Search Results

Search found 1449 results on 58 pages for 'oop'.

Page 14/58 | < Previous Page | 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21  | Next Page >

  • pass by reference or pass by value?

    - by Sven
    When learning a new programming language, one of the possible roadblocks you might encounter is the question whether the language is, by default, pass-by-value or pass-by-reference So here is my question to all of you, in your favorite language, how is it actually done? and what are the possible pitfalls? your favorite language can, of course, be anything you have ever played with: popular, obscure, esoteric, new, old ...

    Read the article

  • Progress Bar design patterns?

    - by shoosh
    The application I'm writing performs a length algorithm which usually takes a few minutes to finish. During this time I'd like to show the user a progress bar which indicates how much of the algorithm is done as precisely as possible. The algorithm is divided into several steps, each with its own typical timing. For instance- initialization (500 milli-sec) reading inputs (5 sec) step 1 (30 sec) step 2 (3 minutes) writing outputs (7 sec) shutting down (10 milli-sec) Each step can report its progress quite easily by setting the range its working on, say [0 to 150] and then reporting the value it completed in its main loop. What I currently have set up is a scheme of nested progress monitors which form a sort of implicit tree of progress reporting. All progress monitors inherit from an interface IProgressMonitor: class IProgressMonitor { public: void setRange(int from, int to) = 0; void setValue(int v) = 0; }; The root of the tree is the ProgressMonitor which is connected to the actual GUI interface: class GUIBarProgressMonitor : public IProgressMonitor { GUIBarProgressMonitor(ProgressBarWidget *); }; Any other node in the tree are monitors which take control of a piece of the parent progress: class SubProgressMonitor : public IProgressMonitor { SubProgressMonitor(IProgressMonitor *parent, int parentFrom, int parentLength) ... }; A SubProgressMonitor takes control of the range [parentFrom, parentFrom+parentLength] of its parent. With this scheme I am able to statically divide the top level progress according to the expected relative portion of each step in the global timing. Each step can then be further subdivided into pieces etc' The main disadvantage of this is that the division is static and it gets painful to make changes according to variables which are discovered at run time. So the question: are there any known design patterns for progress monitoring which solve this issue?

    Read the article

  • Is this the correct way of speaking to a "Content Manager" Class?

    - by DeanMc
    I am creating a silverlight site. I am currently breaking out my ideas into pieces of functionality. One of the idea's I have is the concept of a content manager. This is essentially a UI control with 4 regions. Top, Bottom, Right & Left. I also have a collection of objects that are considered "Menu Items". These are controls that function as a way to navigate around, similar to links. The idea I have is to implement an IMenuItem interface. Among the standard pieces of information (Text, PageReference, etc) I was also going to hold a reference to the content manager. My idea behind this thinking is that I can pass the PageReference to a property on the ContentManager and then call a method which knows how to update the content manager accordingly. Is this the best way of implementing this or is their some sort of pattern for it?

    Read the article

  • Class Design - Returning a List<Object> From <Object>

    - by Mike
    Given a simple class: public class Person { public string FirstName; public string LastName; public string GetFullName() { return FirstName + LastName; } } The user of this class will populate a List<Person> object by reading an Xml file or some other data source. Should the logic for populating the List be in the Person class or should it just remain in the calling class? In other words, should there be a public List<Persons> GetPersons() method in the Person class or in the calling class? Or should the data accessor be in another class altogether? I know this is a rather simplistic question but I'm just curious how others typically do it.

    Read the article

  • Strategy pattern and "action" classes explosion

    - by devoured elysium
    Is it bad policy to have lots of "work" classes(such as Strategy classes), that only do one thing? Let's assume I want to make a Monster class. Instead of just defining everything I want about the monster in one class, I will try to identify what are its main features, so I can define them in interfaces. That will allow to: Seal the class if I want. Later, other users can just create a new class and still have polymorphism by means of the interfaces I've defined. I don't have to worry how people (or myself) might want to change/add features to the base class in the future. All classes inherit from Object and they implement inheritance through interfaces, not from mother classes. Reuse the strategies I'm using with this monster for other members of my game world. Con: This model is rigid. Sometimes we would like to define something that is not easily achieved by just trying to put together this "building blocks". public class AlienMonster : IWalk, IRun, ISwim, IGrowl { IWalkStrategy _walkStrategy; IRunStrategy _runStrategy; ISwimStrategy _swimStrategy; IGrowlStrategy _growlStrategy; public Monster() { _walkStrategy = new FourFootWalkStrategy(); ...etc } public void Walk() { _walkStrategy.Walk(); } ...etc } My idea would be next to make a series of different Strategies that could be used by different monsters. On the other side, some of them could also be used for totally different purposes (i.e., I could have a tank that also "swims"). The only problem I see with this approach is that it could lead to a explosion of pure "method" classes, i.e., Strategy classes that have as only purpose make this or that other action. In the other hand, this kind of "modularity" would allow for high reuse of stratagies, sometimes even in totally different contexts. What is your opinion on this matter? Is this a valid reasoning? Is this over-engineering? Also, assuming we'd make the proper adjustments to the example I gave above, would it be better to define IWalk as: interface IWalk { void Walk(); } or interface IWalk { IWalkStrategy WalkStrategy { get; set; } //or something that ressembles this } being that doing this I wouldn't need to define the methods on Monster itself, I'd just have public getters for IWalkStrategy (this seems to go against the idea that you should encapsulate everything as much as you can!) Why? Thanks

    Read the article

  • Using generics with XmlSerializer

    - by MainMa
    Hi, When using XML serialization in C#, I use code like this: public MyObject LoadData() { XmlSerializer xmlSerializer = new XmlSerializer(typeof(MyObject)); using (TextReader reader = new StreamReader(settingsFileName)) { return (MyObject)xmlSerializer.Deserialize(reader); } } (and similar code for deserialization). It requires casting and is not really nice. Is there a way, directly in .NET Framework, to use generics with serialization? That is to say to write something like: public MyObject LoadData() { // Generics here. XmlSerializer<MyObject> xmlSerializer = new XmlSerializer(); using (TextReader reader = new StreamReader(settingsFileName)) { // No casts nevermore. return xmlSerializer.Deserialize(reader); } }

    Read the article

  • Why is Self assignable in Delphi?

    - by mjustin
    This code in a GUI application compiles and runs: procedure TForm1.Button1Click(Sender: TObject); begin Self := TForm1.Create(Owner); end; (tested with Delphi 6 and 2009) why is Self writeable and not read-only? in which situations could this be useful? Edit: is this also possible in Delphi Prism? (I think yes it is, see here) Update: Delphi applications/libraries which make use of Self assignment: python4delphi

    Read the article

  • Concrete Types or Interfaces for return types?

    - by SDReyes
    Today I came to a fundamental paradox of the object programming style, concrete types or interfaces. Whats the better election for a method's return type: a concrete type or an interface? In most cases, I tend to use concrete types as the return type for methods. because I believe that an concrete type is more flexible for further use and exposes more functionality. The dark side of this: Coupling. The angelic one: A concrete type contains per-se the interface you would going to return initially, and extra functionality. What's your thumb's rule? Is there any programming principle for this? BONUS: This is an example of what I mean http://stackoverflow.com/questions/491375/readonlycollection-or-ienumerable-for-exposing-member-collections

    Read the article

  • Avoiding RTTI In Java

    - by destructo_gold
    Hi, If I have a superclass, say Animal, and two subclasses: Zebra and Giraffe, If I decide to define a Vector of Animals: Vector <Animal> animals = new Vector(); and I want to say: You can add Giraffes, but you must own at least one Zebra first. What is the best way to do this without using RTTI? (instanceof)

    Read the article

  • Inheritance using prototype / "new"

    - by mikkol
    Hi I'm new in Javascript OO and want to know more about about inheritance. Hope you can provide some advice! I see this great post: How to "properly" create a custom object in JavaScript? which talks about how a class is inherited as I see in other websites, ex.: function man(x) { this.x = x; this.y = 2; } man.prototype.name = "man"; man.prototype.two = function() { this.y = "two"; } function shawn() { man.apply(this, arguments); }; shawn.prototype = new man; The above post claims that in order not to call "man"'s constructor while inheriting, one can use a helper like this instead: function subclassOf(base) { _subclassOf.prototype= base.prototype; return new _subclassOf(); } function _subclassOf() {}; shawn.prototype = subclassOf(man); While I understand its intention, I don't see why we can't call shawn.prototype = man.prototype; I see it works exactly the same. Or is there something I'm missing? Thanks in advance!

    Read the article

  • Extending a singleton class

    - by cakyus
    i used to create an instance of a singleton class like this: $Singleton = SingletonClassName::GetInstance(); and for non singleton class: $NonSingleton = new NonSingletonClassName; i think we should not differentiate how we create an instance of a class whether this is a singleton or not. if i look in perception of other class, i don't care whether the class we need a singleton class or not. so, i still not comfortable with how php treat a singleton class. i think and i always want to write: $Singleton = new SingletonClassName; just another non singleton class, is there a solution to this problem ?

    Read the article

  • call parent constructor in ruby

    - by Stas
    Hi! How can I call parents constructor ? module C attr_accessor :c, :cc def initialization c, cc @c, @cc = c, cc end end class B attr_accessor :b, :bb def initialization b, bb @b, @bb = b, bb end end class A < B include C attr_accessor :a, :aa def initialization (a, b, c, aa, bb, cc) #call B::initialization - ? #call C::initialization - ? @a, @aa = a, aa end end Thanks.

    Read the article

  • MVC pattern and (Game) State pattern

    - by topright
    Game States separate I/O processing, game logic and rendering into different classes: while (game_loop) { game->state->io_events(this); game->state->logic(this); game->state->rendering(); } You can easily change a game state in this approach. MVC separation works in more complex way: while (game_loop) { game->cotroller->io_events(this); game->model->logic(this); game->view->rendering(); } So changing Game States becomes error prone task (switch 3 classes, not 1). What are practical ways of combining these 2 concepts?

    Read the article

  • Trouble with inheritance

    - by Matt
    I'm relatively new to programming so excuse me if I get some terms wrong (I've learned the concepts, I just haven't actually used most of them). Trouble: I currently have a class I'll call Bob its parent class is Cody, Cody has method call Foo(). I want Bob to have the Foo() method as well, except with a few extra lines of code. I've attempted to do Foo() : base(), however that doesn't seem to work like. Is there some simple solution to this?

    Read the article

  • Help organising controllers logically

    - by kenny99
    Hi guys, I'm working on a site which i'm developing using an MVC structure. My models will represent all of data in the site, but i'm struggling a bit to decide on a good controller structure. The site will allow users to login/register and see personal data on a number of pages, but also still have access to public pages, e.g FAQs, Contact page etc. This is what I have at the moment... A Template Controller which handles main template display. The basic template for the site will remain the same whether or not you are logged in. A main Website Controller which extends the Template Controller and handles basic authentication. If the user is logged in, a User::control_panel() method is called from the constructor and this builds the control panel which will be present throughout the authenticated session. If user is not logged in, then a different view is loaded instead of the control panel, e.g with a login form. All protected/public page related controllers will extend the website controller. The user homepage has a number of widgets I want to display, which I'm doing via a Home Controller which extends the Website Controller. This controller generates these widgets via the following static calls: $this->template->content->featured_pet = Pet::featured(); $this->template->content->popular_names = Pet::most_popular(); $this->template->content->owner_map = User::generate_map(); $this->template->content->news = News::snippet(); I suppose the first thing I'm unsure about is if the above static calls to controllers (e.g Pet and User) are ok to remain static - these static methods will return views which are loaded into the main template. This is the way I've done things in the past but I'm curious to find out if this is a sensible approach. Other protected pages for signed in users will be similar to the Home Controller. Static pages will be handled by a Page Controller which will also extend the Website Controller, so that it will know whether or not the user control panel or login form should be shown on the left hand side of the template. The protected member only pages will not be routed to the Page Controller, this controller will only handle publicly available pages. One problem I have at the moment, is that if both public and protected pages extend the Website Controller, how do I avoid an infinite loop - for example, the idea is that the website controller should handle authentication then redirect to the requested controller (URL), but this will cause an infinite redirect loop, so i need to come up with a better way of dealing with this. All in all, does this setup make any sense?! Grateful for any feedback.

    Read the article

  • abstract class extends abstract class in php?

    - by user151841
    I am working on a simple abstract database class. In my usage of this class, I'll want to have some instance be a singleton. I was thinking of having a abstract class that is not a singleton, and then extend it into another abstract class that is a singleton. Is this possible? Recommended?

    Read the article

  • Do fluent interfaces violate the Law of Demeter?

    - by Jakub Šturc
    The wikipedia article about Law of Demeter says: The law can be stated simply as "use only one dot". However a simple example of a fluent interface may look like this: static void Main(string[] args) { new ZRLabs.Yael.Pipeline("cat.jpg") .Rotate(90) .Watermark("Monkey") .RoundCorners(100, Color.Bisque) .Save("test.png"); } So does this goes together?

    Read the article

  • nesting classes in php

    - by Honey
    here is my sample class to why i want to nest. include("class.db.php"); class Cart { function getProducts() { //this is how i do it now. //enter code here`but i dont want to redeclare for every method in this class. //how can i declare it in one location to be able to use the same variable in every method? $db = new mysqlDB; $query = $db->query("select something from a table"); return $query } }

    Read the article

  • Proper way to set class variables

    - by ensnare
    I'm writing a class to insert users into a database, and before I get too far in, I just want to make sure that my OO approach is clean: class User(object): def setName(self,name): #Do sanity checks on name self._name = name def setPassword(self,password): #Check password length > 6 characters #Encrypt to md5 self._password = password def commit(self): #Commit to database >>u = User() >>u.setName('Jason Martinez') >>u.setPassword('linebreak') >>u.commit() Is this the right approach? Should I declare class variables up top? Should I use a _ in front of all the class variables to make them private? Thanks for helping out.

    Read the article

  • Unable to compare valuesfrom mysql in a prepared statement

    - by Cortopasta
    I can't seem to get this to connect to the database so that I can run my prepared statement. Does anybody have an idea what I've forgotten? private function check_credentials($plain_username, $password) { global $dbcon; $ac = new ac(); $ac->dbconnect(); $userid = $dbcon->prepare('SELECT id FROM users WHERE username = :username AND password = :password LIMIT 1'); $userid->bindParam(':username', $plain_username); $userid->bindParam(':password', $password); $userid->execute(); $id = $userid->fetch(); Return $id; } EDIT: I changed the SQL query from a SELECT FROM query, to an INSERT INTO query and it worked. WHat the heck is going on?

    Read the article

  • Ruby Abstract Class Design

    - by MattDiPasquale
    I'm creating a video game. It has Characters & Items. Since I want Characters & Items to each have a name, should I make another class called NamedObjects with just a name field and have Characters & Items extend that? Or is that going overboard?

    Read the article

  • Why can't I declare C# methods virtual and static?

    - by Luke
    I have a helper class that is just a bunch of static methods and would like to subclass the helper class. Some behavior is unique depending on the subclass so I would like to call a virtual method from the base class, but since all the methods are static I can't create a plain virtual method (need object reference in order to access virtual method). Is there any way around this? I guess I could use a singleton.. HelperClass.Instance.HelperMethod() isn't so much worse than HelperClass.HelperMethod(). Brownie points for anyone that can point out some languages that support virtual static methods. Edit: OK yeah I'm crazy. Google search results had me thinking I wasn't for a bit there.

    Read the article

  • multiple-inheritance substitution

    - by Luigi
    I want to write a module (framework specific), that would wrap and extend Facebook PHP-sdk (https://github.com/facebook/php-sdk/). My problem is - how to organize classes, in a nice way. So getting into details - Facebook PHP-sdk consists of two classes: BaseFacebook - abstract class with all the stuff sdk does Facebook - extends BaseFacebook, and implements parent abstract persistance-related methods with default session usage Now I have some functionality to add: Facebook class substitution, integrated with framework session class shorthand methods, that run api calls, I use mostly (through BaseFacebook::api()), authorization methods, so i don't have to rewrite this logic every time, configuration, sucked up from framework classes, insted of passed as params caching, integrated with framework cache module I know something has gone very wrong, because I have too much inheritance that doesn't look very normal.Wrapping everything in one "complex extension" class also seems too much. I think I should have few working togheter classes - but i get into problems like: if cache class doesn't really extend and override BaseFacebook::api() method - shorthand and authentication classes won't be able to use the caching. Maybe some kind of a pattern would be right in here? How would you organize these classes and their dependencies? EDIT 04.07.2012 Bits of code, related to the topic: This is how the base class of Facebook PHP-sdk: abstract class BaseFacebook { // ... some methods public function api(/* polymorphic */) { // ... method, that makes api calls } public function getUser() { // ... tries to get user id from session } // ... other methods abstract protected function setPersistentData($key, $value); abstract protected function getPersistentData($key, $default = false); // ... few more abstract methods } Normaly Facebook class extends it, and impelements those abstract methods. I replaced it with my substitude - Facebook_Session class: class Facebook_Session extends BaseFacebook { protected function setPersistentData($key, $value) { // ... method body } protected function getPersistentData($key, $default = false) { // ... method body } // ... implementation of other abstract functions from BaseFacebook } Ok, then I extend this more with shorthand methods and configuration variables: class Facebook_Custom extends Facebook_Session { public funtion __construct() { // ... call parent's constructor with parameters from framework config } public function api_batch() { // ... a wrapper for parent's api() method return $this->api('/?batch=' . json_encode($calls), 'POST'); } public function redirect_to_auth_dialog() { // method body } // ... more methods like this, for common queries / authorization } I'm not sure, if this isn't too much for a single class ( authorization / shorthand methods / configuration). Then there comes another extending layer - cache: class Facebook_Cache extends Facebook_Custom { public function api() { $cache_file_identifier = $this->getUser(); if(/* cache_file_identifier is not null and found a valid file with cached query result */) { // return the result } else { try { // call Facebook_Custom::api, cache and return the result } catch(FacebookApiException $e) { // if Access Token is expired force refreshing it parent::redirect_to_auth_dialog(); } } } // .. some other stuff related to caching } Now this pretty much works. New instance of Facebook_Cache gives me all the functionality. Shorthand methods from Facebook_Custom use caching, because Facebook_Cache overwrited api() method. But here is what is bothering me: I think it's too much inheritance. It's all very tight coupled - like look how i had to specify 'Facebook_Custom::api' instead of 'parent:api', to avoid api() method loop on Facebook_Cache class extending. Overall mess and ugliness. So again, this works but I'm just asking about patterns / ways of doing this in a cleaner and smarter way.

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21  | Next Page >