Search Results

Search found 30650 results on 1226 pages for 'object initialization'.

Page 9/1226 | < Previous Page | 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16  | Next Page >

• 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

• Help with a compiler warning: Initialization from distinct Objective-C type when types match

  - by Alex Gosselin

  Here is the function where I get the compiler warning, I can't seem to figure out what is causing it. Any help is appreciated. -(void)displaySelector{ //warning on the following line: InstanceSelectorViewController *controller = [[InstanceSelectorViewController alloc] initWithCreator:self]; [self.navController pushViewController:controller animated:YES]; [controller release]; } Interface and implementation for the initWithCreator: method -(InstanceSelectorViewController*)initWithCreator:(InstanceCreator*)creator; -(InstanceSelectorViewController*)initWithCreator:(InstanceCreator*)crt{ if (self = [self initWithNibName:@"InstanceSelectorViewController" bundle:nil]) { creator = crt; } return self; }

  Read the article

• Set attributes from dictionary in python

  - by Oscar Reyes

  Is it possible to create an object from a dictionary in python in such a way that each key is an attribute of that object? Something like this: dict = { 'name': 'Oscar', 'lastName': 'Reyes', 'age':32 } e = Employee( dict ) print e.name # Oscar print e.age + 10 # 42 I think it would be pretty much the inverse of this question: Python dictionary from an object's fields

  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

• DRY'er Object Initialization in Ruby

  - by Trevoro

  Hi, Is there a more 'DRY' way to do the following in ruby? #!/usr/bin/env ruby class Volume attr_accessor :name, :size, :type, :owner, :date_created, :date_modified, :iscsi_target, :iscsi_portal SYSTEM = 0 DATA = 1 def initialize(args={:type => SYSTEM}) @name = args[:name] @size = args[:size] @type = args[:type] @owner = args[:owner] @iscsi_target = args[:iscsi_target] @iscsi_portal = args[:iscsi_portal] end def inspect return {:name => @name, :size => @size, :type => @type, :owner => @owner, :date_created => @date_created, :date_modified => @date_modified, :iscsi_target => @iscsi_target, :iscsi_portal => @iscsi_portal } end def to_json self.inspect.to_json end end

  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

• Resource Acquisition is Initialization in C#

  - by codeWithoutFear

  Resource Acquisition Is Initialization (RAII) is a pattern I grew to love when working in C++.  It is perfectly suited for resource management such as matching all those pesky new's and delete's.  One of my goals was to limit the explicit deallocation statements I had to write.  Often these statements became victims of run-time control flow changes (i.e. exceptions, unhappy path) or development-time code refactoring. The beauty of RAII is realized by tying your resource creation (acquisition) to the construction (initialization) of a class instance.  Then bind the resource deallocation to the destruction of that instance.  That is well and good in a language with strong destructor semantics like C++, but languages like C# that run on garbage-collecting runtimes don't provide the same instance lifetime guarantees. Here is a class and sample that combines a few features of C# to provide an RAII-like solution: using System; namespace RAII { public class DisposableDelegate : IDisposable { private Action dispose; public DisposableDelegate(Action dispose) { if (dispose == null) { throw new ArgumentNullException("dispose"); } this.dispose = dispose; } public void Dispose() { if (this.dispose != null) { Action d = this.dispose; this.dispose = null; d(); } } } class Program { static void Main(string[] args) { Console.Out.WriteLine("Some resource allocated here."); using (new DisposableDelegate(() => Console.Out.WriteLine("Resource deallocated here."))) { Console.Out.WriteLine("Resource used here."); throw new InvalidOperationException("Test for resource leaks."); } } } } The output of this program is: Some resource allocated here. Resource used here. Unhandled Exception: System.InvalidOperationException: Test for resource leaks. at RAII.Program.Main(String[] args) in c:\Dev\RAII\RAII\Program.cs:line 40 Resource deallocated here. Code without fear! --Don

  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

• 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

• Array Concatenation in C#

  - by Betamoo

  1- How to smartly initialize an Array with 2 (or more) other arrays in C#? double[] d1=new double[5]; double[] d2=new double[3]; double[] dTotal=new double[8];// I need this to be {d1 then d2} 2- Another question: How to concatenate C# arrays efficiently? Thanks

  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

• Reference variable to an object instantiated/initialized in another class in Java

  - by Alex

  The reason I'm asking is because I'm getting NullPointerException. I now this is very easy but I'm pretty new programming and find this a bit confusing. So say I have initialized an object in a class and want to access that same object from another class. Like now for instance I'm working on a small Chess game, in my model Game class I have an instance of Board, an object. Board, in turn, has an array of Squares. Square[][]. Game has board, board has Square[][]. Now if I want to access the Square[][] through the object board (in Game) of type Board. Do I just declare a variable with the same name and type or do I have to initialize it again? Board board OR Board board = new Board(); Note, I have already initialized board in the class Game so if I do it again, won't they be two totally different Board objects?

  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

• Why can't Java servlet sent out an object ?

  - by Frank

  I use the following method to send out an object from a servlet : public void doGet(HttpServletRequest request,HttpServletResponse response) throws IOException { String Full_URL=request.getRequestURL().append("?"+request.getQueryString()).toString(); String Contact_Id=request.getParameter("Contact_Id"); String Time_Stamp=Get_Date_Format(6),query="select from "+Contact_Info_Entry.class.getName()+" where Contact_Id == '"+Contact_Id+"' order by Contact_Id desc"; PersistenceManager pm=null; try { pm=PMF.get().getPersistenceManager(); // note that this returns a list, there could be multiple, DataStore does not ensure uniqueness for non-primary key fields List<Contact_Info_Entry> results=(List<Contact_Info_Entry>)pm.newQuery(query).execute(); Write_Serialized_XML(response.getOutputStream(),results.get(0)); } catch (Exception e) { Send_Email(Email_From,Email_To,"Check_License_Servlet Error [ "+Time_Stamp+" ]",new Text(e.toString()+"\n"+Get_Stack_Trace(e)),null); } finally { pm.close(); } } /** Writes the object and CLOSES the stream. Uses the persistance delegate registered in this class. * @param os The stream to write to. * @param o The object to be serialized. */ public static void writeXMLObject(OutputStream os,Object o) { // Classloader reference must be set since netBeans uses another class loader to loead the bean wich will fail in some circumstances. ClassLoader oldClassLoader=Thread.currentThread().getContextClassLoader(); Thread.currentThread().setContextClassLoader(Check_License_Servlet.class.getClassLoader()); XMLEncoder encoder=new XMLEncoder(os); encoder.setExceptionListener(new ExceptionListener() { public void exceptionThrown(Exception e) { e.printStackTrace(); }}); encoder.writeObject(o); encoder.flush(); encoder.close(); Thread.currentThread().setContextClassLoader(oldClassLoader); } private static ByteArrayOutputStream writeOutputStream=new ByteArrayOutputStream(16384); /** Writes an object to XML. * @param out The boject out to write to. [ Will not be closed. ] * @param o The object to write. */ public static synchronized void writeAsXML(ObjectOutput out,Object o) throws IOException { writeOutputStream.reset(); writeXMLObject(writeOutputStream,o); byte[] Bt_1=writeOutputStream.toByteArray(); byte[] Bt_2=new Des_Encrypter().encrypt(Bt_1,Key); out.writeInt(Bt_2.length); out.write(Bt_2); out.flush(); out.close(); } public static synchronized void Write_Serialized_XML(OutputStream Output_Stream,Object o) throws IOException { writeAsXML(new ObjectOutputStream(Output_Stream),o); } At the receiving end the code look like this : File_Url="http://"+Site_Url+App_Dir+File_Name; try { Contact_Info_Entry Online_Contact_Entry=(Contact_Info_Entry)Read_Serialized_XML(new URL(File_Url)); } catch (Exception e) { e.printStackTrace(); } private static byte[] readBuf=new byte[16384]; public static synchronized Object readAsXML(ObjectInput in) throws IOException { // Classloader reference must be set since netBeans uses another class loader to load the bean which will fail under some circumstances. ClassLoader oldClassLoader=Thread.currentThread().getContextClassLoader(); Thread.currentThread().setContextClassLoader(Tool_Lib_Simple.class.getClassLoader()); int length=in.readInt(); readBuf=new byte[length]; in.readFully(readBuf,0,length); byte Bt[]=new Des_Encrypter().decrypt(readBuf,Key); XMLDecoder dec=new XMLDecoder(new ByteArrayInputStream(Bt,0,Bt.length)); Object o=dec.readObject(); Thread.currentThread().setContextClassLoader(oldClassLoader); in.close(); return o; } public static synchronized Object Read_Serialized_XML(URL File_Url) throws IOException { return readAsXML(new ObjectInputStream(File_Url.openStream())); } But I can't get the object from the Java app that's on the receiving end, why ? The error messages look like this : java.lang.ClassNotFoundException: PayPal_Monitor.Contact_Info_Entry Continuing ... java.lang.NullPointerException: target should not be null Continuing ... java.lang.NullPointerException: target should not be null Continuing ... java.lang.NullPointerException: target should not be null Continuing ...

  Read the article

• Use IIS Application Initialization for keeping ASP.NET Apps alive

  - by Rick Strahl

  Ever want to run a service-like, always-on application inside of ASP.NET instead of creating a Windows Service or running a Console application? Need to make sure that your ASP.NET application is always running and comes up immediately after an Application Pool restart even if nobody hits your site? The IIS Application Initialization Module provides this functionality in IIS 7 and later, making it much easier to create always-on ASP.NET applications that can act like a service.

  Read the article

• Reduce Repetitive Initialization Code in C++ Applications by Using Delegating Constructors

  You're often required to repeat identical pieces of initialization code in every constructor of a class that declares multiple constructors. That's because unlike a few other programming languages, The C++ programming language doesn't allow a constructor to call another constructor of the same class. Luckily, this problem is about to disappear with the recent approval of a new C++0x feature called delegating constructors which are explained in this C++ tutorial.

  Read the article

• Game Object Factory: Fixing Memory Leaks

  - by Bunkai.Satori

  Dear all, this is going to be tough: I have created a game object factory that generates objects of my wish. However, I get memory leaks which I can not fix. Memory leaks are generated by return new Object(); in the bottom part of the code sample. static BaseObject * CreateObjectFunc() { return new Object(); } How and where to delete the pointers? I wrote bool ReleaseClassType(). Despite the factory works well, ReleaseClassType() does not fix memory leaks. bool ReleaseClassTypes() { unsigned int nRecordCount = vFactories.size(); for (unsigned int nLoop = 0; nLoop < nRecordCount; nLoop++ ) { // if the object exists in the container and is valid, then render it if( vFactories[nLoop] != NULL) delete vFactories[nLoop](); } return true; } Before taking a look at the code below, let me help you in that my CGameObjectFactory creates pointers to functions creating particular object type. The pointers are stored within vFactories vector container. I have chosen this way because I parse an object map file. I have object type IDs (integer values) which I need to translate them into real objects. Because I have over 100 different object data types, I wished to avoid continuously traversing very long Switch() statement. Therefore, to create an object, I call vFactoriesnEnumObjectTypeID via CGameObjectFactory::create() to call stored function that generates desired object. The position of the appropriate function in the vFactories is identical to the nObjectTypeID, so I can use indexing to access the function. So the question remains, how to proceed with garbage collection and avoid reported memory leaks? #ifndef GAMEOBJECTFACTORY_H_UNIPIXELS #define GAMEOBJECTFACTORY_H_UNIPIXELS //#include "MemoryManager.h" #include <vector> template <typename BaseObject> class CGameObjectFactory { public: // cleanup and release registered object data types bool ReleaseClassTypes() { unsigned int nRecordCount = vFactories.size(); for (unsigned int nLoop = 0; nLoop < nRecordCount; nLoop++ ) { // if the object exists in the container and is valid, then render it if( vFactories[nLoop] != NULL) delete vFactories[nLoop](); } return true; } // register new object data type template <typename Object> bool RegisterClassType(unsigned int nObjectIDParam ) { if(vFactories.size() < nObjectIDParam) vFactories.resize(nObjectIDParam); vFactories[nObjectIDParam] = &CreateObjectFunc<Object>; return true; } // create new object by calling the pointer to the appropriate type function BaseObject* create(unsigned int nObjectIDParam) const { return vFactories[nObjectIDParam](); } // resize the vector array containing pointers to function calls bool resize(unsigned int nSizeParam) { vFactories.resize(nSizeParam); return true; } private: //DECLARE_HEAP; template <typename Object> static BaseObject * CreateObjectFunc() { return new Object(); } typedef BaseObject*(*factory)(); std::vector<factory> vFactories; }; //DEFINE_HEAP_T(CGameObjectFactory, "Game Object Factory"); #endif // GAMEOBJECTFACTORY_H_UNIPIXELS

  Read the article

• Query on object id in VQL

  - by Banang

  I'm currently working with the versant object database (using jvi), and have a case where I need to query the database based on an object id. What I'm trying to achieve is something along the lines of Employee employee = new Employee("Mr. Pickles"); session.commit(); FundVQLQuery q = new FundVQLQuery(session, "select * from Employee employee where employee = $1"); q.bind(employee); q.execute(); However, I'm finding out the hard way (I get an EVJ_NOT_A_VALID_KEY_TYPE error thrown at me) that this is infact not the way to do it. Anyone got any experience in working with VQL? Your help is much apreciated! A small clarification: The problem is I'm running some performance tests on the database using the pole position framework, and one of the tests in that framework requires me to fetch an object from the database using either an object reference or a low level object id. Thus, I'm not allowed to reference specific fields in the employee object, but must perform the query on the object in its entirety. So, it's not allowed for me to go "select * from Employee e where e.id = 4", I need it to use the entire object. Accepted answer: Since there is some sort of lunacy magic built into SO that prevents me to mark an accepted answer after a bounty has run out, readers should know that the answer posted by Chris Holmes solves this issue. Readers are encouraged to up-vote his post to further signalize the correctness of his answer to any future readers of this thread.

  Read the article

< Previous Page | 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16  | Next Page >