Search Results

Search found 25050 results on 1002 pages for 'javascript oop'.

Page 296/1002 | < Previous Page | 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303  | Next Page >

  • 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

  • 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

  • In what circumstances are instance variables declared as '_var' in 'use fields' private?

    - by Pedro Silva
    I'm trying to understand the behavior of the fields pragma, which I find poorly documented, regarding fields prefixed with underscores. This is what the documentation has to say about it: Field names that start with an underscore character are made private to the class and are not visible to subclasses. Inherited fields can be overridden but will generate a warning if used together with the -w switch. This is not consistent with its actual behavior, according to my test, below. Not only are _-prefixed fields visible within a subclass, they are visible within foreign classes as well (unless I don't get what 'visible' means). Also, directly accessing the restricted hash works fine. Where can I find more about the behavior of the fields pragma, short of going at the source code? { package Foo; use strict; use warnings; use fields qw/a _b __c/; sub new { my ( $class ) = @_; my Foo $self = fields::new($class); $self->a = 1; $self->b = 2; $self->c = 3; return $self; } sub a : lvalue { shift->{a} } sub b : lvalue { shift->{_b} } sub c : lvalue { shift->{__c} } } { package Bar; use base 'Foo'; use strict; use warnings; use Data::Dumper; my $o = Bar->new; print Dumper $o; ##$VAR1 = bless({'_b' => 2, '__c' => 3, 'a' => 1}, 'Foo'); $o->a = 4; $o->b = 5; $o->c = 6; print Dumper $o; ##$VAR1 = bless({'_b' => 5, '__c' => 6, 'a' => 4}, 'Foo'); $o->{a} = 7; $o->{_b} = 8; $o->{__c} = 9; print Dumper $o; ##$VAR1 = bless({'_b' => 8, '__c' => 9, 'a' => 7}, 'Foo'); }

    Read the article

  • Resetting Objects vs. Constructing New Objects

    - by byronh
    Is it considered better practice and/or more efficient to create a 'reset' function for a particular object that clears/defaults all the necessary member variables to allow for further operations, or to simply construct a new object from outside? I've seen both methods employed a lot, but I can't decide which one is better. Of course, for classes that represent database connections, you'd have to use a reset method rather than constructing a new one resulting in needless connecting/disconnecting, but I'm talking more in terms of abstraction classes. Can anyone give me some real-world examples of when to use each method? In my particular case I'm thinking mostly in terms of ORM or the Model in MVC. For example, if I would want to retrieve a bunch of database objects for display and modify them in one operation.

    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

  • when does static member gets memory.

    - by vaibhav
    I have a class which have a static member. As I understand all static members are common for all instance of the class. So it means static members would get memory only once. Where is this memory is allocated (Stack or Heap) and when this memory get allocated.

    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

  • 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 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

  • 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

  • accessing private variable from member function in PHP

    - by Carson Myers
    I have derived a class from Exception, basically like so: class MyException extends Exception { private $_type; public function type() { return $this->_type; //line 74 } public function __toString() { include "sometemplate.php"; return ""; } } Then, I derived from MyException like so: class SpecialException extends MyException { private $_type = "superspecial"; } If I throw new SpecialException("bla") from a function, catch it, and go echo $e, then the __toString function should load a template, display that, and then not actually return anything to echo. This is basically what's in the template file <div class="<?php echo $this->type(); ?>class"> <p> <?php echo $this->message; ?> </p> </div> in my mind, this should definitely work. However, I get the following error when an exception is thrown and I try to display it: Fatal error: Cannot access private property SpecialException::$_type in C:\path\to\exceptions.php on line 74 Can anyone explain why I am breaking the rules here? Am I doing something horribly witty with this code? Is there a much more idiomatic way to handle this situation? The point of the $_type variable is (as shown) that I want a different div class to be used depending on the type of exception caught.

    Read the article

  • Method Overloading for NULL parameter

    - by Phani
    I have added three methods with parameters: public static void doSomething(Object obj) { System.out.println("Object called"); } public static void doSomething(char[] obj) { System.out.println("Array called"); } public static void doSomething(Integer obj) { System.out.println("Array called"); } When I am calling doSomething(null) , then compiler throws error as ambiguous methods. So Is the issue because Integer and char[] methods or Integer and Object methods?

    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

  • C# Design a class with interface?

    - by Haroon
    I am having a bit of trouble understanding how I will design a class. My class will have 3 methods ICollection<Field> GetFields(); //perform validation internally - return back the object T UpdateFields(ICollection<Field> fields); //pass in model object with values on it, set up fields, then pass back all fields ICollection<Field> GetFieldsWithValues(T object); What is the best way to construct/design such a class keeping in mind: 1. The model object I pass in will be one of 3 or 4 tables, however when I call GetFIelds - internally for each object I know what fields will be there i.e. list.add(new Field{name = "id", value = "5"}); list.add(new Field{name = "nameofcompany", value = "super guys"});

    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 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

  • How to prevent inheritance for some methods?!

    - by Dr TJ
    Hi How can I prevent inheritance of some methods or properties in derived classes?! public class BaseClass : Collection { //Some operations... //Should not let derived classes inherit 'Add' method. } public class DerivedClass : BaseClass { public void DoSomething(int Item) { this.Add(Item); // Error: No such method should exist... } }

    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

  • Python and classes

    - by Artyom
    Hello, i have 2 classes. How i call first.TQ in Second ? Without creating object First in Second. class First: def __init__(self): self.str = "" def TQ(self): pass def main(self): T = Second(self.str) # Called here class Second(): def __init__(self): list = {u"RANDINT":first.TQ} # List of funcs maybe called in first ..... ..... return data

    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

< Previous Page | 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303  | Next Page >