Search Results

Search found 12287 results on 492 pages for 'column oriented'.

Page 29/492 | < Previous Page | 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36  | Next Page >

  • A better alternative to incompatible implementations for the same interface?

    - by glenatron
    I am working on a piece of code which performs a set task in several parallel environments where the behaviour of the different components in the task are similar but quite different. This means that my implementations are quite different but they are all based on the relationships between the same interfaces, something like this: IDataReader -> ContinuousDataReader -> ChunkedDataReader IDataProcessor -> ContinuousDataProcessor -> ChunkedDataProcessor IDataWriter -> ContinuousDataWriter -> ChunkedDataWriter So that in either environment we have an IDataReader, IDataProcessor and IDataWriter and then we can use Dependency Injection to ensure that we have the correct one of each for the current environment, so if we are working with data in chunks we use the ChunkedDataReader, ChunkedDataProcessor and ChunkedDataWriter and if we have continuous data we have the continuous versions. However the behaviour of these classes is quite different internally and one could certainly not go from a ContinuousDataReader to the ChunkedDataReader even though they are both IDataProcessors. This feels to me as though it is incorrect ( possibly an LSP violation? ) and certainly not a theoretically correct way of working. It is almost as though the "real" interface here is the combination of all three classes. Unfortunately in the project I am working on with the deadlines we are working to, we're pretty much stuck with this design, but if we had a little more elbow room, what would be a better design approach in this kind of scenario?

    Read the article

  • Storing non-content data in Orchard

    - by Bertrand Le Roy
    A CMS like Orchard is, by definition, designed to store content. What differentiates content from other kinds of data is rather subtle. The way I would describe it is by saying that if you would put each instance of a kind of data on its own web page, if it would make sense to add comments to it, or tags, or ratings, then it is content and you can store it in Orchard using all the convenient composition options that it offers. Otherwise, it probably isn't and you can store it using somewhat simpler means that I will now describe. In one of the modules I wrote, Vandelay.ThemePicker, there is some configuration data for the module. That data is not content by the definition I gave above. Let's look at how this data is stored and queried. The configuration data in question is a set of records, each of which has a number of properties: public class SettingsRecord { public virtual int Id { get; set;} public virtual string RuleType { get; set; } public virtual string Name { get; set; } public virtual string Criterion { get; set; } public virtual string Theme { get; set; } public virtual int Priority { get; set; } public virtual string Zone { get; set; } public virtual string Position { get; set; } } .csharpcode, .csharpcode pre { font-size: small; color: black; font-family: consolas, "Courier New", courier, monospace; background-color: #ffffff; /*white-space: pre;*/ } .csharpcode pre { margin: 0em; } .csharpcode .rem { color: #008000; } .csharpcode .kwrd { color: #0000ff; } .csharpcode .str { color: #006080; } .csharpcode .op { color: #0000c0; } .csharpcode .preproc { color: #cc6633; } .csharpcode .asp { background-color: #ffff00; } .csharpcode .html { color: #800000; } .csharpcode .attr { color: #ff0000; } .csharpcode .alt { background-color: #f4f4f4; width: 100%; margin: 0em; } .csharpcode .lnum { color: #606060; } Each property has to be virtual for nHibernate to handle it (it creates derived classed that are instrumented in all kinds of ways). We also have an Id property. The way these records will be stored in the database is described from a migration: public int Create() { SchemaBuilder.CreateTable("SettingsRecord", table => table .Column<int>("Id", column => column.PrimaryKey().Identity()) .Column<string>("RuleType", column => column.NotNull().WithDefault("")) .Column<string>("Name", column => column.NotNull().WithDefault("")) .Column<string>("Criterion", column => column.NotNull().WithDefault("")) .Column<string>("Theme", column => column.NotNull().WithDefault("")) .Column<int>("Priority", column => column.NotNull().WithDefault(10)) .Column<string>("Zone", column => column.NotNull().WithDefault("")) .Column<string>("Position", column => column.NotNull().WithDefault("")) ); return 1; } When we enable the feature, the migration will run, which will create the table in the database. Once we've done that, all we have to do in order to use the data is inject an IRepository<SettingsRecord>, which is what I'm doing from the set of helpers I put under the SettingsService class: private readonly IRepository<SettingsRecord> _repository; private readonly ISignals _signals; private readonly ICacheManager _cacheManager; public SettingsService( IRepository<SettingsRecord> repository, ISignals signals, ICacheManager cacheManager) { _repository = repository; _signals = signals; _cacheManager = cacheManager; } The repository has a Table property, which implements IQueryable<SettingsRecord> (enabling all kind of Linq queries) as well as methods such as Delete and Create. Here's for example how I'm getting all the records in the table: _repository.Table.ToList() And here's how I'm deleting a record: _repository.Delete(_repository.Get(r => r.Id == id)); And here's how I'm creating one: _repository.Create(new SettingsRecord { Name = name, RuleType = ruleType, Criterion = criterion, Theme = theme, Priority = priority, Zone = zone, Position = position }); In summary, you create a record class, a migration, and you're in business and can just manipulate the data through the repository that the framework is exposing. You even get ambient transactions from the work context.

    Read the article

  • Is OOP hard because it is not natural?

    - by zvrba
    One can often hear that OOP naturally corresponds to the way people think about the world. But I would strongly disagree with this statement: We (or at least I) conceptualize the world in terms of relationships between things we encounter, but the focus of OOP is designing individual classes and their hierarchies. Note that, in everyday life, relationships and actions exist mostly between objects that would have been instances of unrelated classes in OOP. Examples of such relationships are: "my screen is on top of the table"; "I (a human being) am sitting on a chair"; "a car is on the road"; "I am typing on the keyboard"; "the coffee machine boils water", "the text is shown in the terminal window." We think in terms of bivalent (sometimes trivalent, as, for example in, "I gave you flowers") verbs where the verb is the action (relation) that operates on two objects to produce some result/action. The focus is on action, and the two (or three) [grammatical] objects have equal importance. Contrast that with OOP where you first have to find one object (noun) and tell it to perform some action on another object. The way of thinking is shifted from actions/verbs operating on nouns to nouns operating on nouns -- it is as if everything is being said in passive or reflexive voice, e.g., "the text is being shown by the terminal window". Or maybe "the text draws itself on the terminal window". Not only is the focus shifted to nouns, but one of the nouns (let's call it grammatical subject) is given higher "importance" than the other (grammatical object). Thus one must decide whether one will say terminalWindow.show(someText) or someText.show(terminalWindow). But why burden people with such trivial decisions with no operational consequences when one really means show(terminalWindow, someText)? [Consequences are operationally insignificant -- in both cases the text is shown on the terminal window -- but can be very serious in the design of class hierarchies and a "wrong" choice can lead to convoluted and hard to maintain code.] I would therefore argue that the mainstream way of doing OOP (class-based, single-dispatch) is hard because it IS UNNATURAL and does not correspond to how humans think about the world. Generic methods from CLOS are closer to my way of thinking, but, alas, this is not widespread approach. Given these problems, how/why did it happen that the currently mainstream way of doing OOP became so popular? And what, if anything, can be done to dethrone it?

    Read the article

  • Class design issue

    - by user2865206
    I'm new to OOP and a lot of times I become stumped in situations similar to this example: Task: Generate an XML document that contains information about a person. Assume the information is readily available in a database. Here is an example of the structure: <Person> <Name>John Doe</Name> <Age>21</Age> <Address> <Street>100 Main St.</Street> <City>Sylvania</City> <State>OH</State> </Address> <Relatives> <Parents> <Mother> <Name>Jane Doe</Name> </Mother> <Father> <Name>John Doe Sr.</Name> </Father> </Parents> <Siblings> <Brother> <Name>Jeff Doe</Name> </Brother> <Brother> <Name>Steven Doe</Name> </Brother> </Siblings> </Relatives> </Person> Ok lets create a class for each tag (ie: Person, Name, Age, Address) Lets assume each class is only responsible for itself and the elements directly contained Each class will know (have defined by default) the classes that are directly contained within them Each class will have a process() function that will add itself and its childeren to the XML document we are creating When a child is drawn, as in the previous line, we will have them call process() as well Now we are in a recursive loop where each object draws their childeren until all are drawn But what if only some of the tags need to be drawn, and the rest are optional? Some are optional based on if the data exists (if we have it, we must draw it), and some are optional based on the preferences of the user generating the document How do we make sure each object has the data it needs to draw itself and it's childeren? We can pass down a massive array through every object, but that seems shitty doesnt it? We could have each object query the database for it, but thats a lot of queries, and how does it know what it's query is? What if we want to get rid of a tag later? There is no way to reference them. I've been thinking about this for 20 hours now. I feel like I am misunderstanding a design principle or am just approaching this all wrong. How would you go about programming something like this? I suppose this problem could apply to any senario where there are classes that create other classes, but the classes created need information to run. How do I get the information to them in a way that doesn't seem fucky? Thanks for all of your time, this has been kicking my ass.

    Read the article

  • "Best fit" to avoid reuse of object instances in a collection

    - by Simon
    Imagine I have a collection of object instances which represent activities for a user to undertake. Dependent on user attributes, I have to randomly select instances to present activities to the user. For some users, I need to present more activities to them than there are available activities in which case, I want to use the following algorithm. If all available activities have already been presented to the user, then re-select a "used" activity, selecting the earliest presented activity ordered by frequency of use. In other words, try to reduce repetition and where repetition is unavoidable, use the instances which have been repeated less often and were presented furthest back in time. Before I go on to code that algorithm, I wondered if there is some existing pattern I can re-use? [EDIT] "Furthest back in time" is not relevant as I will pass the algorithm an ordered collection of used instances where the first entry is the first presented.

    Read the article

  • Class design for calling "the same method" on different classes from one place

    - by betatester07
    Let me introduce my situation: I have Java EE application and in one package, I want to have classes which will act primarily as cache for some data from database, for example: class that will hold all articles for our website class that will hold all categories etc. Every class should have some update() method, which will update data for that class from database and also some other methods for data manipulation specific for that data type. Now, I would like to call update() method for all class instances (there will be exactly one class instance for every class) from one place. What is the best design?

    Read the article

  • OO Software Architecture - base class that everything inherits from. Bad/good idea?

    - by ale
    I am reviewing a proposed OO software architecture that looks like this: Base Foo Something Bar SomethingElse Where Base is a static class. My immediate thought was that every object in any class will inherit all the methods in Base which would create a large object. Could this cause problems for a large system? The whole architecture is hierarchical.. the 'tree' is much bigger than this really. Does this sort of architecture have a name (hierarchical?!). What are the known pros and cons?

    Read the article

  • Looking for a better Factory pattern (Java)

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

    Read the article

  • is 'protected' ever reasonable outside of virtual methods and destructors?

    - by notallama
    so, suppose you have some fields and methods marked protected (non-virtual). presumably, you did this because you didn't mark them public because you don't want some nincompoop to accidentally call them in the wrong order or pass in invalid parameters, or you don't want people to rely on behaviour that you're going to change later. so, why is it okay for that nincompoop to use those fields and methods from a subclass? as far as i can tell, they can still screw up in the same ways, and the same compatibility issues still exist if you change the implementation. the cases for protected i can think of are: non-virtual destructors, so you can't break things by deleting the base class. virtual methods, so you can override 'private' methods called by the base class. constructors in c++. in java/c# marking the class as abstract will do basically the same. any other use cases?

    Read the article

  • Models, collections...and then what? Processes?

    - by Dan
    I'm a LAMP-stack dev who's been more on the JavaScript side the last few years and really enjoying the Model + Collection approach to data entities that BackboneJS, etc. uses. It's helped me organize my code in such a way that it is extremely portable, keeping all my properties and methods in the scope (model, collection, etc.) in which they apply. One thing that keeps bugging me though is how to organize the next level up, the 'process layer' as you might call it, that can potentially operate on instances of either models or collections or whatever else. Where should methods like find() (which returns a collection) and create() (which returns a model) reside? I know some people would put a create() in the Collection prototype, but while a collection operates on models I don't think it's exactly right to create them. And while a find() would return a collection I don't think it correct to have that action within the collection prototype itself (it should be a layer up). Can anyone offer some examples of any patterns that employ some kind of OOP-friendly 'process' layer? I'm sorry if this is a fairly well-known discussion but I'm afraid I can't seem to find the terminology to search for.

    Read the article

  • How get and set accessors work

    - by Chris Halcrow
    The standard method of implementing get and set accessors in C# and VB.NET is to use a public property to set and retrieve the value of a corresponding private variable. Am I right in saying that this has no effect of different instances of a variable? By this I mean, if there are different instantiations of an object, then those instances and their properties are completely independent right? So I think my understanding is correct that setting a private variable is just a construct to be able to implement the get and set pattern? Never been 100% sure about this.

    Read the article

  • In PHP, what are the different design patterns to implement OO controllers as opposed to procedural controllers?

    - by Ryan
    For example, it's very straightforward to have an index.php controller be a procedural script like so: <?php //include classes and functions //get some data from the database //and/or process a form submission //render HTML using your template system ?> Then I can just navigate to http://mysite.com/index.php and the above procedural script is essentially acting as a simple controller. Here the controller mechanism is a basic procedural script. How then do you make controllers classes instead of procedural scripts? Must the controller class always be tied to the routing mechanism?

    Read the article

  • FP for simulation and modelling

    - by heaptobesquare
    I'm about to start a simulation/modelling project. I already know that OOP is used for this kind of projects. However, studying Haskell made me consider using the FP paradigm for modelling a system of components. Let me elaborate: Let's say I have a component of type A, characterised by a set of data (a parameter like temperature or pressure,a PDE and some boundary conditions,etc.) and a component of type B, characterised by a different set of data(different or same parameter, different PDE and boundary conditions). Let's also assume that the functions/methods that are going to be applied on each component are the same (a Galerkin method for example). If I were to use an OOP approach, I would create two objects that would encapsulate each type's data, the methods for solving the PDE(inheritance would be used here for code reuse) and the solution to the PDE. On the other hand, if I were to use an FP approach, each component would be broken down to data parts and the functions that would act upon the data in order to get the solution for the PDE. This approach seems simpler to me assuming that linear operations on data would be trivial and that the parameters are constant. What if the parameters are not constant(for example, temperature increases suddenly and therefore cannot be immutable)? In OOP, the object's (mutable) state can be used. I know that Haskell has Monads for that. To conclude, would implementing the FP approach be actually simpler,less time consuming and easier to manage (add a different type of component or new method to solve the pde) compared to the OOP one? I come from a C++/Fortran background, plus I'm not a professional programmer, so correct me on anything that I've got wrong.

    Read the article

  • Am I violating LSP if the condition can be checked?

    - by William
    This base class for some shapes I have in my game looks like this. Some of the shapes can be resized, some of them can not. private Shape shape; public virtual void SetSizeOfShape(int x, int y) { if (CanResize()){ shape.Width = x; shape.Height = y; } else { throw new Exception("You cannot resize this shape"); } } public virtual bool CanResize() { return true; } In a sub class of a shape that I don't ever want to resize I am overriding the CanResize() method so a piece of client code can check before calling the SetSizeOfShape() method. public override bool CanResize() { return false; } Here's how it might look in my client code: public void DoSomething(Shape s) { if(s.CanResize()){ s.SetSizeOfShape(50, 70); } } Is this violating LSP?

    Read the article

  • Is avoiding the private access specifier in PHP justified?

    - by Tifa
    I come from a Java background and I have been working with PHP for almost a year now. I have worked with WordPress, Zend and currently I'm using CakePHP. I was going through Cake's lib and I couldn't help notice that Cake goes a long way avoiding the "private" access specifier. Cake says Try to avoid private methods or variables, though, in favor of protected ones. The latter can be accessed or modified by subclasses, whereas private ones prevent extension or re-use. in this tutorial. Why does Cake overly shun the "private" access specifier while good OO design encourages its use i.e to apply the most restrictive visibility for a class member that is not intended to be part of its exported API? I'm willing to believe that "private" functions are difficult test, but is rest of the convention justified outside Cake? or perhaps it's just a Cake convention of OO design geared towards extensibility at the expense of being a stickler for stringent (or traditional?) OO design?

    Read the article

  • Structuring cascading properties - parent only or parent + entire child graph?

    - by SB2055
    I have a Folder entity that can be Moderated by users. Folders can contain other folders. So I may have a structure like this: Folder 1 Folder 2 Folder 3 Folder 4 I have to decide how to implement Moderation for this entity. I've come up with two options: Option 1 When the user is given moderation privileges to Folder 1, define a moderator relationship between Folder 1 and User 1. No other relationships are added to the db. To determine if the user can moderate Folder 3, I check and see if User 1 is the moderator of any parent folders. This seems to alleviate some of the complexity of handling updates / moved entities / additions under Folder 1 after the relationship has been defined, and reverting the relationship means I only have to deal with one entity. Option 2 When the user is given moderation privileges to Folder 1, define a new relationship between User 1 and Folder 1, and all child entities down to the grandest of grandchildren when the relationship is created, and if it's ever removed, iterate back down the graph to remove the relationship. If I add something under Folder 2 after this relationship has been made, I just copy all Moderators into the new Entity. But when I need to show only the top-level Folders that a user is Moderating, I need to query all folders that have a parent folder that the user does not moderate, as opposed to option 1, where I just query any items that the user is moderating. I think it comes down to determining if users will be querying for all parent items more than they'll be querying child items... if so, then option 1 seems better. But I'm not sure. Is either approach better than the other? Why? Or is there another approach that's better than both? I'm using Entity Framework in case it matters.

    Read the article

  • Passing class names or objects?

    - by nischayn22
    I have a switch statement switch ( $id ) { case 'abc': return 'Animal'; case 'xyz': return 'Human'; //many more } I am returning class names,and use them to call some of their static functions using call_user_func(). Instead I can also create a object of that class, return that and then call the static function from that object as $object::method($param) switch ( $id ) { case 'abc': return new Animal; case 'xyz': return new Human; //many more } Which way is efficient? To make this question broader : I have classes that have mostly all static methods right now, putting them into classes is kind of a grouping idea here (for example the DB table structure of Animal is given by class Animal and so for Human class). I need to access many functions from these classes so the switch needs to give me access to the class

    Read the article

  • How can I design my classes to include calendar events stored in a database?

    - by Gianluca78
    I'm developing a web calendar in php (using Symfony2) inspired by iCal for a project of mine. At this moment, I have two classes: a class "Calendar" and a class "CalendarCell". Here you are the two classes properties and method declarations. class Calendar { private $month; private $monthName; private $year; private $calendarCellList = array(); private $translator; public function __construct($month, $year, $translator) {} public function getCalendarCellList() {} public function getMonth() {} public function getMonthName() {} public function getNextMonth() {} public function getNextYear() {} public function getPreviousMonth() {} public function getPreviousYear() {} public function getYear() {} private function calculateDaysPreviousMonth() {} private function calculateNumericDayOfTheFirstDayOfTheWeek() {} private function isCurrentDay(\DateTime $dateTime) {} private function isDifferentMonth(\DateTime $dateTime) {} } class CalendarCell { private $day; private $month; private $dayNameAbbreviation; private $numericDayOfTheWeek; private $isCurrentDay; private $isDifferentMonth; private $translator; public function __construct(array $parameters) {} public function getDay() {} public function getMonth() {} public function getDayNameAbbreviation() {} public function isCurrentDay() {} public function isDifferentMonth() {} } Each calendar day can includes many calendar events (such as appointments or schedules) stored in a database. My question is: which is the best way to manage these calendar events in my classes? I think to add a eventList property in CalendarCell and populate it with an array of CalendarEvent objects fetched by the database. This kind of solution doesn't allow other coders to reuse the classes without db (because I should inject at least a repository services also) just to create and visualize a calendar... so maybe it could be better to extend CalendarCell (for instance in CalendarCellEvent) and add the database features? I feel like I'm missing some crucial design pattern! Any suggestion will be very appreciated!

    Read the article

  • How are objects modelled in a functional programming language?

    - by Giorgio
    In an answer to this question (written by Pete) there are some considerations about OOP versus FP. In particular, it is suggested that FP languages are not very suitable for modelling (persistent) objects that have an identity and a mutable state. I was wondering if this is true or, in other words, how one would model objects in a functional programming language. From my basic knowledge of Haskell I thought that one could use monads in some way, but I really do not know enough on this topic to come up with a clear answer. So, how are entities with an identity and a mutable persistent state normally modelled in a functional language? EDIT Here are some further details to clarify what I have in mind. Take a typical Java application in which I can (1) read a record from a database table into a Java object, (2) modify the object in different ways, (3) save the modified object to the database. How would this be implemented e.g. in Haskell? I would initially read the record into a record value (defined by a data definition), perform different transformations by applying functions to this initial value (each intermediate value is a new, modified copy of the original record) and then write the final record value to the database. Is this all there is to it? How can I ensure that at each moment in time only one copy of the record is valid / accessible? One does not want to have different immutable values representing different snapshots of the same object to be accessible at the same time.

    Read the article

  • Validation and Error Generation when using the Data Mapper Pattern

    - by AndyPerlitch
    I am working on saving state of an object to a database using the data mapper pattern, but I am looking for suggestions/guidance on the validation and error message generation step (step 4 below). Here are the general steps as I see them for doing this: (1) The data mapper is used to get current info (assoc array) about the object in db: +=====================================================+ | person_id | name | favorite_color | age | +=====================================================+ | 1 | Andy | Green | 24 | +-----------------------------------------------------+ mapper returns associative array, eg. Person_Mapper::getPersonById($id) : $person_row = array( 'person_id' => 1, 'name' => 'Andy', 'favorite_color' => 'Green', 'age' => '24', ); (2) the Person object constructor takes this array as an argument, populating its fields. class Person { protected $person_id; protected $name; protected $favorite_color; protected $age; function __construct(array $person_row) { $this->person_id = $person_row['person_id']; $this->name = $person_row['name']; $this->favorite_color = $person_row['favorite_color']; $this->age = $person_row['age']; } // getters and setters... public function toArray() { return array( 'person_id' => $this->person_id, 'name' => $this->name, 'favorite_color' => $this->favorite_color, 'age' => $this->age, ); } } (3a) (GET request) Inputs of an HTML form that is used to change info about the person is populated using Person::getters <form> <input type="text" name="name" value="<?=$person->getName()?>" /> <input type="text" name="favorite_color" value="<?=$person->getFavColor()?>" /> <input type="text" name="age" value="<?=$person->getAge()?>" /> </form> (3b) (POST request) Person object is altered with the POST data using Person::setters $person->setName($_POST['name']); $person->setFavColor($_POST['favorite_color']); $person->setAge($_POST['age']); *(4) Validation and error message generation on a per-field basis - Should this take place in the person object or the person mapper object? - Should data be validated BEFORE being placed into fields of the person object? (5) Data mapper saves the person object (updates row in the database): $person_mapper->savePerson($person); // the savePerson method uses $person->toArray() // to get data in a more digestible format for the // db gateway used by person_mapper Any guidance, suggestions, criticism, or name-calling would be greatly appreciated.

    Read the article

  • Is this the correct approach to an OOP design structure in php?

    - by Silver89
    I'm converting a procedural based site to an OOP design to allow more easily manageable code in the future and so far have created the following structure: /classes /templates index.php With these classes: ConnectDB Games System User User -Moderator User -Administrator In the index.php file I have code that detects if any $_GET values are posted to determine on which page content to build (it's early so there's only one example and no default): function __autoload($className) { require "classes/".strtolower($className).".class.php"; } $db = new Connect; $db->connect(); $user = new User(); if(isset($_GET['gameId'])) { System::buildGame($gameId); } This then runs the BuildGame function in the system class which looks like the following and then uses gets in the Game Class to return values, such as $game->getTitle() in the template file template/play.php: function buildGame($gameId){ $game = new Game($gameId); $game->setRatio(900, 600); require 'templates/play.php'; } I also have .htaccess so that actual game page url works instead of passing the parameters to index.php Are there any major errors of how I'm setting this up or do I have the general idea of OOP correct?

    Read the article

  • PHP - Internal APIs/Libraries - What makes sense?

    - by Mark Locker
    I've been having a discussion lately with some colleagues about the best way to approach a new project, and thought it'd be interesting to get some external thoughts thrown into the mix. Basically, we're redeveloping a fairly large site (written in PHP) and have differing opinions on how the platform should be setup. Requirements: The platform will need to support multiple internal websites, as well as external (non-PHP) projects which at the moment consist of a mobile app and a toolbar. We have no plans/need in the foreseeable future to open up an API externally (for use in products other than our own). My opinion: We should have a library of well documented native model classes which can be shared between projects. These models will represent everything in our database and can take advantage of object orientated features such as inheritance, traits, magic methods, etc. etc. As well as employing ORM. We can then add an API layer on top of these models which can basically accept requests and route them to the appropriate methods, translating the response so that it can be used platform independently. This routing for each method can be setup as and when it's required. Their opinion: We should have a single HTTP API which is used by all projects (internal PHP ones or otherwise). My thoughts: To me, there are a number of issues with using the sole HTTP API approach: It will be very expensive performance wise. One page request will result in several additional http requests (which although local, are still ones that Apache will need to handle). You'll lose all of the best features PHP has for OO development. From simple inheritance, to employing the likes of ORM which can save you writing a lot of code. For internal projects, the actual process makes me cringe. To get a users name, for example, a request would go out of our box, over the LAN, back in, then run through a script which calls a method, JSON encodes the output and feeds that back. That would then need to be JSON decoded, and be presented as an array ready to use. Working with arrays, as appose to objects, makes me sad in a modern PHP framework. Their thoughts (and my responses): Having one method of doing thing keeps things simple. - You'd only do things differently if you were using a different language anyway. It will become robust. - Seeing as the API will run off the library of models, I think my option would be just as robust. What do you think? I'd be really interested to hear the thoughts of others on this, especially as opinions on both sides are not founded on any past experience.

    Read the article

  • Are there design patterns or generalised approaches for particle simulations?

    - by romeovs
    I'm working on a project (for college) in C++. The goal is to write a program that can more or less simulate a beam of particles flying trough the LHC synchrotron. Not wanting to rush into things, me and my team are thinking about how to implement this and I was wondering if there are general design patterns that are used to solve this kind of problem. The general approach we came up with so far is the following: there is a World that holds all objects you can add objects to this world such as Particle, Dipole and Quadrupole time is cut up into discrete steps, and at each point in time, for each Particle the magnetic and electric forces that each object in the World generates are calculated and summed up (luckily electro-magnetism is linear). each Particle moves accordingly (using a simple estimation approach to solve the differential movement equations) save the Particle positions repeat This seems a good approach but, for instance, it is hard to take into account symmetries that might be present (such as the magnetic field of each Quadrupole) and is this thus suboptimal. To take into account such symmetries as that of the Quadrupole field, it would be much easier to (also) make space discrete and somehow store form of the Quadrupole field somewhere. (Since 2532 or so Quadrupoles are stored this should lead to a massive gain of performance, not having to recalculate each Quadrupole field) So, are there any design patterns? Is the World-approach feasible or is it old-fashioned, bad programming? What about symmetry, how is that generally taken into acount?

    Read the article

  • May I give a single class multiple responsibilities if only one will ever be reusable?

    - by lnluis
    To the extent that I understand the Single Responsibility Principle, a SINGLE class must only have one responsibility. We use this so that we can reuse other functionalities in other classes and not affect the whole class. My question is: what if the entity has only one purpose that really interacts with the system, and that purpose won't change? Do you have to separate the implementations of your methods into another class and just instantiate those from your entity class? Or to put it another way... Is it ok to break the SRP if you know those functions will not be reusable in the future? Or is it better to assume that we do not know if the functionalities of these methods will be reusable or not, and so just abstract them to other classes?

    Read the article

  • Is it wrong to use a boolean parameter to determine behavior?

    - by Ray
    I have seen a practice from time to time that "feels" wrong, but I can't quite articulate what is wrong about it. Or maybe it's just my prejudice. Here goes: A developer defines a method with a boolean as one of its parameters, and that method calls another, and so on, and eventually that boolean is used, solely to determine whether or not to take a certain action. This might be used, for example, to allow the action only if the user has certain rights, or perhaps if we are (or aren't) in test mode or batch mode or live mode, or perhaps only when the system is in a certain state. Well there is always another way to do it, whether by querying when it is time to take the action (rather than passing the parameter), or by having multiple versions of the method, or multiple implementations of the class, etc. My question isn't so much how to improve this, but rather whether or not it really is wrong (as I suspect), and if it is, what is wrong about it.

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36  | Next Page >