Search Results

Search found 275 results on 11 pages for 'stuffed animal'.

Page 1/11 | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11  | Next Page >

  • Stuffed Animal In OpenGL

    - by anon
    I have seen metal/plastic/water/fire/... shaders for OpenGL. However, it it possible to render something fur-like, say a stuffed animal / teddy bear in OpenGL (I know this is possible with renderman / ray tracers, but I want to do it in OpenGl). If you have pointers to GLSl shaders for this, please point me in the right direction. Thanks! [I'm guessing the answer is no since fur requires more than just shaders -- it almost requires creating geometry on the fly -- but I'd love to be proven wrong)]

    Read the article

  • Humour : Un chat qui joue avec un iPad, ou comment transformer votre animal en musicien

    Humour : Un chat qui joue avec un iPad, ou comment transformer votre animal en musicien Cette petite vidéo est actuellement en train de faire un énorme buzz sur la toile. Elle a été prise par un américain possesseur d'un iPad, et qui semble vouloir convertir son chat aux produits Apple. Le félin semblant avoir le rythme dans la peau, c'est plutôt bien parti... YouTube- Achetez un Ipad à votre chat......

    Read the article

  • I need advice on creating animal 3D walk cycles in XNA

    - by Zetar
    I want to purchase a number of 3D models from TurboSquid and animate them in an XNA game. I wrote a lot of games from 1985-1999 and have recently become involved with XNA. Now I would like to port one of my old games to the XBOX. I do have a background in 3D animation; but that was years ago. What is the current method for animating a walk cycle with a 3D model and using it inside XNA? Is there a book, software or a tutorial that you can recommend? Thanks in advance and sorry for such a broad and currently naive question.

    Read the article

  • Generics : List<? extends Animal> is same as List<Animal>?

    - by peakit
    Hi, I am just trying to understand the extends keyword in Java Generics. List<? extends Animal> means we can stuff any object in the List which IS A Animal then won't the following also mean the same thing: List<Animal> Can someone help me know the difference between the above two? To me extends just sound redundant here. Thanks!

    Read the article

  • Design considerations for temporarily transforming a player into an animal in a role playing game

    - by mikedev
    I am working on a role playing game for fun and to practice design patterns. I would like players to be able to transform themselves into different animals. For example, a Druid might be able to shape shift into a cheetah. Right now I'm planning on using the decorator pattern to do this but my question is - how do I make it so that when a druid is in the cheetah form, they can only access skills for the cheetah? In other words, they should not be able to access their normal Druid skills. Using the decorator pattern it appears that even in the cheetah form my druid will be able to access their normal druid skills. class Druid : Character { // many cool druid skills and spells void LightHeal(Character target) { } } abstract class CharacterDecorator : Character { Character DecoratedCharacter; } class CheetahForm : CharacterDecorator { Character DecoratedCharacter; public CheetahForm(Character decoratedCharacter) { DecoratedCharacter= decoratedCharacter; } // many cool cheetah related skills void CheetahRun() { // let player move very fast } } now using the classes Druid myDruid = new Druid(); myDruid.LightHeal(myDruid); // casting light heal here is fine myDruid = new CheetahForm(myDruid); myDruid.LightHeal(myDruid); // casting here should not be allowed Hmmmm...now that I think about it, will myDruid be unable to us the Druid class spells/skills unless the class is down-casted? But even if that's the case, is there a better way to ensure that myDruid at this point is locked out from all Druid related spells/skills until it is cast back to a Druid (since currently it's in CheetahForm)

    Read the article

  • Getting functions of inherited functions to be called

    - by wrongusername
    Let's say I have a base class Animal from which a class Cow inherits, and a Barn class containing an Animal vector, and let's say the Animal class has a virtual function scream(), which Cow overrides. With the following code: Animal.h #ifndef _ANIMAL_H #define _ANIMAL_H #include <iostream> using namespace std; class Animal { public: Animal() {}; virtual void scream() {cout << "aaaAAAAAAAAAAGHHHHHHHHHH!!! ahhh..." << endl;} }; #endif /* _ANIMAL_H */ Cow.h #ifndef _COW_H #define _COW_H #include "Animal.h" class Cow: public Animal { public: Cow() {} void scream() {cout << "MOOooooOOOOOOOO!!!" << endl;} }; #endif /* _COW_H */ Barn.h #ifndef _BARN_H #define _BARN_H #include "Animal.h" #include <vector> class Barn { std::vector<Animal> animals; public: Barn() {} void insertAnimal(Animal animal) {animals.push_back(animal);} void tortureAnimals() { for(int a = 0; a < animals.size(); a++) animals[a].scream(); } }; #endif /* _BARN_H */ and finally main.cpp #include <stdlib.h> #include "Barn.h" #include "Cow.h" #include "Chicken.h" /* * */ int main(int argc, char** argv) { Barn barn; barn.insertAnimal(Cow()); barn.tortureAnimals(); return (EXIT_SUCCESS); } I get this output: aaaAAAAAAAAAAGHHHHHHHHHH!!! ahhh... How should I code this to get MOOooooOOOOOOOO!!! (and whatever other classes inheriting Animal wants scream() to be) instead?

    Read the article

  • Is `List<Dog>` a subclass of `List<Animal>`? Why aren't Java's generics implicitly polymorphic?

    - by froadie
    I'm a bit confused about how Java generics handle inheritance / polymorphism. Assume the following hierarchy - Animal (Parent) Dog - Cat (Children) So suppose I have a method doSomething(List<Animal> animals). By all the rules of inheritance and polymorphism, I would assume that a List<Dog> is a List<Animal> and a List<Cat> is a List<Animal> - and so either one could be passed to this method. Not so. If I want to achieve this behavior, I have to explicitly tell the method to accept a list of any subset of Animal by saying doSomething(List<? extends Animal> animals). I understand that this is Java's behavior. My question is why? Why is polymorphism generally implicit, but when it comes to generics it must be specified?

    Read the article

  • Python's equivalence?

    - by user304014
    Is there anyway to transform the following code in Java to Python's equivalence? public class Animal{ public enum AnimalBreed{ Dog, Cat, Cow, Chicken, Elephant } private static final int Animals = AnimalBreed.Dog.ordinal(); private static final String[] myAnimal = new String[Animals]; private static Animal[] animal = new Animal[Animals]; public static final Animal DogAnimal = new Animal(AnimalBreed.Dog, "woff"); public static final Animal CatAnimal = new Animal(AnimalBreed.Cat, "meow"); private AnimalBreed breed; public static Animal myDog (String name) { return new Animal(AnimalBreed.Dog, name); } }

    Read the article

  • What is there so useful in the Decorator Pattern? My example doesn't work

    - by Green
    The book says: The decorator pattern can be used to extend (decorate) the functionality of a certain object I have a rabbit animal. And I want my rabbit to have, for example, reptile skin. Just want to decorate a common rabbit with reptile skin. I have the code. First I have abstract class Animal with everythig that is common to any animal: abstract class Animal { abstract public function setSleep($hours); abstract public function setEat($food); abstract public function getSkinType(); /* and more methods which for sure will be implemented in any concrete animal */ } I create class for my rabbit: class Rabbit extends Animal { private $rest; private $stomach; private $skinType = "hair"; public function setSleep($hours) { $this->rest = $hours; } public function setFood($food) { $this->stomach = $food; } public function getSkinType() { return $this->$skinType; } } Up to now everything is OK. Then I create abstract AnimalDecorator class which extends Animal: abstract class AnimalDecorator extends Animal { protected $animal; public function __construct(Animal $animal) { $this->animal = $animal; } } And here the problem comes. Pay attention that AnimalDecorator also gets all the abstract methods from the Animal class (in this example just two but in real can have many more). Then I create concrete ReptileSkinDecorator class which extends AnimalDecorator. It also has those the same two abstract methods from Animal: class ReptileSkinDecorator extends AnimalDecorator { public function getSkinColor() { $skin = $this->animal->getSkinType(); $skin = "reptile"; return $skin; } } And finaly I want to decorate my rabbit with reptile skin: $reptileSkinRabbit = ReptileSkinDecorator(new Rabbit()); But I can't do this because I have two abstract methods in ReptileSkinDecorator class. They are: abstract public function setSleep($hours); abstract public function setEat($food); So, instead of just re-decorating only skin I also have to re-decorate setSleep() and setEat(); methods. But I don't need to. In all the book examples there is always ONLY ONE abstract method in Animal class. And of course it works then. But here I just made very simple real life example and tried to use the Decorator pattern and it doesn't work without implementing those abstract methods in ReptileSkinDecorator class. It means that if I want to use my example I have to create a brand new rabbit and implement for it its own setSleep() and setEat() methods. OK, let it be. But then this brand new rabbit has the instance of commont Rabbit I passed to ReptileSkinDecorator: $reptileSkinRabbit = ReptileSkinDecorator(new Rabbit()); I have one common rabbit instance with its own methods in the reptileSkinRabbit instance which in its turn has its own reptileSkinRabbit methods. I have rabbit in rabbit. But I think I don't have to have such possibility. I don't understand the Decarator pattern right way. Kindly ask you to point on any mistakes in my example, in my understanding of this pattern. Thank you.

    Read the article

  • Scala factory pattern returns unusable abstract type

    - by GGGforce
    Please let me know how to make the following bit of code work as intended. The problem is that the Scala compiler doesn't understand that my factory is returning a concrete class, so my object can't be used later. Can TypeTags or type parameters help? Or do I need to refactor the code some other way? I'm (obviously) new to Scala. trait Animal trait DomesticatedAnimal extends Animal trait Pet extends DomesticatedAnimal {var name: String = _} class Wolf extends Animal class Cow extends DomesticatedAnimal class Dog extends Pet object Animal { def apply(aType: String) = { aType match { case "wolf" => new Wolf case "cow" => new Cow case "dog" => new Dog } } } def name(a: Pet, name: String) { a.name = name println(a +"'s name is: " + a.name) } val d = Animal("dog") name(d, "fred") The last line of code fails because the compiler thinks d is an Animal, not a Dog.

    Read the article

  • Single Table Per Class Hierarchy with an abstract superclass using Hibernate Annotations

    - by Andy Hull
    I have a simple class hierarchy, similar to the following: @Entity @Table(name="animal") @Inheritance(strategy=InheritanceType.SINGLE_TABLE) @DiscriminatorColumn(name="animal_type", discriminatorType=DiscriminatorType.STRING) public abstract class Animal { } @Entity @DiscriminatorValue("cat") public class Cat extends Animal { } @Entity @DiscriminatorValue("dog") public class Dog extends Animal { } When I query "from Animal" I get this exception: "org.hibernate.InstantiationException: Cannot instantiate abstract class or interface: Animal" If I make Animal concrete, and add a dummy discriminator... such as @DiscriminatorValue("animal")... my query returns my cats and dogs as instances of Animals. I remember this being trivial with HBM based mappings but I think I'm missing something when using annotations. Can anyone help? Thanks!

    Read the article

  • Covariance vs. contravariance

    - by alexmac
    What are the concepts of covariance and contravariance? Given 2 classes, Animal and Elephant (which inherits from Animal), my understanding is that you get runtime errors in .NET if you try and put an Elephant into an array of Animal, which happens because Elephant is "bigger" (more specific) than Animal. But could you assign Animal to an array of Elephants as Elephant is guaranteed to contain the Animal properties?

    Read the article

  • Get parent attribute within new child form?

    - by dannymcc
    I have a simple Rails 3 application and I am trying to create a new record that belongs to it's owner. It's working by passing the id to a hidden field in the new form of the child record. This works well and once the new child form submitted it correctly gets associated in the child/parent relationship. What I am trying to do, is lookup values form the parent within the new child form. The problem is that the child relationship is not yet created. Is there anyway I can use a .where lookup in the view? Or, is there a better way of doing this? At the moment I am passing the animal_id though to the new Claim form and it's inserted into a hidden field labelled animal_id. What I am trying to do: <%= @animal.where(:animal_id => params[:animal_id]).id %> The above would ideally get the animal ID from the soon-to-be-associated animal. Is there any sort of before_filter or anything that could take the passed params from the URL and temporarily create the relationship just for the new form view and then permanently create the relationship once the form is submitted? I've tried adding the following to my Claims controller and then called @animal.AnimalName in the view but I get NoMethodError: before_filter :find_animal protected def find_animal if params[:animal_id] Animal.find(params[:animal_id]) end end The URL of the new claim is correctly showing the animal ID so I'm not sure why it's not finding it: http://localhost:3000/claims/new?animal_id=1 The model relations are as follows: animal has_many claims animal has_one exclusion claim has_one animal exception has_one animal

    Read the article

  • Why does coffeescript generate classes like this?

    - by ryeguy
    Given the following coffeescript code: class Animal constructor: (@name) -> speak: (things) -> "My name is #{@name} and I like #{things}" This is generated: var Animal = (function() { function Animal(name) { this.name = name; } Animal.prototype.speak = function(things) { return "My name is " + this.name + " and I like " + things; }; return Animal; })(); But why isn't this more idiomatic code generated? var Animal = function Animal(name) { this.name = name; }; Animal.prototype.speak = function(things) { return "My name is " + this.name + " and I like " + things; }; I know that coffeescript wraps a lot of stuff in anonymous functions to control scope leak, but what could leak here?

    Read the article

  • Is there a way communicate or measure levels of abstraction?

    - by hydroparadise
    I'll be the first to say that this question is a bit... out there. But here are a couple questions I bear in mind : Is abstraction continuous or discrete? Is there a single unit of abstraction? But I'm not sure those questions are truly answerable or even really makes sence. My naive answer would be something along the lines of abitrarily discrete but not necescarily having a single unit measure. Here's what I mean... Take a Black Labrador; an abstraction that could be made is that a Black Lab is a type of animal. [Animal]<--[Black Lab] A Black Lab is also a type of Dog. [Dog]<--[Black Lab] One way to establish a degree of abstraction is by comparing the two the abstractions. We could say that [Animal] is more abstract than [Dog] in respect to a Black Lab. It just so happens [Animal] can also be used as an abstraction of [Dog] So, we might end up with something like [Animal]<--[Dog]<--[Black Lab] With the model above, one might be inclined to say that there's two hops of abstraction to get from [Black Lab] to [Animal]. But you can't exactly tell somebody they need one level abstraction and reasonalby expect they will come up with [Dog] given they aren't explicity given the options above. If I needed to tell someobody in a single email that they needed an abstract class with out knowing what that abstract class is, is there a way to communaticate a degree of abstraction such that they might end up on Dog instead of Animal? As a side note, what area of study might this type of analysis fall under?

    Read the article

  • NHibernate Session Load vs Get when using Table per Hierarchy. Always use ISession.Get&lt;T&gt; for TPH to work.

    - by Rohit Gupta
    Originally posted on: http://geekswithblogs.net/rgupta/archive/2014/06/01/nhibernate-session-load-vs-get-when-using-table-per-hierarchy.aspxNHibernate ISession has two methods on it : Load and Get. Load allows the entity to be loaded lazily, meaning the actual call to the database is made only when properties on the entity being loaded is first accessed. Additionally, if the entity has already been loaded into NHibernate Cache, then the entity is loaded directly from the cache instead of querying the underlying database. ISession.Get<T> instead makes the call to the database, every time it is invoked. With this background, it is obvious that we would prefer ISession.Load<T> over ISession.Get<T> most of the times for performance reasons to avoid making the expensive call to the database. let us consider the impact of using ISession.Load<T> when we are using the Table per Hierarchy implementation of NHibernate. Thus we have base class/ table Animal, there is a derived class named Snake with the Discriminator column being Type which in this case is “Snake”. If we load This Snake entity using the Repository for Animal, we would have a entity loaded, as shown below: public T GetByKey(object key, bool lazy = false) { if (lazy) return CurrentSession.Load<T>(key); return CurrentSession.Get<T>(key); } var tRepo = new NHibernateReadWriteRepository<TPHAnimal>(); var animal = tRepo.GetByKey(new Guid("602DAB56-D1BD-4ECC-B4BB-1C14BF87F47B"), true); var snake = animal as Snake; snake is null As you can see that the animal entity retrieved from the database cannot be cast to Snake even though the entity is actually a snake. The reason being ISession.Load prevents the entity to be cast to Snake and will throw the following exception: System.InvalidCastException :  Message=Unable to cast object of type 'TPHAnimalProxy' to type 'NHibernateChecker.Model.Snake'. Thus we can see that if we lazy load the entity using ISession.Load<TPHAnimal> then we get a TPHAnimalProxy and not a snake. =============================================================== However if do not lazy load the same cast works perfectly fine, this is since we are loading the entity from database and the entity being loaded is not a proxy. Thus the following code does not throw any exceptions, infact the snake variable is not null: var tRepo = new NHibernateReadWriteRepository<TPHAnimal>(); var animal = tRepo.GetByKey(new Guid("602DAB56-D1BD-4ECC-B4BB-1C14BF87F47B"), false); var snake = animal as Snake; if (snake == null) { var snake22 = (Snake) animal; }

    Read the article

  • How can I implement NotOfType<T> in LINQ that has a nice calling syntax?

    - by Lette
    I'm trying to come up with an implementation for NotOfType, which has a readable call syntax. NotOfType should be the complement to OfType<T> and would consequently yield all elements that are not of type T My goal was to implement a method which would be called just like OfType<T>, like in the last line of this snippet: public abstract class Animal {} public class Monkey : Animal {} public class Giraffe : Animal {} public class Lion : Animal {} var monkey = new Monkey(); var giraffe = new Giraffe(); var lion = new Lion(); IEnumerable<Animal> animals = new Animal[] { monkey, giraffe, lion }; IEnumerable<Animal> fewerAnimals = animals.NotOfType<Giraffe>(); However, I can not come up with an implementation that supports that specific calling syntax. This is what I've tried so far: public static class EnumerableExtensions { public static IEnumerable<T> NotOfType<T>(this IEnumerable<T> sequence, Type type) { return sequence.Where(x => x.GetType() != type); } public static IEnumerable<T> NotOfType<T, TExclude>(this IEnumerable<T> sequence) { return sequence.Where(x => !(x is TExclude)); } } Calling these methods would look like this: // Animal is inferred IEnumerable<Animal> fewerAnimals = animals.NotOfType(typeof(Giraffe)); and // Not all types could be inferred, so I have to state all types explicitly IEnumerable<Animal> fewerAnimals = animals.NotOfType<Animal, Giraffe>(); I think that there are major drawbacks with the style of both of these calls. The first one suffers from a redundant "of type/type of" construct, and the second one just doesn't make sense (do I want a list of animals that are neither Animals nor Giraffes?). So, is there a way to accomplish what I want? If not, could it be possible in future versions of the language? (I'm thinking that maybe one day we will have named type arguments, or that we only need to explicitly supply type arguments that can't be inferred?) Or am I just being silly?

    Read the article

  • getting proxies of the correct type in nhibernate

    - by Nir
    I have a problem with uninitialized proxies in nhibernate The Domain Model Let's say I have two parallel class hierarchies: Animal, Dog, Cat and AnimalOwner, DogOwner, CatOwner where Dog and Cat both inherit from Animal and DogOwner and CatOwner both inherit from AnimalOwner. AnimalOwner has a reference of type Animal called OwnedAnimal. Here are the classes in the example: public abstract class Animal { // some properties } public class Dog : Animal { // some more properties } public class Cat : Animal { // some more properties } public class AnimalOwner { public virtual Animal OwnedAnimal {get;set;} // more properties... } public class DogOwner : AnimalOwner { // even more properties } public class CatOwner : AnimalOwner { // even more properties } The classes have proper nhibernate mapping, all properties are persistent and everything that can be lazy loaded is lazy loaded. The application business logic only let you to set a Dog in a DogOwner and a Cat in a CatOwner. The Problem I have code like this: public void ProcessDogOwner(DogOwner owner) { Dog dog = (Dog)owner.OwnedAnimal; .... } This method can be called by many diffrent methods, in most cases the dog is already in memory and everything is ok, but rarely the dog isn't already in memory - in this case I get an nhibernate "uninitialized proxy" but the cast throws an exception because nhibernate genrates a proxy for Animal and not for Dog. I understand that this is how nhibernate works, but I need to know the type without loading the object - or, more correctly I need the uninitialized proxy to be a proxy of Cat or Dog and not a proxy of Animal. Constraints I can't change the domain model, the model is handed to me by another department, I tried to get them to change the model and failed. The actual model is much more complicated then the example and the classes have many references between them, using eager loading or adding joins to the queries is out of the question for performance reasons. I have full control of the source code, the hbm mapping and the database schema and I can change them any way I want (as long as I don't change the relationships between the model classes). I have many methods like the one in the example and I don't want to modify all of them. Thanks, Nir

    Read the article

  • Generics vs inheritance (whenh no collection classes are involved)

    - by Ram
    This is an extension of this questionand probably might even be a duplicate of some other question(If so, please forgive me). I see from MSDN that generics are usually used with collections The most common use for generic classes is with collections like linked lists, hash tables, stacks, queues, trees and so on where operations such as adding and removing items from the collection are performed in much the same way regardless of the type of data being stored. The examples I have seen also validate the above statement. Can someone give a valid use of generics in a real-life scenario which does not involve any collections ? Pedantically, I was thinking about making an example which does not involve collections public class Animal<T> { public void Speak() { Console.WriteLine("I am an Animal and my type is " + typeof(T).ToString()); } public void Eat() { //Eat food } } public class Dog { public void WhoAmI() { Console.WriteLine(this.GetType().ToString()); } } and "An Animal of type Dog" will be Animal<Dog> magic = new Animal<Dog>(); It is entirely possible to have Dog getting inherited from Animal (Assuming a non-generic version of Animal)Dog:Animal Therefore Dog is an Animal Another example I was thinking was a BankAccount. It can be BankAccount<Checking>,BankAccount<Savings>. This can very well be Checking:BankAccount and Savings:BankAccount. Are there any best practices to determine if we should go with generics or with inheritance ?

    Read the article

  • Generics vs inheritance (when no collection classes are involved)

    - by Ram
    This is an extension of this questionand probably might even be a duplicate of some other question(If so, please forgive me). I see from MSDN that generics are usually used with collections The most common use for generic classes is with collections like linked lists, hash tables, stacks, queues, trees and so on where operations such as adding and removing items from the collection are performed in much the same way regardless of the type of data being stored. The examples I have seen also validate the above statement. Can someone give a valid use of generics in a real-life scenario which does not involve any collections ? Pedantically, I was thinking about making an example which does not involve collections public class Animal<T> { public void Speak() { Console.WriteLine("I am an Animal and my type is " + typeof(T).ToString()); } public void Eat() { //Eat food } } public class Dog { public void WhoAmI() { Console.WriteLine(this.GetType().ToString()); } } and "An Animal of type Dog" will be Animal<Dog> magic = new Animal<Dog>(); It is entirely possible to have Dog getting inherited from Animal (Assuming a non-generic version of Animal)Dog:Animal Therefore Dog is an Animal Another example I was thinking was a BankAccount. It can be BankAccount<Checking>,BankAccount<Savings>. This can very well be Checking:BankAccount and Savings:BankAccount. Are there any best practices to determine if we should go with generics or with inheritance ?

    Read the article

  • How to dynamic call property on javascript object with jQuery

    - by Massimo Ugues
    Hallo all. I got a javascript object with some propeties let's say function Animal() { this.id; this.name; I need to call id function in a dynamic way to get and set its value: something like this Animal animal = new Animal(); var propertyName = "id"; animal.+propertyName = "name"; Is there an elegant way to do it? With jQuery? Kind regards Massimo

    Read the article

  • Right way to return proxy model instance from a base model instance in Django ?

    - by sotangochips
    Say I have models: class Animal(models.Model): type = models.CharField(max_length=255) class Dog(Animal): def make_sound(self): print "Woof!" class Meta: proxy = True class Cat(Animal): def make_sound(self): print "Meow!" class Meta: proxy = True Let's say I want to do: animals = Animal.objects.all() for animal in animals: animal.make_sound() I want to get back a series of Woofs and Meows. Clearly, I could just define a make_sound in the original model that forks based on animal_type, but then every time I add a new animal type (imagine they're in different apps), I'd have to go in and edit that make_sound function. I'd rather just define proxy models and have them define the behavior themselves. From what I can tell, there's no way of returning mixed Cat or Dog instances, but I figured maybe I could define a "get_proxy_model" method on the main class that returns a cat or a dog model. Surely you could do this, and pass something like the primary key and then just do Cat.objects.get(pk = passed_in_primary_key). But that'd mean doing an extra query for data you already have which seems redundant. Is there any way to turn an animal into a cat or a dog instance in an efficient way? What's the right way to do what I want to achieve?

    Read the article

  • Retrieve only the superclass from a class hierarchy

    - by user1792724
    I have an scenario as the following: @Entity @Table(name = "ANIMAL") @Inheritance(strategy = InheritanceType.JOINED) public class Animal implements Serializable { @Id @GeneratedValue(strategy = GenerationType.SEQUENCE, generator = "S_ANIMAL") @SequenceGenerator(name = "S_ANIMAL", sequenceName = "S_ANIMAL", allocationSize = 1) public int getNumero() { return numero; } public void setNumero(int numero) { this.numero = numero; } . . . } and as the subclass: @Entity @Table(name = "DOG") public class Dog extends Animal { private static final long serialVersionUID = -7341592543130659641L; . . . } I have a JPA Select statement like this: SELECT a FROM Animal a; I'm using Hibernate 3.3.1 As I can see the framework retrieves instances of Animal and also of Dog using a left outer join. Is there a way to Select only the "part" Animal? I mean, the previous Select will get all the Animals, those that are only Animals but not Dogs and those that are Dogs. I want them all, but in the case of Dogs I want to only retrieve the "Animal part" of them. I found the @org.hibernate.annotations.Entity(polymorphism = PolymorphismType.EXPLICIT) but as I could see this only works if Animal isn't an @Entity. Thanks a lot.

    Read the article

  • How to represent different entities that have identical behavior?

    - by Dominik
    I have several different entities in my domain model (animal species, let's say), which have a few properties each. The entities are readonly (they do not change state during the application lifetime) and they have identical behavior (the differ only by the values of properties). How to implement such entities in code? Unsuccessful attempts: Enums I tried an enum like this: enum Animals { Frog, Duck, Otter, Fish } And other pieces of code would switch on the enum. However, this leads to ugly switching code, scattering the logic around and problems with comboboxes. There's no pretty way to list all possible Animals. Serialization works great though. Subclasses I also thought about where each animal type is a subclass of a common base abstract class. The implementation of Swim() is the same for all Animals, though, so it makes little sense and serializability is a big issue now. Since we represent an animal type (species, if you will), there should be one instance of the subclass per application, which is hard and weird to maintain when we use serialization. public abstract class AnimalBase { string Name { get; set; } // user-readable double Weight { get; set; } Habitat Habitat { get; set; } public void Swim(); { /* swim implementation; the same for all animals but depends uses the value of Weight */ } } public class Otter: AnimalBase{ public Otter() { Name = "Otter"; Weight = 10; Habitat = "North America"; } } // ... and so on Just plain awful. Static fields This blog post gave me and idea for a solution where each option is a statically defined field inside the type, like this: public class Animal { public static readonly Animal Otter = new Animal { Name="Otter", Weight = 10, Habitat = "North America"} // the rest of the animals... public string Name { get; set; } // user-readable public double Weight { get; set; } public Habitat Habitat { get; set; } public void Swim(); } That would be great: you can use it like enums (AnimalType = Animal.Otter), you can easily add a static list of all defined animals, you have a sensible place where to implement Swim(). Immutability can be achieved by making property setters protected. There is a major problem, though: it breaks serializability. A serialized Animal would have to save all its properties and upon deserialization it would create a new instance of Animal, which is something I'd like to avoid. Is there an easy way to make the third attempt work? Any more suggestions for implementing such a model?

    Read the article

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11  | Next Page >