Search Results

Search found 597 results on 24 pages for 'constructors'.

Page 12/24 | < Previous Page | 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19  | Next Page >

• Is there a pattern or best practice for passing a reference type to multiple classes vs a static class?

  - by Dave

  My .NET application creates HTML files, and as such, the structure looks like variable myData BuildHomePage() variable graph = new BuildGraphPage(myData) variable table = BuildTablePage(myData) BuildGraphPage and BuildTablePage both require access data, the myData object. In the above example, I've passed the myData object to 2 constructors. This is what I'm doing now, in my current project. The myData object, and it's properties are all readonly. The problem is, the number of pages which will require this object has grown. In the real project, there are currently 4, but the new spec is to have about 20. Passing this object to the constructor of each new object and assigning it to a field is a little time consuming, but not a hardship! This poses the question whether it's better practice to continue as I have, or to refactor and create a new static class for myData which can be referenced from any where in my project. I guess my abilities to use Google are poor, because I did try and find an appropriate pattern as I am sure this type of design must be common place but my results returned nothing. Is there a pattern which is suited, or do best practices lean towards one implementation over another.

  Read the article

• Why a static main method in Java and C#, rather than a constructor?

  - by Konrad Rudolph

  Why did (notably) Java and C# decide to have a static method as their entry point – rather than representing an application instance by an instance of an Application class, with the entry point being an appropriate constructor which, at least to me, seems more natural? I’m interested in a definitive answer from a primary or secondary source, not mere speculations. This has been asked before. Unfortunately, the existing answers are merely begging the question. In particular, the following answers don’t satisfy me, as I deem them incorrect: There would be ambiguity if the constructor were overloaded. – In fact, C# (as well as C and C++) allows different signatures for Main so the same potential ambiguity exists, and is dealt with. A static method means no objects can be instantiated before so order of initialisation is clear. – This is just factually wrong, some objects are instantiated before (e.g. in a static constructor). So they can be invoked by the runtime without having to instantiate a parent object. – This is no answer at all. Just to justify further why I think this is a valid and interesting question: Many frameworks do use classes to represent applications, and constructors as entry points. For instance, the VB.NET application framework uses a dedicated main dialog (and its constructor) as the entry point1. Neither Java nor C# technically need a main method. Well, C# needs one to compile, but Java not even that. And in neither case is it needed for execution. So this doesn’t appear to be a technical restriction. And, as I mentioned in the first paragraph, for a mere convention it seems oddly unfitting with the general design principle of Java and C#. To be clear, there isn’t a specific disadvantage to having a static main method, it’s just distinctly odd, which made me wonder if there was some technical rationale behind it. I’m interested in a definitive answer from a primary or secondary source, not mere speculations. 1 Although there is a callback (Startup) which may intercept this.

  Read the article

• C# : When to go Fluent

  - by ach

  In many respects I really like the idea of Fluent interfaces, but with all of the modern features of C# (initializers, lambdas, named parameters) I find myself thinking, "is it worth it?", and "Is this the right pattern to use?". Could anyone give me, if not an accepted practice, at least their own experience or decision matrix for when to use the Fluent pattern? Conclusion: Some good rules of thumb from the answers so far: Fluent interfaces help greatly when you have more actions than setters, since calls benefit more from the context pass-through. Fluent interfaces should be thought of as a layer over top of an api, not the sole means of use. The modern features such as lambdas, initializers, and named parameters, can work hand-in-hand to make a fluent interface even more friendly. ... Edit: Here is an example of what I mean by the modern features making it feel less needed. Take for example a (perhaps poor example) Fluent interface that allows me to create an Employee like: Employees.CreateNew().WithFirstName("Peter") .WihtLastName("Gibbons") .WithManager() .WithFirstName("Bill") .WithLastName("Lumbergh") .WithTitle("Manager") .WithDepartment("Y2K"); Could easily be written with initiallizers like: Employees.Add(new Employee() { FirstName = "Peter", LastName = "Gibbons", Manager = new Employee() { FirstName = "Bill", LastName = "Lumbergh", Title = "Manager", Department = "Y2K" } }); I could also have used named parameters in a constructors in this example.

  Read the article

• OO Design, how to model Tonal Harmony?

  - by David

  I have started to write a program in C++ 11 that would analyse chords, scales, and harmony. The biggest problem I am having in my design phase, is that the note 'C' is a note, a type of chord (Cmaj, Cmin, C7, etc), and a type of key (the key of Cmajor, Cminor). The same issue arises with intervals (minor 3rd, major 3rd). I am using a base class, Token, that is the base class for all 'symbols' in the program. so for example: class Token { public: typedef shared_ptr<Token> pointer_type; Token() {} virtual ~Token() {} }; class Command : public Token { public: Command() {} pointer_type execute(); } class Note : public Token; class Triad : public Token; class MajorTriad : public Triad; // CMajorTriad, etc class Key : public Token; class MinorKey : public Key; // Natural Minor, Harmonic minor,etc class Scale : public Token; As you can see, to create all the derived classes (CMajorTriad, C, CMajorScale, CMajorKey, etc) would quickly become ridiculously complex including all the other notes, as well as enharmonics. multiple inheritance would not work, ie: class C : public Note, Triad, Key, Scale class C, cannot be all of these things at the same time. It is contextual, also polymorphing with this will not work (how to determine which super methods to perform? calling every super class constructors should not happen here) Are there any design ideas or suggestions that people have to offer? I have not been able to find anything on google in regards to modelling tonal harmony from an OO perspective. There are just far too many relationships between all the concepts here.

  Read the article

• Which of these design patterns is superior?

  - by durron597

  I find I tend to design class structures where several subclasses have nearly identical functionality, but one piece of it is different. So I write nearly all the code in the abstract class, and then create several subclasses to do the one different thing. Does this pattern have a name? Is this the best way for this sort of scenario? Option 1: public interface TaxCalc { String calcTaxes(); } public abstract class AbstractTaxCalc implements TaxCalc { // most constructors and fields are here public double calcTaxes(UserFinancials data) { // code double diffNumber = getNumber(data); // more code } abstract protected double getNumber(UserFinancials data); protected double initialTaxes(double grossIncome) { // code return initialNumber; } } public class SimpleTaxCalc extends AbstractCalc { protected double getNumber(UserFinancials data) { double temp = intialCalc(data.getGrossIncome()); // do other stuff return temp; } } public class FancyTaxCalc extends AbstractTaxCalc { protected double getNumber(UserFinancials data) { int temp = initialCalc(data.getGrossIncome()); // Do fancier math return temp; } } Option 2: This version is more like the Strategy pattern, and should be able to do essentially the same sorts of tasks. public class TaxCalcImpl implements TaxCalc { private final TaxMath worker; public DummyImpl(TaxMath worker) { this.worker = worker; } public double calcTaxes(UserFinancials data) { // code double analyzedDouble = initialNumber; int diffNumber = worker.getNumber(data, initialNumber); // more code } protected int initialTaxes(double grossIncome) { // code return initialNumber; } } public interface TaxMath { double getNumber(UserFinancials data, double initial); } Then I could do: TaxCalc dum = new TaxCalcImpl(new TaxMath() { @Override public double getNumber(UserFinancials data, double initial) { double temp = data.getGrossIncome(); // do math return temp; }); And I could make specific implementations of TaxMath for things I use a lot, or I could make a stateless singleton for certain kinds of workers I use a lot. So the question I'm asking is: Which of these patterns is superior, when, and why? Or, alternately, is there an even better third option?

  Read the article

• Handling Indirection and keeping layers of method calls, objects, and even xml files straight

  - by Cervo

  How do you keep everything straight as you trace deeply into a piece of software through multiple method calls, object constructors, object factories, and even spring wiring. I find that 4 or 5 method calls are easy to keep in my head, but once you are going to 8 or 9 calls deep it gets hard to keep track of everything. Are there strategies for keeping everything straight? In particular, I might be looking for how to do task x, but then as I trace down (or up) I lose track of that goal, or I find multiple layers need changes, but then I lose track of which changes as I trace all the way down. Or I have tentative plans that I find out are not valid but then during the tracing I forget that the plan is invalid and try to consider the same plan all over again killing time.... Is there software that might be able to help out? grep and even eclipse can help me to do the actual tracing from a call to the definition but I'm more worried about keeping track of everything including the de-facto plan for what has to change (which might vary as you go down/up and realize the prior plan was poor). In the past I have dealt with a few big methods that you trace and pretty much can figure out what is going on within a few calls. But now there are dozens of really tiny methods, many just a single call to another method/constructor and it is hard to keep track of them all.

  Read the article

• Discuss: PLs are characterised by which (iso)morphisms are implemented

  - by Yttrill

  I am interested to hear discussion of the proposition summarised in the title. As we know programming language constructions admit a vast number of isomorphisms. In some languages in some places in the translation process some of these isomorphisms are implemented, whilst others require code to be written to implement them. For example, in my language Felix, the isomorphism between a type T and a tuple of one element of type T is implemented, meaning the two types are indistinguishable (identical). Similarly, a tuple of N values of the same type is not merely isomorphic to an array, it is an array: the isomorphism is implemented by the compiler. Many other isomorphisms are not implemented for example there is an isomorphism expressed by the following client code: match v with | ((?x,?y),?z = x,(y,z) // Felix match v with | (x,y), - x,(y,z) (* Ocaml *) As another example, a type constructor C of int in Felix may be used directly as a function, whilst in Ocaml you must write a wrapper: let c x = C x Another isomorphism Felix implements is the elimination of unit values, including those in tuples: Felix can do this because (most) polymorphic values are monomorphised which can be done because it is a whole program analyser, Ocaml, for example, cannot do this easily because it supports separate compilation. For the same reason Felix performs type-class dispatch at compile time whilst Haskell passes around dictionaries. There are some quite surprising issues here. For example an array is just a tuple, and tuples can be indexed at run time using a match and returning a value of a corresponding sum type. Indeed, to be correct the index used is in fact a case of unit sum with N summands, rather than an integer. Yet, in a real implementation, if the tuple is an array the index is replaced by an integer with a range check, and the result type is replaced by the common argument type of all the constructors: two isomorphisms are involved here, but they're implemented partly in the compiler translation and partly at run time.

  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

• Single Responsibility Principle - How Can I Avoid Code Fragmentation?

  - by Dean Chalk

  I'm working on a team where the team leader is a virulent advocate of SOLID development principles. However, he lacks a lot of experience in getting complex software out of the door. We have a situation where he has applied SRP to what was already quite a complex code base, which has now become very highly fragmented and difficult to understand and debug. We now have a problem not only with code fragmentation, but also encapsulation, as methods within a class that may have been private or protected have been judged to represent a 'reason to change' and have been extracted to public or internal classes and interfaces which is not in keeping with the encapsulation goals of the application. We have some class constructors which take over 20 interface parameters, so our IoC registration and resolution is becoming a monster in its own right. I want to know if there is any 'refactor away from SRP' approach we could use to help fix some of these issues. I have read that it doesn't violate SOLID if I create a number of empty courser-grained classes that 'wrap' a number of closely related classes to provide a single-point of access to the sum of their functionality (i.e. mimicking a less overly SRP'd class implementation). Apart from that, I cannot think of a solution which will allow us to pragmatically continue with our development efforts, while keeping everyone happy. Any suggestions ?

  Read the article

• OOP for unit testing : The good, the bad and the ugly

  - by Jeff

  I have recently read Miško Hevery's pdf guide to writing testable code in which its stated that you should limit your classes instanciations in your constructors. I understand that its what you should do because it allow you to easily mock you objects that are send as parameters to your class. But when it comes to writing actual code, i often end up with things like that (exemple is in PHP using Zend Framework but I think it's self explanatory) : class Some_class { private $_data; private $_options; private $_locale; public function __construct($data, $options = null) { $this->_data = $data; if ($options != null) { $this->_options = $options; } $this->_init(); } private function _init() { if(isset($this->_options['locale'])) { $locale = $this->_options['locale']; if ($locale instanceof Zend_Locale) { $this->_locale = $locale; } elseif (Zend_Locale::isLocale($locale)) { $this->_locale = new Zend_Locale($locale); } else { $this->_locale = new Zend_Locale(); } } } } Acording to my understanding of Miško Hevery's guide, i shouldn't instanciate the Zend_Local in my class but push it through the constructor (Which can be done through the options array in my example). I am wondering what would be the best practice to get the most flexibility for unittesing this code and aswell, if I want to move away from Zend Framework. Thanks in advance

  Read the article

• Switch or a Dictionary when assigning to new object

  - by KChaloux

  Recently, I've come to prefer mapping 1-1 relationships using Dictionaries instead of Switch statements. I find it to be a little faster to write and easier to mentally process. Unfortunately, when mapping to a new instance of an object, I don't want to define it like this: var fooDict = new Dictionary<int, IBigObject>() { { 0, new Foo() }, // Creates an instance of Foo { 1, new Bar() }, // Creates an instance of Bar { 2, new Baz() } // Creates an instance of Baz } var quux = fooDict[0]; // quux references Foo Given that construct, I've wasted CPU cycles and memory creating 3 objects, doing whatever their constructors might contain, and only ended up using one of them. I also believe that mapping other objects to fooDict[0] in this case will cause them to reference the same thing, rather than creating a new instance of Foo as intended. A solution would be to use a lambda instead: var fooDict = new Dictionary<int, Func<IBigObject>>() { { 0, () => new Foo() }, // Returns a new instance of Foo when invoked { 1, () => new Bar() }, // Ditto Bar { 2, () => new Baz() } // Ditto Baz } var quux = fooDict[0](); // equivalent to saying 'var quux = new Foo();' Is this getting to a point where it's too confusing? It's easy to miss that () on the end. Or is mapping to a function/expression a fairly common practice? The alternative would be to use a switch: IBigObject quux; switch(someInt) { case 0: quux = new Foo(); break; case 1: quux = new Bar(); break; case 2: quux = new Baz(); break; } Which invocation is more acceptable? Dictionary, for faster lookups and fewer keywords (case and break) Switch: More commonly found in code, doesn't require the use of a Func< object for indirection.

  Read the article

• Is there ever a reason to do all an object's work in a constructor?

  - by Kane

  Let me preface this by saying this is not my code nor my coworkers' code. Years ago when our company was smaller, we had some projects we needed done that we did not have the capacity for, so they were outsourced. Now, I have nothing against outsourcing or contractors in general, but the codebase they produced is a mass of WTFs. That being said, it does (mostly) work, so I suppose it's in the top 10% of outsourced projects I've seen. As our company has grown, we've tried to take more of our development in house. This particular project landed in my lap so I've been going over it, cleaning it up, adding tests, etc etc. There's one pattern I see repeated a lot and it seems so mindblowingly awful that I wondered if maybe there is a reason and I just don't see it. The pattern is an object with no public methods or members, just a public constructor that does all the work of the object. For example, (the code is in Java, if that matters, but I hope this to be a more general question): public class Foo { private int bar; private String baz; public Foo(File f) { execute(f); } private void execute(File f) { // FTP the file to some hardcoded location, // or parse the file and commit to the database, or whatever } } If you're wondering, this type of code is often called in the following manner: for(File f : someListOfFiles) { new Foo(f); } Now, I was taught long ago that instantiated objects in a loop is generally a bad idea, and that constructors should do a minimum of work. Looking at this code it looks like it would be better to drop the constructor and make execute a public static method. I did ask the contractor why it was done this way, and the response I got was "We can change it if you want". Which was not really helpful. Anyway, is there ever a reason to do something like this, in any programming language, or is this just another submission to the Daily WTF?

  Read the article

• What's the proper term for a function inverse to a constructor? Deconstructor, destructor, or something else?

  - by Petr Pudlák

  Edit: I'm rephrasing the question a bit. Apparently I caused some confusion because I didn't realize that the term destructor is used in OOP for something quite different - it's a function invoked when an object is being destroyed. In functional programming we (try to) avoid mutable state so there is no such equivalent to it. (I added the proper tag to the question.) Instead, I've seen that the record field for unwrapping a value (especially for single-valued data types such as newtypes) is sometimes called destructor or perhaps deconstructor. For example, let's have (in Haskell): newtype Wrap = Wrap { unwrap :: Int } Here Wrap is the constructor and unwrap is what? I've seen both, for example: ... Most often, one supplies smart constructors and destructors for these to ease working with them. ... at Haskell wiki, or ... The general theme here is to fuse constructor - deconstructor pairs like ... at Haskell wikibook (here it's probably meant in a bit more general sense). The questions are: How do we call unwrap in functional programming? Deconstructor? Destructor? Or by some other term? And to clarify, is this terminology applicable to other functional languages, or is it used just in the Has

  Read the article

• How to implement child-parent aggregation link in C++?

  - by Giorgio

  Suppose that I have three classes P, C1, C2, composition (strong aggregation) relations between P <>- C1 and P <>- C2, i.e. every instance of P contains an instance of C1 and an instance of C2, which are destroyed when the parent P instance is destroyed. an association relation between instances of C1 and C2 (not necessarily between children of the same P). To implement this, in C++ I normally define three classes P, C1, C2, define two member variables of P of type boost::shared_ptr<C1>, boost::shared_ptr<C2>, and initialize them with newly created objects in P's constructor, implement the relation between C1 and C2 using a boost::weak_ptr<C2> member variable in C1 and a boost::weak_ptr<C1> member variable in C2 that can be set later via appropriate methods, when the relation is established. Now, I also would like to have a link from each C1 and C2 object to its P parent object. What is a good way to implement this? My current idea is to use a simple constant raw pointer (P * const) that is set from the constructor of P (which, in turn, calls the constructors of C1 and C2), i.e. something like: class C1 { public: C1(P * const p, ...) : paren(p) { ... } private: P * const parent; ... }; class P { public: P(...) : childC1(new C1(this, ...)) ... { ... } private: boost::shared_ptr<C1> childC1; ... }; Honestly I see no risk in using a private constant raw pointer in this way but I know that raw pointers are often frowned upon in C++ so I was wondering if there is an alternative solution.

  Read the article

• CodePlex Daily Summary for Wednesday, June 26, 2013

  CodePlex Daily Summary for Wednesday, June 26, 2013Popular ReleasesNaked Objects: Naked Objects Release 5.5.0: This release includes a number of significant improvements to the usability of the UI, some of which involve new programming conventions or attributes: Action dialogs now appear as pop-up modal dialogs instead of as a new page; query-only actions have an Apply as well as an OK button. See https://nakedobjects.codeplex.com/workitem/175 When a reference object is expanded in-line there is a button to jump straight to an Edit view of that object see https://nakedobjects.codeplex.com/workitem/1...VeraCrypt: VeraCrypt version 1.0b: Changes since version 1.0a :Enhance RIPEMD160 implementation in BootLoaded by using the compiler uint32 type Don't position legacy flag in volume header for newer VeraCrypt releasesPlayer Framework by Microsoft: Player Framework for Windows 8 and WP8 (v1.3 beta): Preview: New MPEG DASH adaptive streaming plugin for WAMS. Preview: New Ultraviolet CFF plugin. Preview: New WP7 version with WP8 compatibility. (source code only) Source code is now available via CodePlex Git Misc bug fixes and improvements: WP8 only: Added optional fullscreen and mute buttons to default xaml JS only: protecting currentTime from returning infinity. Some videos would cause currentTime to be infinity which could cause errors in plugins expecting only finite values. (...SSIS DQS Matching Transformation: SSIS DQS Matching Transformation 1.0: Initial release of the SSIS DQS Matching Component.AssaultCube Reloaded: 2.5.8: SERVER OWNERS: note that the default maprot has changed once again. Linux has Ubuntu 11.10 32-bit precompiled binaries and Ubuntu 10.10 64-bit precompiled binaries, but you can compile your own as it also contains the source. If you are using Mac or other operating systems, please wait while we continue to try to package for those OSes. Or better yet, try to compile it. If it fails, download a virtual machine. The server pack is ready for both Windows and Linux, but you might need to compi...Compare .NET Objects: Version 1.7.2.0: If you like it, please rate it. :) Performance Improvements Fix for deleted row in a data table Added ability to ignore the collection order Fix for Ignoring by AttributesMicrosoft Ajax Minifier: Microsoft Ajax Minifier 4.95: update parser to allow for CSS3 calc( function to nest. add recognition of -pponly (Preprocess-Only) switch in AjaxMinManifestTask build task. Fix crashing bug in EXE when processing a manifest file using the -xml switch and an error message needs to be displayed (like a missing input file). Create separate Clean and Bundle build tasks for working with manifest files (AjaxMinManifestCleanTask and AjaxMinBundleTask). Removed the IsCleanOperation from AjaxMinManifestTask -- use AjaxMinMan...VG-Ripper & PG-Ripper: VG-Ripper 2.9.44: changes NEW: Added Support for "ImgChili.net" links FIXED: Auto UpdaterDocument.Editor: 2013.25: What's new for Document.Editor 2013.25: Improved Spell Check support Improved User Interface Minor Bug Fix's, improvements and speed upsStyleMVVM: 3.0.2: This is a minor feature and bug fix release Features: ExportWhenDebuggerIsAttacedAttribute - new attribute that marks an attribute to only be exported when the debugger is attahced InjectedFilterAttributeFilterProvider - new Attribute Filter provider for MVC that injects the attributes Performance Improvements - minor speed improvements all over, and Import collections is now 50% faster Bug Fixes: Open Generic Constraints are now respected when finding exports Fix for fluent registrat...WPF Composites: Version 4.3.0: In this Beta release, I broke my code out into two separate projects. There is a core FasterWPF.dll with the minimal required functionality. This can run with only the Aero.dll and the Rx .dll's. Then, I have a FasterWPFExtras .dll that requires and supports the Extended WPF Toolkit™ Community Edition V 1.9.0 (including Xceed DataGrid) and the Thriple .dll. This is for developers who want more . . . Finally, you may notice the other OPTIONAL .dll's available in the download such as the Dyn...Channel9's Absolute Beginner Series: Windows Phone 8: Entire source code for the Channel 9 series, Windows Phone 8 Development for Absolute Beginners.Indent Guides for Visual Studio: Indent Guides v13: ImportantThis release does not support Visual Studio 2010. The latest stable release for VS 2010 is v12.1. Version History Changed in v13 Added page width guide lines Added guide highlighting options Fixed guides appearing over collapsed blocks Fixed guides not appearing in newly opened files Fixed some potential crashes Fixed lines going through pragma statements Various updates for VS 2012 and VS 2013 Removed VS 2010 support Changed in v12.1: Fixed crash when unable to start...Fluent Ribbon Control Suite: Fluent Ribbon Control Suite 2.1.0 - Prerelease d: Fluent Ribbon Control Suite 2.1.0 - Prerelease d(supports .NET 3.5, 4.0 and 4.5) Includes: Fluent.dll (with .pdb and .xml) Showcase Application Samples (not for .NET 3.5) Foundation (Tabs, Groups, Contextual Tabs, Quick Access Toolbar, Backstage) Resizing (ribbon reducing & enlarging principles) Galleries (Gallery in ContextMenu, InRibbonGallery) MVVM (shows how to use this library with Model-View-ViewModel pattern) KeyTips ScreenTips Toolbars ColorGallery *Walkthrough (do...Magick.NET: Magick.NET 6.8.5.1001: Magick.NET compiled against ImageMagick 6.8.5.10. Breaking changes: - MagickNET.Initialize has been made obsolete because the ImageMagick files in the directory are no longer necessary. - MagickGeometry is no longer IDisposable. - Renamed dll's so they include the platform name. - Image profiles can now only be accessed and modified with ImageProfile classes. - Renamed DrawableBase to Drawable. - Removed Args part of PathArc/PathCurvetoArgs/PathQuadraticCurvetoArgs classes. The...Keyboard Image Viewer: 1.5.4: Upgraded folder picker dialog to better version on Win7+ Fixed bug that stopped slideshow from looping back to the start of the list. Added crash dialog that allows you to see and copy exception stack traces for fixing.DependencyAnalysis (Egg and Gherkin): 0.9.4: - Create Visual Studio 2012 Addin for ad-hoc analysis of your project - Display metrics in a grid - Adequate performing serialization between Addin (Visual Studio process) and AnalysisHost process - Display dependencies as graph (proximity graph) - Create a logo for the project - Constructors of anonymous types no longer hide constructors of the declaring type during "build dependencies" phase - Type descriptors were added multiple times to SubmoduleDescriptor. Types collection, same instanc...Bloomberg API Emulator: Bloomberg API Emulator (v 1.0.5): This version contains the full Java port of my original C# code. I just finished the MarketDataSubscription request type. I will start working on a C++ port of my C# code.Three-Dimensional Maneuver Gear for Minecraft: TDMG 1.1.0.0 for 1.5.2: CodePlex???(????????) ?????????(???1/4) ??????????? ?????????? ???????????(??????????) ??????????????????????? ↑????、?????????????????????(???????) ???、??????????、?????????????????????、????????1.5?????????? Shift+W(????)??????????????????10°、?10°(?????????)???Hyper-V Management Pack Extensions 2012: HyperVMPE2012 (v1.0.1.126): Hyper-V Management Pack Extensions 2012 Beta ReleaseNew Projects.Net Encryption App: This is a C#.Net desktop application that will let users encrypt and de-crypt files with the algorithm of their choosing.AutoSPDocumenter: AutoSPDocumenter utilises PowerShell to document SharePoint farms and provide output in usable formats.Azure Storage Redirector: Azure Storage Redirector. Redirects requests to Global Azure Storage to China Azure Storage. ?????Azure Storage?request??????Azure storagebrownbag: Simple project to show branching, merging, and shelvingChannel9's Absolute Beginner Series: Channel 9's absolute beginner series source code. From Windows Phone 7, Windows Phone 8, Windows Store applications, one stop area for all the seriesFAST for Sharepoint 2010 Query Tool (.NET 3.5): .NET 3.5 version of the FAST Search for SharePoint MOSS 2010 Query Tool (https://fastforsharepoint.codeplex.com/). For environments without .NET 4.0HAOest Framework: HAOest????ListManager: ListManager????? by HADB of HAOestMyPS: mypsNNRel: NNRelO - BV - 2: TestOpen XML SDK for JavaScript: Small JavaScript library that enables you to implement Open XML functionality anywhere you can use JavaScript.Orchard Prefix free: Provides a script manifest for the Prefix free script libraries.PVDesktop: PVDesktop is an application for designing and analyzing specific solar energy sites.Red the sound TowePlay: School project at ISEN Lille. Creation of a collaborative music creation software in C# using.NETScience Kits for Kids: This project is the service for Childhood Education which aged 4 - 8.SharePoint ULS for PowerShell: Allows PowerShell to log to the SharePoint ULS.SSIS DQS Matching Transformation: The SSIS DQS Matching Transformation uses Data Quality Services (DQS) to find duplicate data within the SSIS data flow.TARVOS Computer Networks Simulator: Discrete event-based network simulator, supports simulating MPLS architecture, several RSVP-TE protocol functionalities and fast recovery.Web API Explorer 4 DNN: Web API Explorer for DNN(R) aids module development allowing you to examine the Routing Table entries for a DotNetNuke(R) portal.

  Read the article

• Are there any real-world cases for C++ without exceptions?

  - by Martin

  In When to use C over C++, and C++ over C? there is a statement wrt. to code size / C++ exceptions: Jerry answers (among other points): (...) it tends to be more difficult to produce truly tiny executables with C++. For really small systems, you're rarely writing a lot of code anyway, and the extra (...) to which I asked why that would be, to which Jerry responded: the main thing is that C++ includes exception handling, which (at least usually) adds some minimum to the executable size. Most compilers will let you disable exception handling, but when you do the result isn't quite C++ anymore. (...) which I do not really doubt on a technical real world level. Therefore I'm interested (purely out of curiosity) to hear from real world examples where a project chose C++ as a language and then chose to disable exceptions. (Not just merely "not use" exceptions in user code, but disable them in the compiler, so that you can't throw or catch exceptions.) Why does a project chose to do so (still using C++ and not C, but no exceptions) - what are/were the (technical) reasons? Addendum: For those wishing to elaborate on their answers, it would be nice to detail how the implications of no-exceptions are handled: STL collections (vector, ...) do not work properly (allocation failure cannot be reported) new can't throw Constructors cannot fail

  Read the article

• Balancing dependency injection with public API design

  - by kolektiv

  I've been contemplating how to balance testable design using dependency injection with providing simple fixed public API. My dilemma is: people would want to do something like var server = new Server(){ ... } and not have to worry about creating the many dependencies and graph of dependencies that a Server(,,,,,,) may have. While developing, I don't worry too much, as I use an IoC/DI framework to handle all that (I'm not using the lifecycle management aspects of any container, which would complicate things further). Now, the dependencies are unlikely to be re-implemented. Componentisation in this case is almost purely for testability (and decent design!) rather than creating seams for extension, etc. People will 99.999% of the time wish to use a default configuration. So. I could hardcode the dependencies. Don't want to do that, we lose our testing! I could provide a default constructor with hard-coded dependencies and one which takes dependencies. That's... messy, and likely to be confusing, but viable. I could make the dependency receiving constructor internal and make my unit tests a friend assembly (assuming C#), which tidies the public API but leaves a nasty hidden trap lurking for maintenance. Having two constructors which are implicitly connected rather than explicitly would be bad design in general in my book. At the moment that's about the least evil I can think of. Opinions? Wisdom?

  Read the article

• How can I pass an external instance to the constructor of an object that's being created using the default XNA XML content loader?

  - by Michael

  I'm trying to understand how to use the XNA XML content importer to instantiate non-trivial objects that are more than a collection of basic properties (e.g., a class that inherits from DrawableGameObject or GameObject and requires other things to be passed into its constructor). Is it possible to pass existing external instances (e.g., an instance of the current Game) to the constructor of an object that's being created using the default XNA XML content loader? For example, imagine that I have the following class, inheriting from DrawableGameComponent: public class Character : DrawableGameComponent { public string Name { get; set; } public Character(Game game) : base(game) { } public override void Update(GameTime gameTime) { } public override void Draw(GameTime gameTime) { } } If I had a simple class that did not need other parameters in its constructor (i.e., the Game instance), then I could simply use this XML: <XnaContent> <Asset Type="MyNamespace.Character"> <Name>John Doe</Name> </Asset> </XnaContent> ...and then create an instance of Character using this code: var character = Content.Load<Character>("MyXmlAssetName"); But that won't work because I need to pass the need to pass the Game into the constructor. What's the best way to handle this situation? Is there a way to pass in things like the current Game using the default XNA XML content loader? Do I need to write my own XML loader? (If so, how?) Is there a better object-oriented design that I should be using for my classes? Note: Although I used Game in this example, I'm really just asking how to pass any type of existing instance to my constructors. (For example, I'm using the Farseer Physics Engine, and some of my classes also need a reference to the Farseer World object too.) Thanks in advance.

  Read the article

• What's the proper term for a function inverse to a constructor - to unwrap a value from a data type?

  - by Petr Pudlák

  Edit: I'm rephrasing the question a bit. Apparently I caused some confusion because I didn't realize that the term destructor is used in OOP for something quite different - it's a function invoked when an object is being destroyed. In functional programming we (try to) avoid mutable state so there is no such equivalent to it. (I added the proper tag to the question.) Instead, I've seen that the record field for unwrapping a value (especially for single-valued data types such as newtypes) is sometimes called destructor or perhaps deconstructor. For example, let's have (in Haskell): newtype Wrap = Wrap { unwrap :: Int } Here Wrap is the constructor and unwrap is what? The questions are: How do we call unwrap in functional programming? Deconstructor? Destructor? Or by some other term? And to clarify, is this/other terminology applicable to other functional languages, or is it used just in the Haskell? Perhaps also, is there any terminology for this in general, in non-functional languages? I've seen both terms, for example: ... Most often, one supplies smart constructors and destructors for these to ease working with them. ... at Haskell wiki, or ... The general theme here is to fuse constructor - deconstructor pairs like ... at Haskell wikibook (here it's probably meant in a bit more general sense), or newtype DList a = DL { unDL :: [a] -> [a] } The unDL function is our deconstructor, which removes the DL constructor. ... in The Real World Haskell.

  Read the article

• Stylecop 4.7.36.0 is out!

  - by TATWORTH

  Stylecop 4.7.36.0 has been released at http://stylecop.codeplex.com/releases/view/79972This is an update to coincide with the latest ReSharper. The full fix list is:4.7.36.0 (508dbac00ffc)=======================Fix for 7344. Don't throw 1126 inside default expressions.Fix for 7371. Compare Namespace parts using the CurrentCulture and not InvariantCulture.Fix for 7386. Don't throw casing violations for filed names in languages that do not support case (like Chinese). Added new tests.fix for 7380. Catch Exception caused by CRM Toolkit.Update ReSharper 7.0 dependency to 7.0.1 (7.0.1098.2760)Fix for 7358. Use the RuleId in the call to MSBuild Logging.Fix for 7348. Update suggestion text for constructors.Fix for 7364. Don't throw 1126 for New Array Expressions.Fix for 7372. Throw 1126 inside catch blocks wasn't working. Add new tests.Fix for 7369. Await is allowed to be inside parenthesis. Add new tests.Fix testsCorrect styling issues.Fix for 7373. Typeparam violations were not being thrown in all cases. Added new tests.Fix for 7361. Rule 1120 was logging against the root element and so Suppressions wouldn't work. Fixed and added tests.Updating de-DE resources - from Michael Diermeier - thank you.Change for 7368. Add the violation count into the Task outputs.Fix for 7383. Fix for memory leak in plugins.Update environment to detect ReSharper 7Fix for 7378. Null reference exception from command line run in message output.Update release history.

  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

• Failing Screen Resize Method

  - by StrongJoshua

  So I want my game to draw to a specific "optimal" size and then be stretched to fit screens that are a different size. I'm using LibGDX and figured that I could just draw everything to a FrameBuffer and then resize that buffer to the appropriate size when drawing it to the actual display. However, my method does not work, it just results in a black screen with the top right quarter of the screen white.Intermediary is the FBO, interMatrix is a Matrix4 object, and camera is an OrthographicCamera. @Override public void render() { // update actors currentStage.act(); //render to intermediary buffer batch.setProjectionMatrix(interMatrix); intermediary.begin(); batch.begin(); currentStage.draw(); batch.flush(); intermediary.end(); //resize to actual width and height Sprite s = new Sprite(intermediary.getColorBufferTexture()); s.flip(true, false); batch.setProjectionMatrix(camera.combined); batch.draw(s.getTexture(), 0, 0, width, height); batch.end(); } These are the constructors for the above mentioned objects (GAME_WIDTH and HEIGHT are the "optimal" settings, width and height are the actual sizes, which are the same when running on desktop). intermediary = new FrameBuffer(Format.RGBA8888, GAME_WIDTH, GAME_HEIGHT, false); interMatrix = new Matrix4(); camera = new OrthographicCamera(width, height); interMatrix.setToOrtho2D(0, 0, GAME_WIDTH, GAME_HEIGHT); Is there a better way of doing this or can is this a viable option and how do I fix what I have?

  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

• REST API wrapper - class design for 'lite' object responses

  - by sasfrog

  I am writing a class library to serve as a managed .NET wrapper over a REST API. I'm very new to OOP, and this task is an ideal opportunity for me to learn some OOP concepts in a real-life situation that makes sense to me. Some of the key resources/objects that the API returns are returned with different levels of detail depending on whether the request is for a single instance, a list, or part of a "search all resources" response. This is obviously a good design for the REST API itself, so that full objects aren't returned (thus increasing the size of the response and therefore the time taken to respond) unless they're needed. So, to be clear: .../car/1234.json returns the full Car object for 1234, all its properties like colour, make, model, year, engine_size, etc. Let's call this full. .../cars.json returns a list of Car objects, but only with a subset of the properties returned by .../car/1234.json. Let's call this lite. ...search.json returns, among other things, a list of car objects, but with minimal properties (only ID, make and model). Let's call this lite-lite. I want to know what the pros and cons of each of the following possible designs are, and whether there is a better design that I haven't covered: Create a Car class that models the lite-lite properties, and then have each of the more detailed responses inherit and extend this class. Create separate CarFull, CarLite and CarLiteLite classes corresponding to each of the responses. Create a single Car class that contains (nullable?) properties for the full response, and create constructors for each of the responses which populate it to the extent possible (and maybe include a property that returns the response type from which the instance was created). I expect among other things there will be use cases for consumers of the wrapper where they will want to iterate through lists of Cars, regardless of which response type they were created from, such that the three response types can contribute to the same list. Happy to be pointed to good resources on this sort of thing, and/or even told the name of the concept I'm describing so I can better target my research.

  Read the article

• handle null values for string when implementing IXmlSerializable interface

  - by user208081

  I have the following class that implements IXmlSerializable. When implementing WriteXml(), I need to handle the case where the string members of this class may be null values. What is the best way of handling this? Currently, I am using the default constructor in which all the string properties are initialized to empty string values. This way, when WriteXml() is called, the string will not be null. One other way I could do this is check using String.IsNullOrEmpty before writing each string in xml. Any suggestions on how I can improve this code? using System; using System.Collections.Generic; using System.Linq; using System.Text; using System.Xml.Serialization; using System.Globalization; namespace TCS.Common.InformationObjects { public sealed class FaxSender : IXmlSerializable { #region Public Constants private const string DEFAULT_CLASS_NAME = "FaxSender"; #endregion Public Constants #region Public Properties public string Name { get; set; } public string Organization { get; set; } public string PhoneNumber { get; set; } public string FaxNumber { get; set; } public string EmailAddress { get; set; } #endregion Public Properties #region Public Methods #region Constructors public FaxSender() { Name = String.Empty; Organization = String.Empty; PhoneNumber = String.Empty; FaxNumber = String.Empty; EmailAddress = String.Empty; } public FaxSender(string name, string organization, string phoneNumber, string faxNumber, string emailAddress) { Name = name; Organization = organization; PhoneNumber = phoneNumber; FaxNumber = faxNumber; EmailAddress = emailAddress; } #endregion Constructors #region IXmlSerializable Members public System.Xml.Schema.XmlSchema GetSchema() { throw new NotImplementedException(); } public void ReadXml(System.Xml.XmlReader reader) { throw new NotImplementedException(); } public void WriteXml(System.Xml.XmlWriter xmlWriter) { try { // <sender> xmlWriter.WriteStartElement("sender"); // Write the name of the sender as an element. xmlWriter.WriteElementString("name", this.Name.ToString(CultureInfo.CurrentCulture)); // Write the organization of the sender as an element. xmlWriter.WriteElementString("organization", this.Organization.ToString(CultureInfo.CurrentCulture)); // Write the phone number of the sender as an element. xmlWriter.WriteElementString("phone_number", this.PhoneNumber.ToString(CultureInfo.CurrentCulture)); // Write the fax number of the sender as an element. xmlWriter.WriteElementString("fax_number", this.FaxNumber.ToString(CultureInfo.CurrentCulture)); // Write the email address of the sender as an element. xmlWriter.WriteElementString("email_address", this.EmailAddress.ToString(CultureInfo.CurrentCulture)); // </sender> xmlWriter.WriteEndElement(); } catch { // Rethrow any exceptions. throw; } } #endregion IXmlSerializable Members #endregion Public Methods } }

  Read the article

< Previous Page | 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19  | Next Page >