Search Results

Search found 1591 results on 64 pages for 'oop criticism'.

Page 26/64 | < Previous Page | 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33  | Next Page >

  • Limiting method access in protected section to few classes

    - by Bharat
    Hi, I want to limit the access of protected methods to certain inherited classes only. For example there is a base class like TBase = Class Protected Method1; Method2; Method3; Method4; End; I have two classes derived from TBase TDerived1 = Class(TBase) //Here i must access only Method1 and Method2 End; TDerived2 = Class(TBase) //Here i must access only Method3 and Method4 End; Then is it possible to access only Method1 and Method2 when i use objects of TDerived1 and Method3 and Method4 when i use objects of TDerived2

    Read the article

  • What's the idiomatic way of inheriting data access functionality as well as object properties?

    - by Knut Arne Vedaa
    Suppose the following (slightly pseudo-code for brevity): class Basic { String foo; } class SomeExtension extends Basic { String bar; } class OtherExtension extends Basic { String baz; } class BasicService { Basic getBasic() { } } class SomeExtensionService extends BasicService { SomeExtension getSomeExtension() { } } class OtherExtensionService extends BasicService { OtherExtension getOtherExtension() { } } What would be the most idiomatic, elegant way to implement the get-() service methods with the most possible code reuse? Obviously you could do it like this: class BasicService { Basic getBasic() { Basic basic = new Basic(); basic.setFoo("some kind of foo"); return basic; } } class SomeExtensionService { SomeExtension getSomeExtension() { SomeExtension someExtension = new SomeExtension; Basic basic = getBasic(); someExtension.setFoo(basic.getFoo()); someExtension.setBar("some kind of bar"); return someExtension; } } But this would be ugly if Basic has a lot of properties, and also you only need one object, as SomeExtension already inherits Basic. However, BasicService can obviously not return a SomeExtension object. You could also have the get methods not create the object themselves, but create it at the outermost level and pass it to the method for filling in the properties, but I find that too imperative. (Please let me know if the question is confusingly formulated.)

    Read the article

  • how to return the current object?

    - by ajsie
    in code igniter you can type: $query = $this->db->query("YOUR QUERY"); foreach ($query->result() as $row) { echo $row->title; echo $row->name; echo $row->body; } i guess that the query method returns the object it's part of. am i correct? if i am, how do you type the line where it returns the object? so what i wonder is how it looks like inside the query method for the above code to be functional. public function query($sql) { // some db logic here with the $sql and saves the values to the properties (title, name and body) return X } with other words, what should X be?

    Read the article

  • PHP: Prevent chained method from returning?

    - by Industrial
    Hi, I am having some headaches regarding method chaining for a quite simple PHP class that returns a value, which sometimes need to go through a decryption process: $dataset = new Datacontainer; $key = $dataset->get('key'); $key2 = $dataset->get('key')->decrypt(); The get method is where the return lives. So the call to the decrypt method on the second row isn't going to work in its current state. Can I do something to setup the get method to return only when nothing is chained to it, or what would be the best way to re-factor this code?

    Read the article

  • Static vs Non Static constructors

    - by Neil N
    I can't think of any reasons why one is better than the other. Compare these two implementations: public class MyClass { public myClass(string fileName) { // some code... } } as opposed to: public class MyClass { private myClass(){} public static Create(string fileName) { // some code... } } There are some places in the .Net framework that use the static method to create instances. At first I was thinking, it registers it's instances to keep track of them, but regular constructors could do the same thing through the use of private static variables. What is the reasoning behind this style?

    Read the article

  • PHP 5.3: Late static binding doesn't work for properties when defined in parent class while missing in child class

    - by DavidPesta
    Take a look at this example, and notice the outputs indicated. <?php class Mommy { protected static $_data = "Mommy Data"; public static function init( $data ) { static::$_data = $data; } public static function showData() { echo static::$_data . "<br>"; } } class Brother extends Mommy { } class Sister extends Mommy { } Brother::init( "Brother Data" ); Sister::init( "Sister Data" ); Brother::showData(); // Outputs: Sister Data Sister::showData(); // Outputs: Sister Data ?> My understanding was that using the static keyword would refer to the child class, but apparently it magically applies to the parent class whenever it is missing from the child class. (This is kind of a dangerous behavior for PHP, more on that explained below.) I have the following two things in mind for why I want to do this: I don't want the redundancy of defining all of the properties in all of the child classes. I want properties to be defined as defaults in the parent class and I want the child class definition to be able to override these properties wherever needed. The child class needs to exclude properties whenever the defaults are intended, which is why I don't define the properties in the child classes in the above example. However, if we are wanting to override a property at runtime (via the init method), it will override it for the parent class! From that point forward, child classes initialized earlier (as in the case of Brother) unexpectedly change on you. Apparently this is a result of child classes not having their own copy of the static property whenever it isn't explicitly defined inside of the child class--but instead of throwing an error it switches behavior of static to access the parent. Therefore, is there some way that the parent class could dynamically create a property that belongs to the child class without it appearing inside of the child class definition? That way the child class could have its own copy of the static property and the static keyword can refer to it properly, and it can be written to take into account parent property defaults. Or is there some other solution, good, bad, or ugly?

    Read the article

  • real time scenario between interface/abstract class ?

    - by JavaUser
    Hi , Please give me a real time simple example for the below questions : Where to use interface rather abstract class Where to use abstract class rather interface I need code snippet for both . Which takes low memory and which performs well . Do I need to consider the design aspect also? What is the conceptual difference not the syntactical difference .

    Read the article

  • How to determine which inheriting class is using an abstract class's methods.

    - by Kin
    In my console application have an abstract Factory class "Listener" which contains code for listening and accepting connections, and spawning client classes. This class is inherited by two more classes (WorldListener, and MasterListener) that contain more protocol specific overrides and functions. I also have a helper class (ConsoleWrapper) which encapsulates and extends System.Console, containing methods for writing to console info on what is happening to instances of the WorldListener and MasterListener. I need a way to determine in the abstract ListenerClass which Inheriting class is calling its methods. Any help with this problem would be greatly appreciated! I am stumped :X Simplified example of what I am trying to do. abstract class Listener { public void DoSomething() { if(inheriting class == WorldListener) ConsoleWrapper.WorldWrite("Did something!"); if(inheriting class == MasterListener) ConsoleWrapper.MasterWrite("Did something!"); } } public static ConsoleWrapper { public void WorldWrite(string input) { System.Console.WriteLine("[World] {0}", input); } } public class WorldListener : Listener { public void DoSomethingSpecific() { ConsoleWrapper.WorldWrite("I did something specific!"); } } public void Main() { new WorldListener(); new MasterListener(); } Expected output [World] Did something! [World] I did something specific! [Master] Did something! [World] I did something specific!

    Read the article

  • How to set default values to all wrong or null parameters of method?

    - by Roman
    At the moment I have this code (and I don't like it): private RenderedImage private RenderedImage getChartImage (GanttChartModel model, String title, Integer width, Integer height, String xAxisLabel, String yAxisLabel, Boolean showLegend) { if (title == null) { title = ""; } if (xAxisLabel == null) { xAxisLabel = ""; } if (yAxisLabel == null) { yAxisLabel = ""; } if (showLegend == null) { showLegend = true; } if (width == null) { width = DEFAULT_WIDTH; } if (height == null) { height = DEFAULT_HEIGHT; } ... } How can I improve it? I have some thoughts about introducing an object which will contain all these parameters as fields and then, maybe, it'll be possible to apply builder pattern. But still don't have clear vision how to implement that and I'm not sure that it's worth to be done. Any other ideas?

    Read the article

  • How do I create a class repository in Java and do I really need it?

    - by Roman
    I have a large number of objects which are identified by names (strings). So, I would like to have a kind of mapping from object name to the class instances. I was told that in this situation I can use a "repository" class which works like that: Server myServer = ServerRepository.getServer("NameOfServer"); So, if there is already an object (sever) with the "NameOfServer" it will be returned by the "getServer". If such an object does not exist yet, it will be created and returned by the "getServer". So, my question is how to program such a "repository" class? In this class I have to be able to check if there is an instance of a given class such that it has a given value of a given field. How can I do it? I need to have a kind of loop over all existing object of a given class? Another part of my question is why I cannot use associative arrays (associative container, map, mapping, dictionary, finite map)? (I am not sure how do you call it in Java) In more details, I have an "array" which maps names of objects to objects. So, whenever I create a new object, I add a new element to the array: myArray["NameOfServer"] = new Server("NameOfServer").

    Read the article

  • PHP - Concatenating objects and casting to string - bad idea?

    - by franko75
    Is it bad practice to concatenate objects when used in this context: $this->template->head .= new View('custom_javascript') This is the way i normally add extra css/js stuff to specific pages. I use an MVC structure where my basic html template has a $head variable which I set in my main Website_controller. I have used this approach for a while as it means I can just add bits and pieces of css/js stuff from whichever page/controller needs it. But having come across a problem in PHP 5.1.6 where the above code results in "Object ID #24", the result of toString() not being called i think, I am rethinking whether i should just fix this to work in PHP 5.1.6 or if i should rethink this approach in general. Any pointers appreciated!

    Read the article

  • Why is there no parameter contra-variance for overriding?

    - by Oak
    C++ and Java support return-type covariance when overriding methods. Neither, however, support contra-variance in parameter types - instead, it translates to overloading (Java) or hiding (C++). Why is that? It seems to me that there is no harm in allowing that. I can find one reason for it in Java - since it has the "choose-the-most-specific-version" mechanism for overloading anyway - but can't think of any reason for C++. Example (Java): class A { public void f(String s) {...} } class B extends A { public void f(Object o) {...} // Why doesn't this override A.f? }

    Read the article

  • Singletons and other design issues

    - by Ahmed Saleh
    I have worked using different languages like C++/Java and currently AS3. Most applications were computer vision, and small 2D computer games. Most companies that I have worked for, they use Singletons in a language like AS3, to retrieve elements or classes in an easy way. Their problem is basically they needs some variables or to call other functions from other classes. In a language like AS3, there is no private constructor, and they write a hacky code to prevent new instances. In Java and C++ I also faced the situation that I need to use other classe's members or to call their functions in different classes. The question is, is there a better or another design, to let other classes interact with each others without using singletons? I feel that composition is the answer, but I need more detailed solutions or design suggestions.

    Read the article

  • Example of forum in Object Oriented PHP

    - by Martin Trigaux
    Hello, I'm trying to learn to use PHP with an object oriented scheme. I think I understand the concept but I need real example, a forum exactly (the closest to what I want to do). I know PhpBB but it's maybe too complicated to fully understand it so I'm looking for something simpler but still in object oriented. Do you know any ? Thank you

    Read the article

  • An inaccessible class. VS2010.

    - by Mishgun_
    I realy dont know what the problem is with VS2010. I created a class, and when I'm trying create an exemplar of the class I get an error: "Error xxx is inaccessible due to its protection level. Example: public class Person { Person(string name, int age) { this.name = name; this.age = age; } public string name; public int age; } class Program { static void Main(string[] args) { Person ps = new Person("Jack", 19); } }

    Read the article

  • Java - how to tell class of an object?

    - by lkm
    Given a method that accepts as a parameter a certain supertype. Is there any way, within that method, to determine the actual class of the object that was passed to it? I.e. if a subtype of the allowable parameter was actually passed, is there a way to find out which type it is? If this isn't possible can someone explain why not (from a language design perspective)? Thanks Update: just to make sure I was clear void doSomething(MyType myType) { //determine if myType is MyType OR one of its subclasses } Since the method signature specifies the parameter as being MyType, then how can one tell if the object is actually a subtype of MyType (and which one).

    Read the article

  • Is this class + constructor definition pattern overly redundant?

    - by Protector one
    I often come across a pattern similar to this: class Person { public string firstName, lastName; public Person(string firstName, string lastName) { this.firstName = firstName; this.lastName = lastName; } } This feels overly redundant (I imagine typing "firstName" once, instead of thrice could be enough…), but I can't think of a proper alternative. Any ideas? Maybe I just don't know about a certain design pattern I should be using here? Edit - I think I need to elaborate a little. I'm not asking how to make the example code "better", but rather, "shorter". In its current state, all member names appear 3 times (declaration, initialization, constructor arguments), and it feels rather redundant. So I'm wondering if there is a pattern (or semantic sugar) to get (roughly) the same behavior, but with less bloat. I apologize for being unclear initially.

    Read the article

  • How to maintain a pool of names ?

    - by Jacques René Mesrine
    I need to maintain a list of userids (proxy accounts) which will be dished out to multithreaded clients. Basically the clients will use the userids to perform actions; but for this question, it is not important what these actions are. When a client gets hold of a userid, it is not available to other clients until the action is completed. I'm trying to think of a concurrent data structure to maintain this pool of userids. Any ideas ? Would a ConcurrentQueue do the job ? Clients will dequeue a userid, and add back the userid when they are finished with it.

    Read the article

  • PHP Classes: Call method in instance of a class by instance's name

    - by Ursus Russus
    Hi, i have a class of this kind Class Car { private $color; public function __construct($color){ $this->color=$color; } public function get_color(){ return $this->$color; } } Then i create some instances of it: $blue_car = new car('blue'); $green_car = new car('green'); etc. Now i need to call method get_color() on the fly, according to instance's name $instance_name='green_car'; Is there any way to do it?

    Read the article

  • How can I add a field with an array value to my Perl object?

    - by superstar
    What's the difference between these two constructors in perl? 1) sub new { my $class = shift; my $self = {}; $self->{firstName} = undef; $self->{lastName} = undef; $self->{PEERS} = []; bless ($self, $class); return $self; } 2) sub new { my $class = shift; my $self = { _firstName => shift, _lastName => shift, _ssn => shift, }; bless $self, $class; return $self; } I am using the second one so far, but I need to implement the PEERS array in the second one? How do I do it with the second constructor and how can we use get and set methods on those array variables?

    Read the article

  • Is there anything bad in declaring static inner class inside interface in java?

    - by Roman
    I have an interface ProductService with method findByCriteria. This method had a long list of nullable parameters, like productName, maxCost, minCost, producer and so on. I refactored this method by introducing Parameter Object. I created class SearchCriteria and now method signature looks like this: findByCriteria (SearchCriteria criteria) I thought that instances of SearchCriteria are only created by method callers and are only used inside findByCriteria method, i.e.: void processRequest() { SearchCriteria criteria = new SearchCriteria () .withMaxCost (maxCost) ....... .withProducer (producer); List<Product> products = productService.findByCriteria (criteria); .... } and List<Product> findByCriteria(SearchCriteria criteria) { return doSmthAndReturnResult(criteria.getMaxCost(), criteria.getProducer()); } So I did not want to create separate public class for SearchCriteria and put it inside ProductServiceInterface: public interface ProductService { List<Product> findByCriteria (SearchCriteria criteria); static class SearchCriteria { ... } } Is there anything bad in this interface? Where whould you place SearchCriteria class?

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33  | Next Page >