Search Results

Search found 61651 results on 2467 pages for 'function object'.

Page 86/2467 | < Previous Page | 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93  | Next Page >

• Finding the best practice for a game simulating tool

  - by Tougheart

  I'm studying Java right now, and I'm thinking of this tool as my practice project. The game is "League of Legends" in case anyone knows it, I'm not actually simulating the game as in simulating game play, I'm just trying to create a tool that can compare different champions to each other based on their own abilities and items bought inside the game. The game basics are: Every player has a champion in a team of 5 players playing against another team. Each champion has a different set of abilities (usually 4) that s/he uses to do damage to opposing champions. Each champion gets stronger by buying different items, increasing the attack it deals or decreasing the damage received. What I want to do is to create a tool to be used outside the game enabling players to try out different builds for their champions and compare the figures against other champions they usually fight against. The goal is to enable players get a deeper understanding of the different item combinations (builds) that can be used during the games, instead of trying them out in real games which can be somehow very time consuming. What I'm stuck at is the best practice I should follow to make this possible using Java, I can't figure out which classes should inherit from which, should I make champions and items specs in the code or extracted from other files, specially that I'm talking about hundreds of items and champions to use in that tool. I'm self studying Java, and I don't have much practice at it, so I would really appreciate any broad guidelines regarding this, and sorry if my question doesn't fit here, I tried to follow the rules. English isn't my native language, so I'm really sorry if I wasn't clear enough, I would be more than happy to explain anything that's not understood.

  Read the article

• Figuring out the Call chain

  - by BDotA

  Let's say I have an assemblyA that has a method which creates an instance of assemblyB and calls its MethodFoo(). Now assemblyB also creates an instance of assemblyC and calls MethodFoo(). So no matter if I start with assemblyB in the code flow or with assemlyA, at the end we are calling that MethodFoo of AssemblyC(). My question is when I am in the MethodFoo() how can I know who has called me? Has it been a call originally from assemblyA or was it from assemlyB? Is there any design pattern or a good OO way of solving this?

  Read the article

• Clarify the Single Responsibility Principle.

  - by dsimcha

  The Single Responsibility Principle states that a class should do one and only one thing. Some cases are pretty clear cut. Others, though, are difficult because what looks like "one thing" when viewed at a given level of abstraction may be multiple things when viewed at a lower level. I also fear that if the Single Responsibility Principle is honored at the lower levels, excessively decoupled, verbose ravioli code, where more lines are spent creating tiny classes for everything and plumbing information around than actually solving the problem at hand, can result. How would you describe what "one thing" means? What are some concrete signs that a class really does more than "one thing"?

  Read the article

• What is the order of diagram drawing in a design?

  - by Manuel Malagon

  I'm new with OOP and UML and I have some confusion here. I'd like to know where to start, I mean, somebody comes to you and ask you to do something (involves software design of course), once you have determined what has to be done, what is the order in which you have to start the software architecture? I mean, is it first the use case diagram or the class diagram? or should I draw some diagrams in parallel? But basically, where should I start? and what UML diagram goes first? Thanks for helping!!

  Read the article

• How to Avoid a Busy Loop Inside a Function That Returns the Object That's Being Waited For

  - by Carl Smith

  I have a function which has the same interface as Python's input builtin, but it works in a client-server environment. When it's called, the function, which runs in the server, sends a message to the client, asking it to get some input from the user. The user enters some stuff, or dismisses the prompt, and the result is passed back to the server, which passes it to the function. The function then returns the result. The function must work like Python's input [that's the spec], so it must block until it has the result. This is all working, but it uses a busy loop, which, in practice, could easily be spinning for many minutes. Currently, the function tells the client to get the input, passing an id. The client returns the result with the id. The server puts the result in a dictionary, with the id as the key. The function basically waits for that key to exist. def input(): '''simplified example''' key = unique_key() tell_client_to_get_input(key) while key not in dictionary: pass return dictionary.pop(pin) Using a callback would be the normal way to go, but the input function must block until the result is available, so I can't see how that could work. The spec can't change, as Python will be using the new input function for stuff like help and pdb, which provide their own little REPLs. I have a lot of flexibility in terms of how everything works overall, but just can't budge on the function acting exactly like Python's. Is there any way to return the result as soon as it's available, without the busy loop?

  Read the article

• Python simulation-scripts architecture

  - by Beastcraft

  Situation: I've some scripts that simulate user-activity on desktop. Therefore I've defined a few cases (workflows) and implemented them in Python. I've also written some classes for interacting with the users' software (e.g. web browser etc.). Problem: I'm a total beginner in software design / architecture (coding isn't a problem). How could I structure what I described above? Providing a library which contains all the workflows as functions, or a separate class/module etc. for each workflow? I want to keep the the workflows simple. The complexity should be hidden in the classes for interacting with the users' software. Are there any papers / books I could read about this, or could you provide some tips? Kind regards, B

  Read the article

• Instantiating objects in Java

  - by Davis Naglis

  I'm learning now Java from scratch and when I started to learn about instantiating objects, I don't understand - in which cases do I need to instantiate objects? For example I'm studying from TutsPlus course about it and there is example about "Rectangle" class. Instructor says that it needs to be instantiated. So I started to doubt about - when do I need to instantiate those objects when writing Java code?

  Read the article

• Override a static library's global function

  - by Jason Madux

  Not sure if this question belongs here or on SO, but posting here for now :) I'm trying to override a global function defined in "StaticLib" for my iOS application but the compiler keeps giving me the duplicate symbol error. Relevant code: #import "MyApplication.h" #import "StaticLib.h" NSData* getAllData() { NSLog(@"myGetAllData"); return nil; } @implementation MyApplication ... @end I've looked into Apple's runtime library but that all seems to be class-oriented. Any suggestions or is it just not possible to override global functions from static libraries?

  Read the article

• Is it wrong to use a boolean parameter to determine behavior?

  - by Ray

  I have seen a practice from time to time that "feels" wrong, but I can't quite articulate what is wrong about it. Or maybe it's just my prejudice. Here goes: A developer defines a method with a boolean as one of its parameters, and that method calls another, and so on, and eventually that boolean is used, solely to determine whether or not to take a certain action. This might be used, for example, to allow the action only if the user has certain rights, or perhaps if we are (or aren't) in test mode or batch mode or live mode, or perhaps only when the system is in a certain state. Well there is always another way to do it, whether by querying when it is time to take the action (rather than passing the parameter), or by having multiple versions of the method, or multiple implementations of the class, etc. My question isn't so much how to improve this, but rather whether or not it really is wrong (as I suspect), and if it is, what is wrong about it.

  Read the article

• Non-object-oriented game tutorials

  - by Arcadian

  I've been tasked with writing an essay extolling the virtues of object oriented programming and creating an accompanying game to demonstrate them. My initial idea is to find a tutorial for a simple game written in a programming language which does not follow the OOP paradigm (or written in an OOP language but not in an OOP way) and recreate it in an OOP way using either C# or Java (haven't yet decided). This would then allow me to make concrete comparisons between the two. The game doesn't have to be anything complex; Tetris, Pong, etc. that sort of thing. The problem I've had so far is finding a suitable tutorial, any suggestions?

  Read the article

• should singleton be life-time available or should it be destroyable?

  - by Manoj R

  Should the singleton be designed so that it can be created and destroyed at any time in program or should it be created so that it is available in life-time of program. Which one is best practice? What are the advantages and disadvantages of both? EDIT :- As per the link shared by Mat, the singleton should be static. But then what are the disadvantages of making it destroyable? One advantage is it memory can be saved when it is not useful.

  Read the article

• Am I violating LSP if the condition can be checked?

  - by William

  This base class for some shapes I have in my game looks like this. Some of the shapes can be resized, some of them can not. private Shape shape; public virtual void SetSizeOfShape(int x, int y) { if (CanResize()){ shape.Width = x; shape.Height = y; } else { throw new Exception("You cannot resize this shape"); } } public virtual bool CanResize() { return true; } In a sub class of a shape that I don't ever want to resize I am overriding the CanResize() method so a piece of client code can check before calling the SetSizeOfShape() method. public override bool CanResize() { return false; } Here's how it might look in my client code: public void DoSomething(Shape s) { if(s.CanResize()){ s.SetSizeOfShape(50, 70); } } Is this violating LSP?

  Read the article

• Computer Engineer in CS Interview

  - by blasteye

  As a Computer Engineering student, while in school I've primarily dealt with C, Matlab, and VHDL. On my own though, i learned a bit about OOP (Polymorphism, inheritance, encapsulation), and have done quite a bit of web development using JavaScript/PHP/Node.js While at coding interviews I've be asked academia CS questions such as "abstract vs interface". The problem is that I didn't know the official terminology, but I have dealt with this type of programming decisions/concepts. Could anyone recommend a good resource for me to learn these academia CS terms?

  Read the article

• May I give a single class multiple responsibilities if only one will ever be reusable?

  - by lnluis

  To the extent that I understand the Single Responsibility Principle, a SINGLE class must only have one responsibility. We use this so that we can reuse other functionalities in other classes and not affect the whole class. My question is: what if the entity has only one purpose that really interacts with the system, and that purpose won't change? Do you have to separate the implementations of your methods into another class and just instantiate those from your entity class? Or to put it another way... Is it ok to break the SRP if you know those functions will not be reusable in the future? Or is it better to assume that we do not know if the functionalities of these methods will be reusable or not, and so just abstract them to other classes?

  Read the article

• Proper library for enums

  - by Bobson

  I'm trying to refactor some code such that the display is separate from the implementation, and I'm not sure where to put the existing enums. My project is currently structured as follows: Utilities RemoteData (Depends on: Utilities) LocalData (Depends on: RemoteData, Utilities) RemoteWeb (Depends on: RemoteData, Utilities) LocalWeb (Depends on: RemoteData, LocalData, Utilities) I'm now trying to add "ViewLibrary (Depends on: Utilities)" to this list, and then adding it as a new dependency to both RemoteWeb and LocalWeb. It will contain a set of interfaces which the other two projects will implement, use to populate the view, and then consume the result. There's an enum which is currently used in all the projects except Utilities. It thus lives in the RemoteData project, because everything else depends on it. But this new ViewLibrary won't depend on either data project. So how will it know about this enum? Some options I see: Create a new project just for shared enum values. Add it to Utilities, even though it is related to data. Define it a second time in ViewLibrary, and require both RemoteWeb and LocalWeb to convert the one type into the other when they access the shared views. Add a dependency on RemoteData to the ViewLibrary, even though it's supposed to be independent of data-source. Are there any better options? Is this structure flawed to begin with?

  Read the article

• Best practice to collect information from child objects

  - by Markus

  I'm regularly seeing the following pattern: public abstract class BaseItem { BaseItem[] children; // ... public void DoSomethingWithStuff() { StuffCollection collection = new StuffCollection(); foreach(child c : children) c.AddRequiredStuff(collection); // do something with the collection ... } public abstract void AddRequiredStuff(StuffCollection collection); } public class ConcreteItem : BaseItem { // ... public override void AddRequiredStuff(StuffCollection collection) { Stuff stuff; // ... collection.Add(stuff); } } Where I would use something like this, for better information hiding: public abstract class BaseItem { BaseItem[] children; // ... public void DoSomethingWithStuff() { StuffCollection collection = new StuffCollection(); foreach(child c : children) collection.AddRange(c.RequiredStuff()); // do something with the collection ... } public abstract StuffCollection RequiredStuff(); } public class ConcreteItem : BaseItem { // ... public override StuffCollection RequiredStuff() { StuffCollection stuffCollection; Stuff stuff; // ... stuffCollection.Add(stuff); return stuffCollection; } } What are pros and cons of each solution? For me, giving the implementation access to parent's information is some how disconcerting. On the other hand, initializing a new list, just to collect the items is a useless overhead ... What is the better design? How would it change, if DoSomethingWithStuff wouldn't be part of BaseItem but a third class? PS: there might be missing semicolons, or typos; sorry for that! The above code is not meant to be executed, but just for illustration.

  Read the article

• Is this a pattern? Proxy/delegation of interface to existing concrete implementation

  - by Ian Newson

  I occasionally write code like this when I want to replace small parts of an existing implementation: public interface IFoo { void Bar(); } public class Foo : IFoo { public void Bar() { } } public class ProxyFoo : IFoo { private IFoo _Implementation; public ProxyFoo(IFoo implementation) { this._Implementation = implementation; } #region IFoo Members public void Bar() { this._Implementation.Bar(); } #endregion } This is a much smaller example than the real life cases in which I've used this pattern, but if implementing an existing interface or abstract class would require lots of code, most of which is already written, but I need to change a small part of the behaviour, then I will use this pattern. Is this a pattern or an anti pattern? If so, does it have a name and are there any well known pros and cons to this approach? Is there a better way to achieve the same result? Rewriting the interfaces and/or the concrete implementation is not normally an option as it will be provided by a third party library.

  Read the article

• Java desktop programmer starting to learn Android development: how different is it?

  - by Prog

  I'm a Java programmer. All of my experience is on desktop applications, using Swing for the GUI. I spend a lot of time studying OOP, I have decent understanding of OO concepts and I design and program by the OO approach. I'm thinking of starting to learn Android development soon, and I'm wondering how different it is from desktop development. Obviously the GUI libraries will be different (not Swing), but other than that, I want to know if there are significant differences. I will divide this question to two parts: Apart from the GUI libraries, am I still going to use the standard Java libarary I'm used to? Aka same data structues, same utility classes, etc.? If not, what are the main differences between the libraries I'm used to and the libraries I'll be using? How different is Android development in regard to OO design? Are all of the familiar principles, design patterns, techniques and best pratices just as valid and used? Or is OOP and OOD in Android development significantly different than OO in desktop development? To summarize: apart from GUI design, how different is Java Android development than Java desktop development?

  Read the article

• what's a good approach to working with multiple databases?

  - by Riz

  I'm working on a project that has its own database call it InternalDb, but also it queries two other databases, call them ExternalDb1 and ExternalDb2. Both ExternalDb1 and ExternalDb2 are actually required by a few other projects. I'm wondering what the best approach for dealing with this is? Currently, I've just created a project for each of these external databases and then generated Edmx and entities using the entity-framework approach. My thought was that I could then include these projects in any of my solutions that require access to these databases. Also, I don't have any separate business layers. I just have a solution like below: Project.Domain ExternalDb1Project.Domain ExternalDb2Project.Domain Project.Web So my Domain projects contain the data access as well as the POCOs generated by Entity Framework and any business logic. But I'm not sure if this is a good approach. For example if I want to do Validation in my Project.Domain on the entities in the InternalDb, it's fine. But if I want to do Validation for entities from either of the ExternalDbs, then I wonder where it should go? To be more specific, I retrieve Employees from ExternalDb1Project.Domain. However, I want to make sure they are Active. Where should this Validation go? How to architect a project like this at a high level? Also, I want to make sure that I use IoC for my data contexts so I can create Fakes when writing tests. I wonder where the interfaces for these various data contexts would reside?

  Read the article

• PHP I am pulling my hair out trying to find the best! [closed]

  - by darga33

  PULLING MY HAIR OUT I have heard of Martin Fowler's book PoEAA and the other book Head First OOA OOD but those are not in PHP. I DESPERATELY WANT TO READ THEM, but ONLY in PHP utilizing SOLID principles! Does anyone know of the absolute best, most recent PHP book that utilizes the SOLID principles and GRASP, and all the other best practices? I want to learn from the best possible source! Not beginner books! I already understand OOP. This seems like an almost impossible question to find the answer to and so I thought, hey, might as well post on stackexchange!! Surely someone out there must know!!!!!!!!!! Or if noone knows Maybe they know of an open source application that utilizes these principles that is relatively small that is not a framework. Something that I can go through every single class, and spend time understanding the insides and outs of how the program was developed. Thanks so much in advance! I really really really really appreciate it!

  Read the article

• Should I always encapsulate an internal data structure entirely?

  - by Prog

  Please consider this class: class ClassA{ private Thing[] things; // stores data // stuff omitted public Thing[] getThings(){ return things; } } This class exposes the array it uses to store data, to any client code interested. I did this in an app I'm working on. I had a ChordProgression class that stores a sequence of Chords (and does some other things). It had a Chord[] getChords() method that returned the array of chords. When the data structure had to change (from an array to an ArrayList), all client code broke. This made me think - maybe the following approach is better: class ClassA{ private Thing[] things; // stores data // stuff omitted public Thing[] getThing(int index){ return things[index]; } public int getDataSize(){ return things.length; } public void setThing(int index, Thing thing){ things[index] = thing; } } Instead of exposing the data structure itself, all of the operations offered by the data structure are now offered directly by the class enclosing it, using public methods that delegate to the data structure. When the data structure changes, only these methods have to change - but after they do, all client code still works. Note that collections more complex than arrays might require the enclosing class to implement even more than three methods just to access the internal data structure. Is this approach common? What do you think of this? What downsides does it have other? Is it reasonable to have the enclosing class implement at least three public methods just to delegate to the inner data structure?

  Read the article

• Architecture Question

  - by katie77

  I am writing a rules/eligibility Module. I have 2 sets of data, one is the customer data and the other is the customer products data. Customer data to Customer products data is one to many. Now I have to go through a set of Eligibility rules for each of this Customer product data. For each customer products data, I can say the customer is eligible for that product or decline the eligibility and should move on to the next product record. So in all the rules, I need to have access to customer and customer product data(the particular record that the rules are being executed against). Since all the rules can either approve a product or decline a product, I created an interface with those 2 methods and is implementing the this interface for all the rules. I am passing the Customer data and one product data for all the rules (because rules should be executed on each row of customer product data). An Ideal situation would be having the customer and customer product data available for the rule instead of passing them to each rule. What is the best way of doing this in-terms of architecture?

  Read the article

• Override methods should call base method?

  - by Trevor Pilley

  I'm just running NDepend against some code that I have written and one of the warnings is Overrides of Method() should call base.Method(). The places this occurs are where I have a base class which has virtual properties and methods with default behaviour but which can be overridden by a class which inherits from the base class and doesn't call the overridden method. For example, in the base class I have a property defined like this: protected virtual char CloseQuote { get { return '"'; } } And then in an inheriting class which uses a different close quote: protected override char CloseQuote { get { return ']'; } } Not all classes which inherit from the base class use different quote characters hence my initial design. The alternatives I thought of were have get/set properties in the base class with the defaults set in the constructor: protected BaseClass() { this.CloseQuote = '"'; } protected char CloseQuote { get; set; } public InheritingClass() { this.CloseQuote = ']'; } Or make the base class require the values as constructor args: protected BaseClass(char closeQuote, ...) { this.CloseQuote = '"'; } protected char CloseQuote { get; private set; } public InheritingClass() base (closeQuote: ']', ...) { } Should I use virtual in a scenario where the base implementation may be replaced instead of extended or should I opt for one of the alternatives I thought of? If so, which would be preferable and why?

  Read the article

• Should interface only be used for behavior and not to show logical data grouped together?

  - by jags

  Should an interface only be used to specify certain behavior? Would it be wrong to use interface to group logically related data? To me it looks like we should not use interface to group logically related data as structure seems a better fit. A class may be used but class name should indicate something like DTO so that user gets the impression that class does not have any behavior. Please let me know if my assumption is correct. Also, are there any exceptions where interface can be used to group logically related data?

  Read the article

• Creating several instances of the same object, and selecting only one

  - by hustlerinc

  I'm playing around with making a puzzle game, haven't done that much before I run into my first problem. Basically, I want to create a certain amount of the same object/function. But without hardcoding the different instances. I think maybe an array is a good idea? and then a for loop to push the objects in? And then I need to be able to select one of these objects by clicking on it, how would I do that? How do I know which ball in the array was clicked? A loop again? I made a jsFiddle example (you need to click the orange ball to select, then you can move it around by clicking the canvas). This is what I want to do, but with more balls. How would you solve this? Help appreciated.

  Read the article

< Previous Page | 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93  | Next Page >