user presses the OK button, I want to perform all the checks to see that he didn't introduce inconsistencies in the data. In practice all the data needs to be checked at once, so I cannot update my data set incrementally and perform the checks one by one. However, all the checking code work on the actual data set loaded in memory, and use the hashing and other data structures. This means I have to do the following: Take the user's changes from the dialog Apply them to the big data set Perform the checks on the big data set Undo all the changes if the checks fail I don't like this solution since other threads are also continuously using the data set, and I don't want to halt them while performing the checks. Also, the undo means that the old situation needs to be put aside, which is also not possible. An alternative is to separate the checking code from the data set (and let it work on explicitly given data, e.g. coming from the dialog) but this means that the checking code cannot use hashing and other additional data structures, because they only work on the big data set, making the checks much slower. What is a good practice to check user's changes on complex data before applying them to the 'application's' data set?

    Read the article

  • What is the right way to implement communication between java objects?

    - by imoschak
    I'm working on an academic project which simulates a rather large queuing procedure in java. The core of the simulator rests within one package where there exist 8 classes, each one implementing a single concept. Every class in the project follows SRP. These classes encapsulate the behavior of the simulator and inter-connect every other class in the project. The problem that has arisen is that most of these 8 classes are, as is logical i think, tightly coupled and each one has to have working knowledge of every other class in this package in order to be able to call methods from it when needed. The application needs only one instance of each class so it might be better to create static fields for each class in a new class and use that to make calls -instead of preserving a reference in each class for every other class in the package (which I'm certain that is incorrect)-, but is this considered a correct design solution? or is there a design pattern maybe that better suits my needs?

    Read the article

  • In what package should a "Settings" class be placed?

    - by Tom
    I'm in the middle of building an application but found myself too easily creating new packages without keeping the project's structure in mind. Now, I'm trying to redo the whole project structure on paper first. I am using a Settings class with public properties, accessed as settings for several other classes around the project. Now, since this Settings class applies for the whole project, I am unsure if it should be packaged and if so, in what kind of package should it exist? Or should it be in the root (the default package) with the main application class? I've been thinking about putting it in my utils package, then again I don't think it really is an utlity. Any strategies on how to decide on such package structure for example for a Settings class?

    Read the article

  • Ignore document style rules in one element.

    - by panzi
    I write a greasemonkey script that adds sticky notes to websites. Because there sometimes are pretty strange style rules used in some websites the sticky notes sometimes turn up messed up (or at least not looking like I want them to look). Is there a way to say "under this element do not apply any generic stylerules"? So that rules associated with tag names are not applied, but rules associated with certain classes and ids still are. Or does anyone have a better idea on how to ensure that only my styles are applied to the sticky notes?

    Read the article

  • Should I share UI for objects that use common fields?

    - by wb
    I have a parent class that holds all of the fields that are common between all device types. From that, I have a few derived classes that each hold their unique fields. Say I have device type "Switch" and "Transformer". Both derived classes only have 2-3 of their own unique fields. When doing the UI design (windows forms) in this case. Should I create two separate forms for each device type or create a user control with all fields that are shared among all devices? Thank you.

    Read the article

  • Singletons and constants

    - by devoured elysium
    I am making a program which makes use of a couple of constants. At first, each time I needed to use a constant, I'd define it as //C# private static readonly int MyConstant = xxx; //Java private static final int MyConstant = xxx; in the class where I'd need it. After some time, I started to realise that some constants would be needed in more than one class. At this time, I had 3 choises: To define them in the different classes that needed it. This leads to repetition. If by some reason later I need to change one of them, I'd have to check in all classes to replace them everywhere. To define a static class/singleton with all the constants as public. If I needed a constant X in ClassA, ClassB and ClassC, I could just define it in ClassA as public, and then have ClassB and ClassC refer to them. This solution doesn't seem that good to me as it introduces even more dependencies as the classes already have between them. I ended up implementing my code with the second option. Is that the best alternative? I feel I am probably missing some other better alternative. What worries me about using the singleton here is that it is nowhere clear to a user of the class that this class is using the singleton. Maybe I could create a ConstantsClass that held all the constants needed and then I'd pass it in the constructor to the classes that'd need it? Thanks

    Read the article

  • One UI for two business objects

    - by JC
    I have an order edit and quote edit screen that are very similar. I want to try to avoid code like this: if (order is Order) SetupScreenForOrder(); if (order is Quote) SetupScreenForQuote(); But maintaining two screens is not good either. If I create some common interface between a Quote and Order then how do you deal with fields like OrderNumber or QuoteDate? What's the best way to handle this?

    Read the article

  • return only one document for each filter defined in the query

    - by Garytxo
    Hi all, In one of my latest projects I use Solr 1.4 for searching products.However I have ran into a slight problem, which I aint sure if its possible to do using Solr. All products are indexed by "country" and "category" and the "id", "class" and "description" are stored values. I now have been requested to extract a sample list of products that we have for a give "category" and "ONLY RETURNING ONE" product for each country where the product is available. In my current implementation, I have a dismax query to get a list of all the countries that correspond to the catergory, then I call again solr to extract all products for each country, limiting the no. rows by the size of the countries found in the previous query. The problem I have with this current implementation is I can not be certain that I have one product for each country in the list. Therefore would anyone know if it possible to tell solr that you want only one product per country provided in the query? Any guidance would be useful.

    Read the article

  • Encapsulating a Windows.Forms.Button

    - by devoured elysium
    I want to define a special kind of button that only allows two possible labels: "ON" and "OFF". I decided to inherit from a Windows.Forms.Button to implement this but now I don't know I how should enforce this rule. Should I just override the Text property like this? public override string Text { set { throw new InvalidOperationException("Invalid operation on StartStopButton!"); } } The problem I see with this is that I am breaking the contract that all buttons should have. If any code tries something like foreach (Button button in myForm) { button.Text = "123"; } they will get an Exception if I have any of my special buttons on the form, which is something that isn't expectable. First, because people think of properties just as "public" variables, not methods, second, because they are used to using and setting whatever they want to buttons without having to worry with Exceptions. Should I instead just make the set property do nothing? That could also lead to awkward results: myButton.Text = "abc"; MessageBox.Show(abc); //not "abc"! The general idea from the OO world is to in this kind of cases use Composition instead of inheritance. public class MySpecialButton : <Some class from System.Windows.Forms that already knows how to draw itself on forms> private Button button = new Button(); //I'd just draw this button on this class //and I'd then only show the fields I consider //relevant to the outside world. ... } But to make the Button "live" on a form it must inherit from some special class. I've looked on Control, but it seems to already have the Text property defined. I guess the ideal situation would be to inherit from some kind of class that wouldn't even have the Text property defined, but that'd have position, size, etc properties available. Upper in the hierarchy, after Control, we have Component, but that looks like a really raw class. Any clue about how to achieve this? I know this was a long post :( Thanks

    Read the article

  • Enums and inheritance

    - by devoured elysium
    I will use (again) the following class hierarchy: Event and all the following classes inherit from Event: SportEventType1 SportEventType2 SportEventType3 SportEventType4 I have originally designed the Event class like this: public abstract class Event { public abstract EventType EventType { get; } public DateTime Time { get; protected set; } protected Event(DateTime time) { Time = time; } } with EventType being defined as: public enum EventType { Sport1, Sport2, Sport3, Sport4 } The original idea would be that each SportEventTypeX class would set its correct EventType. Now that I think of it, I think this approach is totally incorrect for two reasons: If I want to later add a new SportEventType class I will have to modify the enum If I later decide to remove one SportEventType that I feel I won't use I'm also in big trouble with the enum. I have a class variable in the Event class that makes, afterall, assumptions about the kind of classes that will inherit from it, which kinda defeats the purpose of inheritance. How would you solve this kind of situation? Define in the Event class an abstract "Description" property, having each child class implement it? Having an Attribute(Annotation in Java!) set its Description variable instead? What would be the pros/cons of having a class variable instead of attribute/annotation in this case? Is there any other more elegant solution out there? Thanks

    Read the article

  • Adding interfaces that won't be actually used

    - by devoured elysium
    I currently have two interfaces(that I'll name here IA and IB): interface IA { int Width; int Height; ... } interface IB { int Width; int Height; ... } that share the same two properties: they both have a Width and a Height property. I was thinking if there is any point in defining an IMatrix interface containing a Width and Height properties: interface IMatrix { int Width; int Height; } The thing is that although they share both the same properties, I won't make use of polymorphism with IMatrix in any of my coding: i.e., there won't by any situation where I'll want to use an IMatrix, I'll just want to use IA and IB. Adding an IMatrix seems more like over-engineering than other thing, but I'd like to ask you guys what your opinion is on the matter. Thanks

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91  | Next Page >