Search Results

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

Page 301/1002 | < Previous Page | 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308  | Next Page >

  • Why must use "out" instead of ref ?

    - by Phsika
    i wrote some code blocks about ref -out declaration. i think that ref is most useful out. Ok. why i need to use out. i can use always ref everytime: namespace out_ref { class Program { static void Main(string[] args) { sinifA sinif = new sinifA(); int test = 100; sinif.MethodA(out test); Console.WriteLine(test.ToString()); sinif.MethodB(ref test); Console.WriteLine(test.ToString()); Console.ReadKey(); } } class sinifA { public void MethodA(out int a) { a = 200; } int _b; public void MethodB(ref int b) { _b = b; b = 2*b; } } }

    Read the article

  • 'Static/Constant' business ojects

    - by UpTheCreek
    I don't quite know how to ask this question, so I'll phase it as an example: Imagine in an application you have a Country object. There are two properties of this object: Name, and a 'Bordering Countries' collection. More properties might be added later, but it will be the kind of information that would change very rarely (e.g. changes of country names/borders) Lets say this application needs to know about all of the countries in the world. Where would you store these object's state? How would you new them up? It seems silly to store all this state in the DB, since it won't change very often. One option might be to have an abstract 'country' base object, and have a class for each country inheriting from this with the details of each country. But this doesn't seem quite right to me. What is the proper way of dealing with these kinds of objects?

    Read the article

  • Define a class dynamically?

    - by Pekka
    Is there a way to dynamically and conditionally create a class definition in PHP, i.e. if (condition matches) include file containing class definition else class myclass extends ancestor_class { .................... } without eval()? My background is the accepted answer to this question. I am looking for the best way to build a untouchable core library, with user-defined empty classes extending the core library if necessary. I want to create the final class definition "on the fly" if there is no user-defined empty class for a certain ancestor class.

    Read the article

  • Who needs singletons?

    - by sexyprout
    Imagine you access your MySQL database via PDO. You got some functions, and in these functions, you need to access the database. The first thing I thought of is global, like: $db = new PDO('mysql:host=127.0.0.1;dbname=toto', 'root', 'pwd'); function some_function() { global $db; $db->query('...'); } But it's considered as a bad practice. So, after a little search, I ended up with the Singleton pattern, which "applies to situations in which there needs to be a single instance of a class." According to the example of the manual, we should do this: class Database { private static $instance, $db; private function __construct(){} static function singleton() { if(!isset(self::$instance)) self::$instance = new __CLASS__; return self:$instance; } function get() { if(!isset(self::$db)) self::$db = new PDO('mysql:host=127.0.0.1;dbname=toto', 'user', 'pwd') return self::$db; } } function some_function() { $db = Database::singleton(); $db->get()->query('...'); } some_function(); But I just can't understand why you need that big class when you can do it merely with: class Database { private static $db; private function __construct(){} static function get() { if(!isset(self::$rand)) self::$db = new PDO('mysql:host=127.0.0.1;dbname=toto', 'user', 'pwd'); return self::$db; } } function some_function() { Database::get()->query('...'); } some_function(); This last one works perfectly and I don't need to worry about $db anymore. But maybe I'm forgetting something. So, who's wrong, who's right?

    Read the article

  • What Patterns Should I Consider For a Html Widget Generator?

    - by DaveDev
    I'm looking to see if I can design a HtmlHelper extension method that will generate the Html for different types of widgets I want to produce. Each different type of widget implements functionality to get and prepare any data it needs to render. Can anyone suggest any patterns I could refer to for approaches to take? I know there are probably frameworks available that will do this for me, but I thought I'd give it a try anyway. Any points of advice? Thanks

    Read the article

  • Would this constructor be acceptable practice?

    - by Robb
    Let's assume I have a c++ class that have properly implemented a copy constructor and an overloaded = operator. By properly implemented I mean they are working and perform a deep copy: Class1::Class1(const Class1 &class1) { // Perform copy } Class1& Class1::operator=(const Class1 *class1) { // perform copy return *this; } Now lets say I have this constructor as well: Class1::Class1(Class1 *class1) { *this = *class1; } My question is would the above constructor be acceptable practice? This is code that i've inherited and maintaining.

    Read the article

  • How do I organize C# classes that inherit from one another, but also have properties that inherit from one another?

    - by Chris
    I have an application that has a concept of a Venue, a place where events happen. A Venue is owned by a Company and has many VenueParts. So, it looks like this: public abstract class Venue { public int Id { get; set; } public string Name { get; set; } public virtual Company Company { get; set; } public virtual ICollection<VenuePart> VenueParts { get; set; } } A Venue can be a GolfCourseVenue, which is a Venue that has a Slope and a specific kind of VenuePart called a HoleVenuePart: public class GolfCourseVenue { public string Slope { get; set; } public virtual ICollection<HoleVenuePart> Holes { get; set; } } In the future, there may also be other kinds of Venues that all inherit from Venue. They might add their own fields, and will always have VenueParts of their own specific type. My declarations above seem wrong, because now I have a GolfCourseVenue with two collections, when really it should just have the one. I can't override it, because the type is different, right? When I run reports, I would like to refer to the classes generically, where I just spit out Venues and VenueParts. But, when I render forms and such, I would like to be specific. I have a lot of relationships like this and am wondering what I am doing wrong. For example, I have an Order that has OrderItems, but also specific kinds of Orders that have specific kinds of OrderItems.

    Read the article

  • What does Protected Internal means in .Net

    - by vaibhav
    Protected Means, we can access this member only in a deriving class, and internal means we can access this member in any type in the same assembly using a object. So can I consider a Protected Internal member as a public member in the same assembly. and as a protected member in the different assembly.

    Read the article

  • Is it OK to write a constructor which does nothing?

    - by Roman
    To use methods of a class I need to instantiate a class. At the moment the class has not constructor (so I want to write it). But than I have realized that the constructor should do nothing (I do need to specify values of fields). In this context I have a question if it is OK to write constructor which does nothing. For example: public Point() { }

    Read the article

  • 1067: Implicit coercion of a value of type theplayclass to an unrelated type main

    - by Minelava
    I need help because I want to create a gameover screen that display score. However, there's an error that prevent me from transferring the score from theplayclass.as to thegameoverclass.as. Are there ways to pass a value to another movieclip without causing any errors. I refer the source code from this website : http://www.emanueleferonato.com/2008/12/17/designing-the-structure-of-a-flash-game-as3-version/ Here's the error C:\Users\xxx\Downloads\Migrate\test\theplayclass.as, Line 54, Column 41 1067: Implicit coercion of a value of type theplayclass to an unrelated type main. main.as package { import flash.display.MovieClip; import flash.events.Event; public class main extends MovieClip { public var playClass:theplayclass; public var gameOverClass:thegameoverclass; public function main() { showWin(); } public function showWin() { playClass = new theplayclass(this); addChild(playClass); } public function showGameOver() { gameOverClass = new thegameoverclass(this); addChild(gameOverClass); removeChild(playClass); playClass = null; } } } theplayclass.as package { import flash.display.MovieClip; import flash.events.*; public class theplayclass extends MovieClip { private var mainClass:main; var gameScore:Number; var gameOverScore:thegameoverclass; public function theplayclass(passedClass:main) { mainClass = passedClass; scoreText.text ="0"; gameScore = 0; win.addEventListener(MouseEvent.CLICK, showwinFunction); next.addEventListener(MouseEvent.CLICK, showgameoverFunction); addEventListener(Event.ADDED_TO_STAGE, addToStage); addEventListener(Event.ENTER_FRAME, changeScore); } public function addToStage(e:Event):void { this.x = 0; this.y = 0; } private function showwinFunction(e:MouseEvent):void { gameScore+=50; } private function changeScore(e:Event):void { scoreText.text =""+gameScore; } public function showgameoverFunction(e:MouseEvent) { mainClass.showGameOver(); gameOverScore = new thegameoverclass(this); gameOverScore.setTextScore(gameScore); } } } thegameoverclass.as package { import flash.display.MovieClip; import flash.events.MouseEvent; import flash.events.*; public class thegameoverclass extends MovieClip { var mainClass:main; var scorePoints:Number; public function thegameoverclass(passedClass:main) { mainClass = passedClass; finalScore.text = "test"; } public function setTextScore(textToSet:Number) { finalScore.text = ""+scorePoints; } } }

    Read the article

  • Access to an "upper" instance of a class from another instance of a different class

    - by BorrajaX
    Hello everyone! I have a tricky question and probably what I want to do is not even possible but... who knows... Python seems very flexible and powerful... I'd like to know if there's a way to access to the class (or its fields) where an object is instanciated. Let's say I have: def Class1: def __init__(self): self.title = "randomTitle" self.anotherField = float() self.class2Field = Class2() and the class whose type will be the class2Field: def Class2: def __init__(self): self.field1 = "" self.field2 = "" # . . . # I'd like to know if there's a way to access the instance of Class1 from the instance of Class2 that is declared in Class1 (meaning, accessing the fields of Class1 from the variable self.class2Field in that Class1 instance) I know I can always change the init in Class2 to accept a Class1 parameter, but I'd like to know if there's another way of "climbing" through the class hierachy... Thank you very much!

    Read the article

  • Segmentation fault on instationation of more than 1 object

    - by ECE
    I have a class called "Vertex.hpp" which is as follows: #include <iostream> #include "Edge.hpp" #include <vector> using namespace std; /** A class, instances of which are nodes in an HCTree. */ class Vertex { public: Vertex(char * str){ *name=*str; } vector<Vertex*> adjecency_list; vector<Edge*> edge_weights; char *name; }; #endif When I instantiate an object of type Vector as follows: Vertex *first_read; Vertex *second_read; in.getline(input,256); str=strtok(input," "); first_read->name=str; str=strtok(NULL, " "); second_read->name=str; A segmentation fault occurs when more than 1 object of type Vector is instantiated. Why would this occur if more than 1 object is instantiated, and how can i allow multiple objects to be instantiated?

    Read the article

  • How can i split up a component using cfinclude and still use inheritance?

    - by rip747
    Note: this is just a simplized example of what i'm trying to do to get the idea across. The problem I'm having is that I want to use cfinclude inside cfcomponent so that i can group like methods into separate files for more manageability. The problem I'm running into is when i try to extend another component that also uses cfinclude to manage it's method as demostrated below. Note that ComponentA extends ComponentB: ComponentA ========== <cfcomponent output="false" extends="componentb"> <cfinclude template="componenta/methods.cfm"> </cfcomponent> componenta/methods.cfm ====================== <cffunction name="a"><cfreturn "componenta-a"></cffunction> <cffunction name="b"><cfreturn "componenta-b"></cffunction> <cffunction name="c"><cfreturn "componenta-c"></cffunction> <cffunction name="d"><cfreturn super.a()></cffunction> ComponentB ========== <cfcomponent output="false"> <cfinclude template="componentb/methods.cfm"> </cfcomponent> componentb/methods.cfm ====================== <cffunction name="a"><cfreturn "componentb-a"></cffunction> <cffunction name="b"><cfreturn "componentb-b"></cffunction> <cffunction name="c"><cfreturn "componentb-c"></cffunction> The issue is that when i try to initialize ComponentA I get an the error: "Routines cannot be declared more than once. The routine a has been declared twice in different templates." The whole reason for this is because when you use cfinclude it's evaluated at RUN TIME instead of COMPILE TIME. Short of moving the methods into the components themselves and eliminating the use of cfinclude, how can i get around this or does someone have a better idea splitting up large components?

    Read the article

  • Accessing a function of an instance which is in an arraylist

    - by fadeir
    I'm tring to access a function of an instance which is in an arraylist. Is there any way to do that without using the class name of the instance? import java.util.ArrayList; import java.util.List; class apple{ int price; public void myFunction(int iPrice) { price=iPrice; } } class orange{ int price; public void myFunction(int iPrice) { price=iPrice; } } public class main { public static void main(String[] args) { List list= new ArrayList(); //create 3 apple object to list list.add( new apple() ); list.add( new apple() ); list.add( new orange() ); list.get(0).myFunction(1); /* Error: The method myFunction(int) is undefined for the type Object*/ } } I know that;((apple) list.get(0)).myFunction(1); is a way but I'dont want to use any class name while calling the function.

    Read the article

  • Creating an interface and swappable implementations in python

    - by Blankman
    Hi, Would it be possible to create a class interface in python and various implementations of the interface. Example: I want to create a class for pop3 access (and all methods etc.). If I go with a commercial component, I want to wrap it to adhere to a contract. In the future, if I want to use another component or code my own, I want to be able to swap things out and not have things very tightly coupled. Possible? I'm new to python.

    Read the article

  • is there a proper way to handle multiple errors/exceptions?

    - by toPeerOrNotToPeer
    in OO programming, is there some conceptual pattern, ideas, about handling multiple errors? for example, i have a method that performs some checks and should return an error message for each error found ['name is too short', 'name contains invalid unicode sequences', 'name is too long'] now, should i use an array of exceptions (not thrown exceptions)? or something like this is better: class MyExceptionList extends Exception{ public Void addException(Exception e){} public Array getExceptions(){} } any theory behind this argument will be appreciated! (this isn't a request about a specific programming language, but a pure theoretical one) thank you in advance

    Read the article

  • In perl, how can I call a method whose name I have in a string?

    - by Ryan Thompson
    I'm trying to write some abstract code for searching through a list of similar objects for the first one whose attributes match specific values. In order to do this, I need to call a bunch of accessor methods and check all their values one by one. I'd like to use an abstraction like this: sub verify_attribute { my ($object, $attribute_method, $wanted_value) = @_; if ( call_method($object, $attribute_method) ~~ $wanted_value ) { return 1; } else { return; } } Then I can loop through a hash whose keys are accessor method names and whose values are the values I'm looking for for those attributes. For example, if that hash is called %wanted, I might use code like this to find the object I want: my $found_object; FINDOBJ: foreach my $obj (@list_of_objects) { foreach my $accessor (keys %wanted) { next FINDOBJ unless verify_attribute($obj, $accessor, $wanted{$accessor}); } # All attrs verified $found_object = $obj; last FINDOBJ; } Of course, the only problem is that call_method does not exsit. Or does it? How can I call a method if I have a string containing its name? Or is there a better solution to this whole problem?

    Read the article

  • Checking method visibility in PHP

    - by phobia
    Is there any way of checking if a class method has been declared as private or public? I'm working on a controller where the url is mapped to methods in the class, and I only want to trigger the methods if they are defined as public.

    Read the article

  • Automatically selecting and creating class objects

    - by Omin
    Lets say that we have a box class: class Box { private int width; private int height; //Box Constructor public Box( int height ) { this.height = height; width = 450; } } and a series of Box objects in our main: Box Box1 = new Box(147); Box Box2 = new Box(178); Box Box3 = new Box(784); Is there a way to use a "for" loop to go through these objects? Also, how would you make the computer create class objects for us? eg. create 10 objects using: for( int i=0; i>10; i++) { //method }

    Read the article

  • Running a method after the constructor of any derived class

    - by Alexey Romanov
    Let's say I have a Java class abstract class Base { abstract void init(); ... } and I know every derived class will have to call init() after it's constructed. I could, of course, simply call it in the derived classes' constructors: class Derived1 extends Base { Derived1() { ... init(); } } class Derived2 extends Base { Derived2() { ... init(); } } but this breaks "don't repeat yourself" principle rather badly (and there are going to be many subclasses of Base). Of course, the init() call can't go into the Base() constructor, since it would be executed too early. Any ideas how to bypass this problem? I would be quite happy to see a Scala solution, too.

    Read the article

  • Best way to track the stages of a form across different controllers - $_GET or routing

    - by chrisj
    Hi, I am in a bit of a dilemma about how best to handle the following situation. I have a long registration process on a site, where there are around 10 form sections to fill in. Some of these forms relate specifically to the user and their own personal data, while most of them relate to the user's pets - my current set up handles user specific forms in a User_Controller (e.g via methods like user/profile, user/household etc), and similarly the pet related forms are handled in a Pet_Controller (e.g pet/health). Whether or not all of these methods should be combined into a single Registration_Controller, I'm not sure - I'm open to any advice on that. Anyway, my main issue is that I want to generate a progress bar which shows how far along in the registration process each user is. As the urls in each form section can potentially be mapping to different controllers, I'm trying to find a clean way to extract which stage a person is at in the overall process. I could just use the query string to pass a stage parameter with each request, e.g user/profile?stage=1. Another way to do it potentially is to use routing - e.g the urls for each section of the form could be set up to be registration/stage/1, registration/stage/2 - then i could just map these urls to the appropriate controller/method behind the scenes. If this makes any sense at all, does anyone have any advice for me?

    Read the article

  • OO Design: use Properties or Overloaded methods?

    - by Robert Frank
    Question about OO design. Suppose I have a base object vehicle. And two descendants: truck and automobile. Further, suppose the base object has a base method: FixFlatTire(); abstract; When the truck and automobile override the base object's, they require different information from the caller. Am I better off overloading FixFlatTire like this in the two descendant objects: Procedure Truck.FixFlatTire( OfficePhoneNumber: String; NumberOfAxles: Integer): Override; Overload; Procedure Automobile.FixFlatTire( WifesPhoneNumber: String; AAAMembershipID: String): Override; Overload; Or introducing new properties in each of the descendants and then setting them before calling FixFlatTire, like this: Truck.OfficePhoneNumber := '555-555-1212'; Truck.NumberOfAxles := 18; Truck.FixFlatTire(); Automobile.WifesPhoneNumber := '555-555-2323'; Automobile.AAAMembershipID := 'ABC'; Automobile.FixFlatTire();

    Read the article

  • Best way to design a class in python

    - by Fraz
    So, this is more like a philosophical question for someone who is trying to understand classes. Most of time, how i use class is actually a very bad way to use it. I think of a lot of functions and after a time just indent the code and makes it a class and replacing few stuff with self.variable if a variable is repeated a lot. (I know its bad practise) But anyways... What i am asking is: class FooBar: def __init__(self,foo,bar): self._foo = foo self._bar = bar self.ans = self.__execute() def __execute(self): return something(self._foo, self._bar) Now there are many ways to do this: class FooBar: def __init__(self,foo): self._foo = foo def execute(self,bar): return something(self._foo, bar) Can you suggest which one is bad and which one is worse? or any other way to do this. This is just a toy example (offcourse). I mean, there is no need to have a class here if there is one function.. but lets say in __execute something() calls a whole set of other methods.. ?? Thanks

    Read the article

  • Factory vs instance 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

< Previous Page | 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308  | Next Page >