Search Results

Search found 4652 results on 187 pages for 'explicit constructor'.

Page 101/187 | < Previous Page | 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108  | Next Page >

  • Create a thread in xna Update method to find path?

    - by Dan
    I am trying to create a separate thread for my enemy's A* pathfinder which will give me a list of points to get to the player. I have placed the thread in the update method of my enemy. However this seems to cause jittering in the game every-time the thread is called. I have tried calling just the method and this works fine. Is there any way I can sort this out so that I can have the pathfinder on its own thread? Do I need to remove the thread start from the update and start it in the constructor? Is there any way this can work. Here is the code at the moment: bool running = false; bool threadstarted; System.Threading.Thread thread; public void update() { if (running == false && threadstarted == false) { thread = new System.Threading.Thread(PathThread); //thread.Priority = System.Threading.ThreadPriority.Lowest; thread.IsBackground = true; thread.Start(startandendobj); //PathThread(startandendobj); threadstarted = true; } } public void PathThread(object Startandend) { object[] Startandendarray = (object[])Startandend; Point startpoint = (Point)Startandendarray[0]; Point endpoint = (Point)Startandendarray[1]; bool runnable = true; // Path find from 255, 255 to 0,0 on the map foreach(Tile tile in Map) { if(tile.Color == Color.Red) { if (tile.Position.Contains(endpoint)) { runnable = false; } } } if(runnable == true) { running = true; Pathfinder p = new Pathfinder(Map); pathway = p.FindPath(startpoint, endpoint); running = false; threadstarted = false; } }

    Read the article

  • Java keyboard input [on hold]

    - by dØd
    I'm trying to implement a input system that can detect whether a certain key was held or was only pressed briefly. So far I have this: KEY_INTERACTION_TRESHOLD = 400ms //inside a constructor shouldMeasure = true; @Override public void keyPressed(KeyEvent e) { if (shouldMeasure) { startTime = System.currentTimeMillis(); shouldMeasure = false; return; } System.out.println("Button is held down"); e.consume(); } @Override public void keyReleased(KeyEvent e) { if (System.currentTimeMillis() - startTime < KEY_INTERACTION_TRESHOLD) { System.out.println("Button was only pressed briefly"); } startTime = 0; shouldMeasure = true; e.consume(); } Now this works, but the problem is that there is this delay between when I press a key to hold and when the message 'Button is held down' gets displayed. I understand why this delay occurs (for example when you press and hold a letter there will be a similar delay between the first and the second letter printed out), but I would like to somehow avoid it. I'm using only the Java API.

    Read the article

  • Is this method of writing Unit Tests correct?

    - by aspdotnetuser
    I have created a small C# project to help me learn how to write good unit tests. I know that one important rule of unit testing is to test the smallest 'unit' of code possible so that if it fails you know exactly what part of the code needs to fixed. I need help with the following before I continue to implement more unit tests for the project: If I have a Car class, for example, that creates a new Car object which has various attributes that are calculated when its' constructor method is called, would the two following tests be considered as overkill? Should there be one test that tests all calculated attributes of the Car object instead? [Test] public void CarEngineCalculatedValue() { BusinessObjects.Car car= new BusinessObjects.Car(); Assert.GreaterOrEqual(car.Engine, 1); } [Test] public void CarNameCalculatedValue() { BusinessObjects.Car car= new BusinessObjects.Car(); Assert.IsNotNull(car.Name); } Should I have the above two test methods to test these things or should I have one test method that asserts the Car object has first been created and then test these things in the same test method?

    Read the article

  • Service layer coupling

    - by Justin
    I am working on writing a service layer for an order system in php. It's the typical scenario, you have an Order that can have multiple Line Items. So lets say a request is received to store a line item with pictures and comments. I might receive a json request such as { 'type': 'Bike', 'color': 'Red', 'commentIds': [3193,3194] 'attachmentIds': [123,413] } My idea was to have a Service_LineItem_Bike class that knows how to take the json data and store an entity for a bike. My question is, the Service_LineItem class now needs to fetch comments and file attachments, and store the relationships. Service_LineItem seems like it should interact with a Service_Comment and a Service_FileUpload. Should instances of these two other services be instantiated and passed to the Service_LineItem constructor,or set by getters and setters? Dependency injection seems like the right solution, allowing a service access to a 'service fetching helper' seems wrong, and this should stay at the application level. I am using Doctrine 2 as a ORM, and I can technically write a dql query inside Service_LineItem to fetch the comments and file uploads necessary for the association, but this seems like it would have a tighter coupling, rather then leaving this up to the right service object.

    Read the article

  • What to do when TDD tests reveal new functionality that is needed that also needs tests?

    - by Joshua Harris
    What do you do when you are writing a test and you get to the point where you need to make the test pass and you realize that you need an additional piece of functionality that should be separated into its own function? That new function needs to be tested as well, but the TDD cycle says to Make a test fail, make it pass then refactor. If I am on the step where I am trying to make my test pass I'm not supposed to go off and start another failing test to test the new functionality that I need to implement. For example, I am writing a point class that has a function WillCollideWith(LineSegment): public class Point { // Point data and constructor ... public bool CollidesWithLine(LineSegment lineSegment) { Vector PointEndOfMovement = new Vector(Position.X + Velocity.X, Position.Y + Velocity.Y); LineSegment pointPath = new LineSegment(Position, PointEndOfMovement); if (lineSegment.Intersects(pointPath)) return true; return false; } } I was writing a test for CollidesWithLine when I realized that I would need a LineSegment.Intersects(LineSegment) function. But, should I just stop what I am doing on my test cycle to go create this new functionality? That seems to break the "Red, Green, Refactor" principle. Should I just write the code that detects that lineSegments Intersect inside of the CollidesWithLine function and refactor it after it is working? That would work in this case since I can access the data from LineSegment, but what about in cases where that kind of data is private?

    Read the article

  • Avoid overwriting all the methods in the child class

    - by Heckel
    The context I am making a game in C++ using SFML. I have a class that controls what is displayed on the screen (manager on the image below). It has a list of all the things to draw like images, text, etc. To be able to store them in one list I created a Drawable class from which all the other drawable class inherit. The image below represents how I would organize each class. Drawable has a virtual method Draw that will be called by the manager. Image and Text overwrite this method. My problem is that I would like Image::draw method to work for Circle, Polygon, etc. since sf::CircleShape and sf::ConvexShape inherit from sf::Shape. I thought of two ways to do that. My first idea would be for Image to have a pointer on sf::Shape, and the subclasses would make it point onto their sf::CircleShape or sf::ConvexShape classes (Like on the image below). In the Polygon constructor I would write something like ptr_shape = &polygon_shape; This doesn't look very elegant because I have two variables that are, in fact, just one. My second idea is to store the sf::CircleShape and sf::ConvexShape inside the ptr_shape like ptr_shape = new sf::ConvexShape(...); and to use a function that is only in ConvexShape I would cast it like so ((sf::ConvexShape*)ptr_shape)->convex_method(); But that doesn't look very elegant either. I am not even sure I am allowed to do that. My question I added details about the whole thing because I thought that maybe my whole architecture was wrong. I would like to know how I could design my program to be safe without overwriting all the Image methods. I apologize if this question has already been asked; I have no idea what to google.

    Read the article

  • Add control to grid from code behind in Silverlight

    - by Emanuele Bartolesi
    In this post I show how you can easily add a control to a silverlight grid layout from code behind. First you draw the grid in the xaml. <Grid x:Name="LayoutRoot" Background="Red"> <Grid.RowDefinitions> <RowDefinition Height="20"> </RowDefinition> </Grid.RowDefinitions> <Grid.ColumnDefinitions> <ColumnDefinition Width="300"> </ColumnDefinition> </Grid.ColumnDefinitions> </Grid> Now in the page constructor add the following code. public MainPage() { InitializeComponent(); var myButton = new Button { Name = "btnOk", Content = "Ok", }; myButton.SetValue(Grid.RowProperty, 1); myButton.SetValue(Grid.ColumnProperty, 1); myButton.Click += myButton_Click; LayoutRoot.Children.Add(myButton); } Also add the evento of the button. void myButton_Click(object sender, RoutedEventArgs e) { } The code needs no comment because it’s very simple. The only important thing is the method SetValue because it is used to set XAML attribute of element. For a better understanding I have created an example that you can download from here.

    Read the article

  • this.BoundingBox.Intersects(Wall[0].BoundingBox) not working properly

    - by Pieter
    I seem to be having this problem a lot, I'm still learning XNA / C# and well, trying to make a classic paddle and ball game. The problem I run into (and after debugging have no answer) is that everytime I run my game and press either of the movement keys, the Paddle won't move. Debugging shows that it never gets to the movement part, but I can't understand why not? Here's my code: // This is the If statement for checking Left movement. if (keyboardState.IsKeyDown(Keys.Left) || keyboardState.IsKeyDown(Keys.A)) { if (!CheckCollision(walls[0])) { Location.X -= Velocity; } } //This is the CheckCollision(Wall wall) boolean public bool CheckCollision(Wall wall) { if (this.BoundingBox.Intersects(wall.BoundingBox)) { return true; } return false; } As far as I can tell there should be absolutely no problem with this, I initialize the bounding box in the constructor whenever a new instance of Walls and Paddle is created. this.BoundingBox = new Rectangle(0, 0, Sprite.Width, Sprite.Height); Any idea as to why this isn't working? I have previously succeeded with using the whole Location.X < Wall.Location.X + Wall.Texture.Width code... But to me that seems like too much coding if a simple boolean check could be done.

    Read the article

  • Lucene best practice

    - by Dragos
    I am trying to understand how Lucene should be used. From what I have read, creating an IndexReader is costly, so using a Search Manager shoulg be the right choice. However, a SearchManager should be produced by a NRTManager(which, by the way, should replace the IndexWriter for every add or delete operation performed). But in order to have a NRTManager, I should first have an IndexWriter, and here comes my problem. The documentation says: an IndexWriter is thread-safe the constructor of this class takes a Directory object, so it seems creating an instace should be costly(as in the case of an IndexReader) all changes are buffered and flushed periodically(so they seem to encourage using a single instance) but: the changes, although flushed will only be visible after commit or close after finished making updates(add/delete), the instance should be closed I also found this: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/5374419/forgot-to-close-the-lucene-indexwriter-after-adding-documents-to-the-index where it is said that not closing a writer might ruin everything So what am I really supposed to do? Is having a single IndexWriter instance a good idea(make only commit and never close it)? EDIT: What is more, if I use NRTManager, how can I make acommit`? Is it even possible?

    Read the article

  • Static DataTable or DataSet in a class - bad idea?

    - by Superbest
    I have several instances of a class. Each instance stores data in a common database. So, I thought "I'll make the DataTable table field static, that way every instance can just add/modify rows to its own table field, but all the data will actually be in one place!" However, apparently it's a bad idea to do use static fields, especially if it's databases: Don't Use "Static" in C#? Is this a bad idea? Will I run into problems later on if I use it? This is a small project so I can accept no testing as a compromise if that is the only drawback. The benefit of using a static database is that there can be many objects of type MyClass, but only one table they all talk to, so a static field seems to be an implementation of exactly this, while keeping syntax concise. I don't see why I shouldn't use a static field (although I wouldn't really know) but if I had to, the best alternative I can think of is creating one DataTable, and passing a reference to it when creating each instance of MyClass, perhaps as a constructor parameter. But is this really an improvement? It seems less intuitive than a static field.

    Read the article

  • jBullet Collision/Physics not working as expected

    - by Kenneth Bray
    Below is the code for one of my objects in the game I am creating (yes although this is a cube, I am not making anything remotely like MineCraft), and my issue is I while the cube will display and is does follow the physics if the cube falls, it does not interact with any other objects in the game. If I was to have multiple cubes in screen at once they all just sit there, or shoot off in all directions never stopping. Anyway, I am new to jBullet, and any help would be appreciated. // Constructor public Cube(float pX, float pY, float pZ, float pSize) { posX = pX; posY = pY; posZ = pZ; size = pSize; rotX = 0; rotY = 0; rotZ = 0; // physics stuff fallMotionState = new DefaultMotionState(new Transform(new Matrix4f(new Quat4f(0, 0, 0, 1), new Vector3f(posX, posY, posZ), 1))); fallRigidBodyCI = new RigidBodyConstructionInfo(mass, fallMotionState, fallShape, fallInertia); fallRigidBody = new RigidBody(fallRigidBodyCI); }

    Read the article

  • Good design for class with similar constructors

    - by RustyTheBoyRobot
    I was reading this question and thought that good points were made, but most of the solutions involved renaming one of the methods. I am refactoring some poorly written code and I've run into this situation: public class Entity { public Entity(String uniqueIdentifier, boolean isSerialNumber) { if (isSerialNumber) { this.serialNumber = uniqueIdentifier; //Lookup other data } else { this.primaryKey = uniqueIdentifier; // Lookup other data with different query } } } The obvious design flaw is that someone needed two different ways to create the object, but couldn't overload the constructor since both identifiers were of the same type (String). Thus they added a flag to differentiate. So, my question is this: when this situation arises, what are good designs for differentiating between these two ways of instantiating an object? My First Thoughts You could create two different static methods to create your object. The method names could be different. This is weak because static methods don't get inherited. You could create different objects to force the types to be different (i.e., make a PrimaryKey class and a SerialNumber class). I like this because it seems to be a better design, but it also is a pain to refactor if serialNumber is a String everywhere else.

    Read the article

  • Looking for a better Factory pattern (Java)

    - by Sam Goldberg
    After doing a rough sketch of a high level object model, I am doing iterative TDD, and letting the other objects emerge as a refactoring of the code (as it increases in complexity). (That whole approach may be a discussion/argument for another day.) In any case, I am at the point where I am looking to refactor code blocks currently in an if-else blocks into separate objects. This is because there is another another value combination which creates new set of logical sub-branches. To be more specific, this is a trading system feature, where buy orders have different behavior than sell orders. Responses to the orders have a numeric indicator field which describes some event that occurred (e.g. fill, cancel). The combination of this numeric indicator field plus whether it is a buy or sell, require different processing buy the code. Creating a family of objects to separate the code for the unique handling each of the combinations of the 2 fields seems like a good choice at this point. The way I would normally do this, is to create some Factory object which when called with the 2 relevant parameters (indicator, buysell), would return the correct subclass of the object. Some times I do this pattern with a map, which allows to look up a live instance (or constructor to use via reflection), and sometimes I just hard code the cases in the Factory class. So - for some reason this feels like not good design (e.g. one object which knows all the subclasses of an interface or parent object), and a bit clumsy. Is there a better pattern for solving this kind of problem? And if this factory method approach makes sense, can anyone suggest a nicer design?

    Read the article

  • XNA 4.0 - Purple/Pink Tint Over All Sprites After Viewing in FullScreen

    - by D. Dubya
    I'm a noob to the game dev world and recently finished the 2D XNA tutorial from http://www.pluralsight.com. Everything was perfect until I decided to try the game in Fullscreen mode. The following code was added to the Game1 constructor. graphics.PreferredBackBufferWidth = 800; graphics.PreferredBackBufferHeight = 480; graphics.IsFullScreen = true; As soon as it launched in Fullscreen, I noticed that the entire game was tinted. None of the colours were appearing as they should. That code was removed, the game then launched in the 800x480 window, however the tint remained. I commented out all my Draw code so that all that was left was GraphicsDevice.Clear(Color.CornflowerBlue); //spriteBatch.Begin(); //gameState.Draw(spriteBatch, false); //spriteBatch.End(); //spriteBatch.Begin(SpriteSortMode.Deferred, BlendState.Additive); //gameState.Draw(spriteBatch, true); //spriteBatch.End(); base.Draw(gameTime); The result was an empty window that was tinted Purple, not Blue. I changed the GraphicsDevice.Clear colour to Color.White and the window was tinted Pink. Color.Transparent gave a Black window. Even tried rebooting my PC but the 'tint' still remains. I'm at a loss here.

    Read the article

  • Rendering multiple squares fast?

    - by Sam
    so I'm doing my first steps with openGL development on android and I'm kinda stuck at some serious performance issues... What I'm trying to do is render a whole grid of single colored squares on to the screen and I'm getting framerates of ~7FPS. The squares are 9px in size right now with one pixel border in between, so I get a few thousand of them. I have a class "Square" and the Renderer iterates over all Squares every frame and calls the draw() method of each (just the iteration is fast enough, with no openGL code the whole thing runs smootlhy at 60FPS). Right now the draw() method looks like this: // Prepare the square coordinate data GLES20.glVertexAttribPointer(mPositionHandle, COORDS_PER_VERTEX, GLES20.GL_FLOAT, false, vertexStride, vertexBuffer); // Set color for drawing the square GLES20.glUniform4fv(mColorHandle, 1, color, 0); // Draw the square GLES20.glDrawElements(GLES20.GL_TRIANGLES, drawOrder.length, GLES20.GL_UNSIGNED_SHORT, drawListBuffer); So its actually only 3 openGL calls. Everything else (loading shaders, filling buffers, getting appropriate handles, etc.) is done in the Constructor and things like the Program and the handles are also static attributes. What am I missing here, why is it rendering so slow? I've also tried loading the buffer data into VBOs, but this is actually slower... Maybe I did something wrong though. Any help greatly appreciated! :)

    Read the article

  • Is having a single `IndexWriter` instance in Lucene a good idea?

    - by Dragos
    I am trying to understand how Lucene should be used. From what I have read, creating an IndexReader is costly, so using a Search Manager shoulg be the right choice. However, a SearchManager should be produced by a NRTManager(which, by the way, should replace the IndexWriter for every add or delete operation performed). But in order to have a NRTManager, I should first have an IndexWriter, and here comes my problem. The documentation says: an IndexWriter is thread-safe the constructor of this class takes a Directory object, so it seems creating an instace should be costly(as in the case of an IndexReader) all changes are buffered and flushed periodically(so they seem to encourage using a single instance) but: the changes, although flushed will only be visible after commit or close after finished making updates(add/delete), the instance should be closed I also found this: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/5374419/forgot-to-close-the-lucene-indexwriter-after-adding-documents-to-the-index where it is said that not closing a writer might ruin everything So what am I really supposed to do? Is having a single IndexWriter instance a good idea (make only commit and never close it)? EDIT: What is more, if I use NRTManager, how can I make acommit`? Is it even possible?

    Read the article

  • JAVA Gui on Hello World [closed]

    - by user58892
    I am designing, implementing, testing, and debuging a GUI-based version of a “Hello, World!” program in a JFrame that includes a JLabel that reads “Hello, World!” and I am trying to use a layout manager, and an Exit button to close the program. Here's what I have so far, I would really apreciate if you could help on it syntax. I am 90% done but tried hard and it couldn't run. import java.awt.*; // Needed for flow layout manager import javax.swing.*; //All swing components live in the javax.swing package import javax.swing.JButton; //to recognize buttons import javax.swing.JFrame; import javax.swing.JPanel; import javax.swing.JTextField; public class HelloWorld { public static void main(String[] args) { //creates the label. The JLabel constructor //takes an optional argument which set the text of the label /* The text will be aligned with the center of the frame * otherwise it will align on the left. */ JLabel label= new JLabel("Hello World!"); new FlowWindow(); label.setHorizontalAlignment (SwingConstants.CENTER); JFrame frame = new JFrame("Hello"); //create exit button JButton button1 = new JButton("Exit"); //Add exit button to the content pane. add(button1); frame.add(label); frame.setSize(300, 300); frame.setVisible(true); frame.setLocationRelativeTo(null); frame.toFront(); } public static void FlowWindow() { //Add a new FlowLayout()); frame.setDefaultCloseOperation(JFrame.EXIT_ON_CLOSE); } }

    Read the article

  • GeoTools Demo Embedded in an Application Framework via Maven

    - by Geertjan
    GeoTools 8.4 was very recently released, according to its active blog, and to celebrate here's a starting point for working with GeoTools on the NetBeans Platform: The sources of the above are below, as a Maven project, so this project can be used in any IDE or command line: http://java.net/projects/nb-api-samples/sources/api-samples/show/versions/7.3/tutorials/geospatial/geotools/MyGeospatialSystem Though quite dated, the GeoTools NetBeans Quick Start is very helpful, especially since it used Maven too, but not the NetBeans Platform, unlike the above sample. From the point of view of NetBeans Platform developers, the GeoTools JMapPane class is very useful, providing the integration point between GeoTools and the rest of the NetBeans Platform application. Being integrated into the NetBeans Platform means that a host of standard features are now available to the GeoTools features, e.g., print functionality, which only requires a runtime dependency on the NetBeans Print API, together with the "print.printable" client property put into constructor of the TopComponent: By the way, I've spent some time now and again being confused about the difference between GeoTools and GeoToolkit. Here's an interesting starting point to beginning to understand the differences and history between them. Soon I'd like to have an example similar for the above for GeoToolkit.

    Read the article

  • Is wrapping a third party code the only solution to unit test its consumers? [closed]

    - by Songo
    I'm doing unit testing and in one of my classes I need to send a mail from one of the methods, so using constructor injection I inject an instance of Zend_Mail class which is in Zend framework. Now some people argue that if a library is stable enough and won't change often then there is no need to wrap it. So assuming that Zend_Mail is stable and won't change and it fits my needs entirely, then I won't need a wrapper for it. Now take a look at my class Logger that depends on Zend_Mail: class Logger{ private $mailer; function __construct(Zend_Mail $mail){ $this->mail=$mail; } function toBeTestedFunction(){ //Some code $this->mail->setTo('some value'); $this->mail->setSubject('some value'); $this->mail->setBody('some value'); $this->mail->send(); //Some } } However, Unit testing demands that I test one component at a time, so I need to mock the Zend_Mail class. In addition I'm violating the Dependency Inversion principle as my Logger class now depends on concretion not abstraction. Now is wrapping Zend_Mail the only solution or is there a better approach to this problem? The code is in PHP, but answers doesn't have to be. This is more of a design issue than a language specific feature

    Read the article

  • Correct way to inject dependencies in Business logic service?

    - by Sri Harsha Velicheti
    Currently the structure of my application is as below Web App -- WCF Service (just a facade) -- Business Logic Services -- Repository - Entity Framework Datacontext Now each of my Business logic service is dependent on more than 5 repositories ( I have interfaces defined for all the repos) and I am doing a Constructor injection right now(poor mans DI instead of using a proper IOC as it was determined that it would be a overkill for our project). Repositories have references to EF datacontexts. Now some of the methods in the Business logic service require only one of the 5 repositories, so If I need to call that method I would end up instantiating a Service which will instatiate all 5 repositories which is a waste. An example: public class SomeService : ISomeService { public(IFirstRepository repo1, ISecondRepository repo2, IThirdRepository repo3) {} // My DoSomething method depends only on repo1 and doesn't use repo2 and repo3 public DoSomething() { //uses repo1 to do some stuff, doesn't use repo2 and repo3 } public DoSomething2() { //uses repo2 and repo3 to do something, doesn't require repo1 } public DoSomething3() { //uses repo3 to do something, doesn't require repo1 and repo2 } } Now if my I have to use DoSomething method on SomeService I end up creating both IFirstRepository,ISecondRepository and IThirdRepository but using only IFirstRepository, now this is bugging me, I can seem to accept that I am un-necessarily creating repositories and not using them. Is this a correct design? Are there any better alternatives? Should I be looking at Lazy instantiation Lazy<T> ?

    Read the article

  • Where we should put validation for domain model

    - by adisembiring
    I still looking best practice for domain model validation. Is that good to put the validation in constructor of domain model ? my domain model validation example as follows: public class Order { private readonly List<OrderLine> _lineItems; public virtual Customer Customer { get; private set; } public virtual DateTime OrderDate { get; private set; } public virtual decimal OrderTotal { get; private set; } public Order (Customer customer) { if (customer == null) throw new ArgumentException("Customer name must be defined"); Customer = customer; OrderDate = DateTime.Now; _lineItems = new List<LineItem>(); } public void AddOderLine //.... public IEnumerable<OrderLine> AddOderLine { get {return _lineItems;} } } public class OrderLine { public virtual Order Order { get; set; } public virtual Product Product { get; set; } public virtual int Quantity { get; set; } public virtual decimal UnitPrice { get; set; } public OrderLine(Order order, int quantity, Product product) { if (order == null) throw new ArgumentException("Order name must be defined"); if (quantity <= 0) throw new ArgumentException("Quantity must be greater than zero"); if (product == null) throw new ArgumentException("Product name must be defined"); Order = order; Quantity = quantity; Product = product; } } Thanks for all of your suggestion.

    Read the article

  • Class or Dictionary

    - by user2038134
    I want to create a immutable Scale class in C#. public sealed class Scale { string _Name; string _Description; SomeOrderedCollection _ScaleValueDefinitions; Unit _Unit // properties .... // methods ContainsValue(double value) .... // constructors // all parameters except scalevaluedefinitions are optional // for a Scale to be useful atleast 1 ScaleValueDefinition should exist public Scale(string name, string description, SomeOrderedCollection scaleValueDefinitions, unit) { /* initialize */} } so first a ScaleValueDefinition should be represented by to values: Value (double) Definition (string) these values are known before the Scale class is created and should be unique. so what is the best approach. create a immutable class ScaleValueDefinition with value and definition as properties and use it in a list. use a dictionary. use another way i didn't think of... and how to implement it. for option 1. i can use params ScaleValueDefinition[] ValueDefinitions in the constructor, but how to do it for the other options? and as last at what amount of value's (properties) should i choose one option over the other?

    Read the article

  • Encapsulate standard C functions?

    - by Jack Stout
    While studying the C programming language and learning safe practices, I'm inclined to write a layer of functionality over several parts of the standard library. This would serve two purposes: I could use standard parts of the language in ways that feel more familiar or rational to me, and I could easily replace that functionality with my own, if I needed to. I could benefit from this, but should I do it? As an example, we can consider memory management. If I've written malloc() into the constructors of each of my objects, then decide that I need to handle memory allocation on my own, I have to edit the constructor associated with every object. By referencing my own function, I can change the contents of that function without writing a new constructors. It seems obvious that I should do this, but I'm used to Python. I'm extremely comfortable in that environment and have no problem linking to any part of the standard library from any part of my program because I know I will almost certainly leave that relationship untouched for the life of the project. The situation I'm running into with C feels like I'm trying to hide the language from myself. Will writing a layer of functionality over the C standard library help me in learning the language and developing a codebase, or will it stifle my understanding going forward?

    Read the article

  • Are Vala and desktopcouch ready?

    - by pavolzetor
    Hi, I have started writting rss reader in Vala, but I don't know, what database system should I use, I cannot connect to couchdb and sqlite works fine, but I would like use couchdb because of ubuntu one. I have natty with latest updates public CouchDB.Session session; public CouchDB.Database db; public string feed_table = "feed"; public string item_table = "item"; public struct field { string name; string val; } // constructor public Database() { try { this.session = new CouchDB.Session(); } catch (Error e) { stderr.printf ("%s a\n", e.message); } try { this.db = new CouchDB.Database (this.session, "test"); } catch (Error e) { stderr.printf ("%s a\n", e.message); } try { this.session.get_database_info("test"); } catch (Error e) { stderr.printf ("%s aa\n", e.message); } try { var newdoc = new CouchDB.Document (); newdoc.set_boolean_field ("awesome", true); newdoc.set_string_field ("phone", "555-VALA"); newdoc.set_double_field ("pi", 3.14159); newdoc.set_int_field ("meaning_of_life", 42); this.db.put_document (newdoc); // store document } catch (Error e) { stderr.printf ("%s aaa\n", e.message); } reports $ ./xml_parser rss.xmlCannot connect to destination (127.0.0.1) aa Cannot connect to destination (127.0.0.1) aaa

    Read the article

  • Is it reasonable to null guard every single dereferenced pointer?

    - by evadeflow
    At a new job, I've been getting flagged in code reviews for code like this: PowerManager::PowerManager(IMsgSender* msgSender) : msgSender_(msgSender) { } void PowerManager::SignalShutdown() { msgSender_->sendMsg("shutdown()"); } I'm told that last method should read: void PowerManager::SignalShutdown() { if (msgSender_) { msgSender_->sendMsg("shutdown()"); } } i.e., I must put a NULL guard around the msgSender_ variable, even though it is a private data member. It's difficult for me to restrain myself from using expletives to describe how I feel about this piece of 'wisdom'. When I ask for an explanation, I get a litany of horror stories about how some junior programmer, some-year, got confused about how a class was supposed to work and accidentally deleted a member he shouldn't have (and set it to NULL afterwards, apparently), and things blew up in the field right after a product release, and we've "learned the hard way, trust us" that it's better to just NULL check everything. To me, this feels like cargo cult programming, plain and simple. A few well-meaning colleagues are earnestly trying to help me 'get it' and see how this will help me write more robust code, but... I can't help feeling like they're the ones who don't get it. Is it reasonable for a coding standard to require that every single pointer dereferenced in a function be checked for NULL first—even private data members? (Note: To give some context, we make a consumer electronics device, not an air traffic control system or some other 'failure-equals-people-die' product.) EDIT: In the above example, the msgSender_ collaborator isn't optional. If it's ever NULL, it indicates a bug. The only reason it is passed into the constructor is so PowerManager can be tested with a mock IMsgSender subclass.

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108  | Next Page >