Search Results

Search found 3283 results on 132 pages for 'aspect oriented'.

Page 38/132 | < Previous Page | 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45  | Next Page >

  • Creating an object relational schema from a Class diagram

    - by Caylem
    Hi Ladies and Gents. I'd like some help converting the following UML diagram: UML Diagram The diagram shows 4 classes and is related to a Loyalty card scheme for an imaginary supermarket. I'd like to create an object relational data base schema from it for use with Oracle 10g/11g. Not sure where to begin, if somebody could give me a head start that would be great. Looking for actually starting the schema, show abstraction, constraints, types(subtypes, supertypes) methods and functions. Note: I'm not looking for anyone to make any comments regarding the actual classes and whether changes should be made to the Diagram, just the schema. Thanks

    Read the article

  • Is there a way to restrict access to a public method to only a specific class in C#?

    - by Anon
    I have a class A with a public method in C#. I want to allow access to this method to only class B. Is this possible? UPDATE: This is what i'd like to do: public class Category { public int NumberOfInactiveProducts {get;} public IList<Product> Products {get;set;} public void ProcessInactiveProduct() { // do things... NumberOfInactiveProducts++; } } public class Product { public bool Inactive {get;} public Category Category {get;set;} public void SetInactive() { this.Inactive= true; Category.ProcessInactiveProduct(); } } I'd like other programmers to do: var prod = Repository.Get<Product>(id); prod.SetInactive(); I'd like to make sure they don't call ProcessInactiveProduct manually: var prod = Repository.Get<Product>(id); prod.SetInactive(); prod.Category.ProcessInactiveProduct(); I want to allow access of Category.ProcessInactiveProduct to only class Product. Other classes shouldn't be able to call Category.ProcessInactiveProduct.

    Read the article

  • Does Javascript have classes?

    - by Glycerine
    A friend and I had an argument last week. He stated there were no such things as classes in Javascript. I said there was as you can say var object = new Object() he says "as there is no word class used. Its not a class. -- Whats your take on it guys? thanks.

    Read the article

  • How do I create efficient instance variable mutators in Matlab?

    - by Trent B
    Previously, I implemented mutators as follows, however it ran spectacularly slowly on a recursive OO algorithm I'm working on, and I suspected it may have been because I was duplicating objects on every function call... is this correct? %% Example Only obj2 = tripleAllPoints(obj1) obj.pts = obj.pts * 3; obj2 = obj1 end I then tried implementing mutators without using the output object... however, it appears that in MATLAB i can't do this - the changes won't "stick" because of a scope issue? %% Example Only tripleAllPoints(obj1) obj1.pts = obj1.pts * 3; end For application purposes, an extremely simplified version of my code (which uses OO and recursion) is below. classdef myslice properties pts % array of pts nROW % number of rows nDIM % number of dimensions subs % sub-slices end % end properties methods function calcSubs(obj) obj.subs = cell(1,obj.nROW); for i=1:obj.nROW obj.subs{i} = myslice; obj.subs{i}.pts = obj.pts(1:i,2:end); end end function vol = calcVol(obj) if obj.nROW == 1 obj.volume = prod(obj.pts); else obj.volume = 0; calcSubs(obj); for i=1:obj.nROW obj.volume = obj.volume + calcVol(obj.subs{i}); end end end end % end methods end % end classdef

    Read the article

  • Grasp Controller, Does it really need a UI to exist?

    - by dbones
    I have a Domain model which can be in multiple states, and if these states go out of a given range it the domain should automatically react. For example I have a Car which is made of multiple things which have measurements the Engine - Rev counter and Temperature the Fuel Tank - capacity Is is plaseable to have a CarStateController, which observses the engine and the tank, and if these states go out of range IE the engine temperature goes above range, turn the engine fan on?? There is no UI, (you could argue it would show a light on the dash board, but for this case it does not) is this a valid use of a GRASP controller pattern? if not what is this CarStateController Called? Or have I completely missed the point and this should be the State Pattern?

    Read the article

  • how to write a constructor...

    - by Nima
    is that correct to write a constructor like this? class A { A::A(const A& a) { .... } }; if yes, then is it correct to invoke it like this: A* other; ... A* instance = new A(*(other)); if not, what do you suggest? Thanks

    Read the article

  • Application Design: Single vs. Multiple Hits to the DB

    - by shyneman
    I'm building a service that performs a set of configured activities based on the type of request that it receives. Each activity involves going to the database and retrieving/updating some kind of information. The logic for each activity can be generalized and re-used across different request types. The activities may need to participate in a transaction for the duration of the servicing the request. One option, I'm considering is having each activity maintain its own access to DAL/database. This fully encapsulates the activity into a stand-alone re-usable piece, but hitting the database multiple times for one request doesn't seem like a viable option. I don't really know how to easily implement the concept of a transaction across the multiple activities here either. The second option is to encapsulate ALL the activities into one big activity and hit the database once. But this does not allow re-use and configuration of these activities for different requests. Does anyone have any suggestions and input about what should be the best way to approach my problem? Thanks for any help.

    Read the article

  • How to extend this design for a generic converter in java?

    - by Jay
    Here is a small currency converter piece of code: public enum CurrencyType { DOLLAR(1), POUND(1.2), RUPEE(.25); private CurrencyType(double factor) { this.factor = factor; } private double factor; public double getFactor() { return factor; } } public class Currency { public Currency(double value, CurrencyType type) { this.value = value; this.type = type; } private CurrencyType type; private double value; public CurrencyType getCurrencyType() { return type; } public double getCurrencyValue() { return value; } public void setCurrenctyValue(double value){ this.value = value; } } public class CurrencyConversion { public static Currency convert(Currency c1, Currency c2) throws Exception { if (c1 != null && c2 != null) { c2.setCurrenctyValue(c1.getCurrencyValue() * c1.getCurrencyType().getFactor() * c2.getCurrencyType().getFactor()); return c2; } else throw new Exception(); } } I would like to improve this code to make it work for different units of conversion, for example: kgs to pounds, miles to kms, etc etc. Something that looks like this: public class ConversionManager<T extends Convertible> { public T convert(T c1, T c2) { //return null; } } Appreciate your ideas and suggestions.

    Read the article

  • Difference in Django object creation call

    - by PhilGo20
    I'd like to know if there's a difference between the following two calls to create an object in Django Animal.objects.create(name="cat", sound="meow") and Animal(name="cat", sound="meow") I see both in test cases and I want to make sure I am not missing something. thanks

    Read the article

  • Can we create a class from a xml file ?

    - by panzerschreck
    Hello, Is it possible to create a class dynamically by reading an xml file ( in java preferably) ? if yes, please provide pointers on how to do it. In the process of development, we have come up with a class that has 5 attributes, all these attributes correspond to an entry in the xml file, now if the user adds/modifies the xml entry the object corresponding to it must change automatically, one approach would be generate the source code, before compile time.Is there any other way ? Is there any common pattern to model such changes in the system ? Thanks,

    Read the article

  • Lua metatable Objects cannot be purge from memory?

    - by Prometheus3k
    Hi there, I'm using a proprietary platform that reported memory usage in realtime on screen. I decided to use a Class.lua I found on http://lua-users.org/wiki/SimpleLuaClasses However, I noticed memory issues when purging object created by this using a simple Account class. Specifically, I would start with say 146k of memory used, create 1000 objects of a class that just holds an integer instance variable and store each object into a table. The memory used is now 300k I would then exit, iterating through the table and setting each element in the table to nil. But would never get back the 146k, usually after this I am left using 210k or something similar. If I run the load sequence again during the same session, it does not exceed 300k so it is not a memory leak. I have tried creating 1000 integers in a table and setting these to nil, which does give me back 146k. In addition I've tried a simpler class file (Account2.lua) that doesn't rely on a class.lua. This still incurs memory fragmentation but not as much as the one that uses Class.lua Can anybody explain what is going on here? How can I purge these objects and get back the memory? here is the code --------Class.lua------ -- class.lua -- Compatible with Lua 5.1 (not 5.0). --http://lua-users.org/wiki/SimpleLuaClasses function class(base,ctor) local c = {} -- a new class instance if not ctor and type(base) == 'function' then ctor = base base = nil elseif type(base) == 'table' then -- our new class is a shallow copy of the base class! for i,v in pairs(base) do c[i] = v end c._base = base end -- the class will be the metatable for all its objects, -- and they will look up their methods in it. c.__index = c -- expose a ctor which can be called by () local mt = {} mt.__call = function(class_tbl,...) local obj = {} setmetatable(obj,c) if ctor then ctor(obj,...) else -- make sure that any stuff from the base class is initialized! if base and base.init then base.init(obj,...) end end return obj end c.init = ctor c.instanceOf = function(self,klass) local m = getmetatable(self) while m do if m == klass then return true end m = m._base end return false end setmetatable(c,mt) return c end --------Account.lua------ --Import Class template require 'class' local classname = "Account" --Declare class Constructor Account = class(function(acc,balance) --Instance variables declared here. if(balance ~= nil)then acc.balance = balance else --default value acc.balance = 2097 end acc.classname = classname end) --------Account2.lua------ local account2 = {} account2.classname = "unnamed" account2.balance = 2097 -----------Constructor 1 do local metatable = { __index = account2; } function Account2() return setmetatable({}, metatable); end end --------Main.lua------ require 'Account' require 'Account2' MAX_OBJ = 5000; test_value = 1000; Obj_Table = {}; MODE_ACC0 = 0 --integers MODE_ACC1 = 1 --Account MODE_ACC2 = 2 --Account2 TEST_MODE = MODE_ACC0; Lua_mem = ""; print("##1) collectgarbage('count'): " .. collectgarbage('count')); function Load() for i=1, MAX_OBJ do if(TEST_MODE == MODE_ACC0 )then table.insert(Obj_Table, test_value); elseif(TEST_MODE == MODE_ACC1 )then table.insert(Obj_Table, Account(test_value)); --Account.lua elseif(TEST_MODE == MODE_ACC2 )then table.insert(Obj_Table, Account2()); --Account2.lua Obj_Table[i].balance = test_value; end end print("##2) collectgarbage('count'): " .. collectgarbage('count')); end function Purge() --metatable purge if(TEST_MODE ~= MODE_ACC0)then --purge stage 0: print("set each elements metatable to nil") for i=1, MAX_OBJ do setmetatable(Obj_Table[i], nil); end end --purge stage 1: print("set table element to nil") for i=1, MAX_OBJ do Obj_Table[i] = nil; end --purge stage 2: print("start table.remove..."); for i=1, MAX_OBJ do table.remove(Obj_Table, i); end print("...end table.remove"); --purge stage 3: print("create new object_table {}"); Obj_Table= {}; --purge stage 4: print("collectgarbage('collect')"); collectgarbage('collect'); print("##3) collectgarbage('count'): " .. collectgarbage('count')); end --Loop callback function OnUpdate() collectgarbage('collect'); Lua_mem = collectgarbage('count'); end ------------------- --NOTE: --On start of game runs Load(), another runs Purge() --Update I've updated the code with suggestions from comments below, and will post my findings later today.

    Read the article

  • Choosing a design pattern for a class that might change it's internal attributes

    - by the_drow
    I have a class that holds arbitrary state and it's defined like this: class AbstractFoo { }; template <class StatePolicy> class Foo : public StatePolicy, public AbstractFoo { }; The state policy contains only protected attributes that represent the state. The state might be the same for multiple behaviors and they can be replaced at runtime. All Foo objects have the same interface to abstract the state itself and to enable storing Foo objects in containers. I would like to find the least verbose and the most maintainable way to express this.

    Read the article

  • OO and Writing Drupal Modules

    - by Aaron
    Preface: Yes, I've read: http://drupal.org/node/547518 I am writing 'foo' module for Drupal6, where I am organizing the code in an OO fashion. There's a class called Foo that has a bunch of setters and accessors, and it is working quite well at abstracting some pretty nasty code and SQL. The question is is it common practice to expose a class for other modules, or is it better to wrap things in the more typical foo_myfnname()? For example, if I am writing the module's docs, should I tell people to do this: $foo = new Foo(); $something = $foo->get_something(); or tell them to call: foo_get_something(); which under the hood does: function foo_get_something() { $foo = new Foo(); return $foo->get_something(); }

    Read the article

  • In what package should a "Settings" class be?

    - by Tom
    I've in the middle of building an application but found myself too easily creating new packages without keeping the project's structure in mind. Now, I'm trying to redo the whole project structure on paper first. I am using a Settings class with public properties, accessed as settings for several other classes around the project. Now, since this Settings class applies for the whole project, I am unsure if it should be packaged and if so, in what kind of package should it exist? Or should it be in the root (the default package) with the main application class? I've been thinking about putting it in my utils package, then again I don't think it really is an utlity. Any strategies on how to decide on such package structure for example for a Settings class?

    Read the article

  • C# using the "this" keyword in this situation?

    - by Alex
    Hi, I've completed a OOP course assignment where I design and code a Complex Number class. For extra credit, I can do the following: Add two complex numbers. The function will take one complex number object as a parameter and return a complex number object. When adding two complex numbers, the real part of the calling object is added to the real part of the complex number object passed as a parameter, and the imaginary part of the calling object is added to the imaginary part of the complex number object passed as a parameter. Subtract two complex numbers. The function will take one complex number object as a parameter and return a complex number object. When subtracting two complex numbers, the real part of the complex number object passed as a parameter is subtracted from the real part of the calling object, and the imaginary part of the complex number object passed as a parameter is subtracted from the imaginary part of the calling object. I have coded this up, and I used the this keyword to denote the current instance of the class, the code for my add method is below, and my subtract method looks similar: public ComplexNumber Add(ComplexNumber c) { double realPartAdder = c.GetRealPart(); double complexPartAdder = c.GetComplexPart(); double realPartCaller = this.GetRealPart(); double complexPartCaller = this.GetComplexPart(); double finalRealPart = realPartCaller + realPartAdder; double finalComplexPart = complexPartCaller + complexPartAdder; ComplexNumber summedComplex = new ComplexNumber(finalRealPart, finalComplexPart); return summedComplex; } My question is: Did I do this correctly and with good style? (using the this keyword)?

    Read the article

  • Insert data in an object to a database.

    - by paul
    I am facing the following design/implementation dilemma. I have a class Customer which is below with getters and setters. I would like to insert the value of the Customer into a "Customer" table of a database. But Customer has an address which is of type "Address". How do I go about inserting this field into the database?(I am using sqlite3). I thought of writing a separate table "Address(customerId,doorNo,city,state,country,pinCode)". But I am having second thoughts about generating the primary key(customerId) which should be same for both the "customer" and "Address" table. Sqlite3 faq states that I can do "Integer Primary Key" to use the field to generate an auto number. But if I do that in customer table, I would have to retrieve the same Id to be used in Address table. This kinda looks wrong to me :-?. There should be an elegant method to solve this. Any ideas would be much appreciated. Thanks in advance. import java.io.*; import java.sql.*; class Customer { private String id; private String name; private Address address; private Connection connection; private ResultSet resultSet; private PreparedStatement preparedStatement; public void insertToDatabase(){ } } class Address{ private String doorNumber; private String streetName; private String cityName; private String districtName; private String stateName; private String countryName; private long pinCode; }

    Read the article

  • How do I call functions of an object inside the same object?

    - by Roly
    I have the following Javascript code add_num = { f: function(html, num) { alert(this.page); }, page : function() { return parseInt(this.gup('page')); }, gup : function(name) { name = name.replace(/[\[]/,'\\\[').replace(/[\]]/,'\\\]'); var regex = new RegExp('[\\?&]'+name+'=([^&#]*)'); var results = regex.exec(window.location.href); if(results == null) return ''; else return results[1]; } } But when I call add_num.f() what I get from alert() is the actual code of page. That is, it returns function() { return parseInt(this.gup('page')); } I was expecting a numeric value and not any code at all.

    Read the article

  • ASP.Net Architecture Specific to Shared/Static functions

    - by Maxim Gershkovich
    Hello All, Could someone please advise in the context of a ASP.Net application is a shared/static function common to all users? If for example you have a function Public shared function GetStockByID(StockID as Guid) as Stock Is that function common to all current users of your application? Or is the shared function only specific to the current user and shared in the context of ONLY that current user? So more specifically my question is this, besides database concurrency issues such as table locking do I need to concern myself with threading issues in shared functions in an ASP.Net application? In my head; let’s say my application namespace is MyTestApplicationNamespace. Everytime a new user connects to my site a new instance of the MyTestApplicationNamespace is created and therefore all shared functions are common to that instance and user but NOT common across multiple users. Is this correct?

    Read the article

  • Alternatives to static methods on interfaces for enforcing consistency

    - by jayshao
    In Java, I'd like to be able to define marker interfaces, that forced implementations to provide static methods. For example, for simple text-serialization/deserialization I'd like to be able to define an interface that looked something like this: public interface TextTransformable<T>{ public static T fromText(String text); public String toText(); Since interfaces in Java can't contain static methods though (as noted in a number of other posts/threads: here, here, and here this code doesn't work. What I'm looking for however is some reasonable paradigm to express the same intent, namely symmetric methods, one of which is static, and enforced by the compiler. Right now the best we can come up with is some kind of static factory object or generic factory, neither of which is really satisfactory. Note: in our case our primary use-case is we have many, many "value-object" types - enums, or other objects that have a limited number of values, typically carry no state beyond their value, and which we parse/de-parse thousands of time a second, so actually do care about reusing instances (like Float, Integer, etc.) and its impact on memory consumption/g.c. Any thoughts?

    Read the article

  • How can I pass methods in javascript?

    - by peterjwest
    I often need to pass methods from objects into other objects. However I usually want the method to be attached to the original object (by attached I mean 'this' should refer to the original object). I know a few ways to do this: a) In the object constructor: ObjectA = function() { var that = this; var method = function(a,b,c) { that.abc = a+b+c }} b) In objectA which has been passed objectB: objectB.assign(function(a,b,c) { that.method(a,b,c) }) c) Outside both objects: objectB.assign(function(a,b,c) { objectA.method(a,b,c) }) I want to know if there is a simpler way to pass methods attached to their original objects.

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45  | Next Page >