Search Results

Search found 37902 results on 1517 pages for 'object methods'.

facebook twitter digg google delicious technorati stumbleupon myspace wordpress linkedin gmail igoogle windows live tumblr viadeo yahoo buzz yahoo mail yahoo bookmarks favorites email print

Page 47/1517 | < Previous Page | 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54  | Next Page >

  • Open Source projects that use agile methods or have tried them

    - by Patrick Cornelissen
    I'm preparing a short talk for a conference in august and I'm looking for open source projects that are using agile methods internally or have tried them in the past. My goal is to talk about the things that work well and what won't work and promote the agile methods a little bit, because I think certain agile techniques are a good fit, but don't seem to be that common in real development. So does anyone know projects that have tried agile methods and techniques before? I'd like to contact them for a few questions.

    Read the article

  • Compare text of two methods

    - by The Talking Walnut
    Is there a tool that can do a diff of two methods? I'm working on some legacy code that has several 100-200 line methods that contain a lot of duplication and I would like to abstract the duplication out. Being able to diff the two methods would be a huge help. In case it matters, I'm working with .NET and Visual Studio 2008.

    Read the article

  • JQuery selectors select from an html object other than from document root?

    - by orangebrainer
    jQuery selectors select from the document. How do I select from somewhere else other than root? Say I want to select some children from an html object. For this function dothis(obj) { $j("#tabs").removeClass(); $j("#tabs>ul").removeClass(); $j("#tabs>ul>li>a").each(function() { var tabNum = $j(this).attr("href").replace("#", ""); var tabContent = $j("div[id=" + tabNum + "]"); tabContent.removeClass(); $(tabContent).before("<br><h1>" +$j(this).text() + "</h1>\n" ); }); $j("#tabs>ul").each(function() { $j(this).empty();//remove Ul links on top }); } I want to reference the selectors from an html Object (obj) i passed into as argument, instead of selecting from document. Sorry I'm pretty new to jQuery.

    Read the article

  • More SharePoint 2010 Expression Builders

    - by Ricardo Peres
    Introduction Following my last post, I decided to publish the whole set of expression builders that I use with SharePoint. For all who don’t know about expression builders, they allow us to employ a declarative approach, so that we don’t have to write code for “gluing” things together, like getting a value from the query string, the page’s underlying SPListItem or the current SPContext and assigning it to a control’s property. These expression builders are for some quite common scenarios, I use them quite often, and I hope you find them useful as well. SPContextExpression This expression builder allows us to specify an expression to be processed on the SPContext.Current property object. For example: 1: <asp:Literal runat="server" Text=“<%$ SPContextExpression:Site.RootWeb.Lists[0].Author.LoginName %>”/> It is identical to having the following code: 1: String authorName = SPContext.Current.Site.RootWeb.Lists[0].Author.LoginName; SPFarmProperty Returns a property stored on the farm level: 1: <asp:Literal runat="server" Text="<%$ SPFarmProperty:SomeProperty %>"/> Identical to: 1: Object someProperty = SPFarm.Local.Properties["SomeProperty"]; SPField Returns the value of a selected page’s list item field: 1: <asp:Literal runat="server" Text="<%$ SPField:Title %>"/> Does the same as: 1: String title = SPContext.Current.ListItem["Title"] as String; SPIsInAudience Checks if the current user belongs to an audience: 1: <asp:CheckBox runat="server" Checked="<%$ SPIsInAudience:SomeAudience %>"/> Equivalent to: 1: AudienceManager audienceManager = new AudienceManager(SPServiceContext.Current); 2: Audience audience = audienceManager.Audiences["SomeAudience"]; 3: Boolean isMember = audience.IsMember(SPContext.Current.Web.User.LoginName); SPIsInGroup Checks if the current user belongs to a group: 1: <asp:CheckBox runat="server" Checked="<%$ SPIsInGroup:SomeGroup %>"/> The equivalent C# code is: 1: SPContext.Current.Web.CurrentUser.Groups.OfType<SPGroup>().Any(x => String.Equals(x.Name, “SomeGroup”, StringComparison.OrdinalIgnoreCase)); SPProperty Returns the value of a user profile property for the current user: 1: <asp:Literal runat="server" Text="<%$ SPProperty:LastName %>"/> Where the same code in C# would be: 1: UserProfileManager upm = new UserProfileManager(SPServiceContext.Current); 2: UserProfile u = upm.GetUserProfile(false); 3: Object property = u["LastName"].Value; SPQueryString Returns a value passed on the query string: 1: <asp:GridView runat="server" PageIndex="<%$ SPQueryString:PageIndex %>" /> Is equivalent to (no SharePoint code this time): 1: Int32 pageIndex = Convert.ChangeType(typeof(Int32), HttpContext.Current.Request.QueryString["PageIndex"]); SPWebProperty Returns the value of a property stored at the site level: 1: <asp:Literal runat="server" Text="<%$ SPWebProperty:__ImagesListId %>"/> You can get the same result as: 1: String imagesListId = SPContext.Current.Web.AllProperties["__ImagesListId"] as String; Code OK, let’s move to the code. First, a common abstract base class, mainly for inheriting the conversion method: 1: public abstract class SPBaseExpressionBuilder : ExpressionBuilder 2: { 3: #region Protected static methods 4: protected static Object Convert(Object value, PropertyInfo propertyInfo) 5: { 6: if (value != null) 7: { 8: if (propertyInfo.PropertyType.IsAssignableFrom(value.GetType()) == false) 9: { 10: if (propertyInfo.PropertyType.IsEnum == true) 11: { 12: value = Enum.Parse(propertyInfo.PropertyType, value.ToString(), true); 13: } 14: else if (propertyInfo.PropertyType == typeof(String)) 15: { 16: value = value.ToString(); 17: } 18: else if ((typeof(IConvertible).IsAssignableFrom(propertyInfo.PropertyType) == true) && (typeof(IConvertible).IsAssignableFrom(value.GetType()) == true)) 19: { 20: value = System.Convert.ChangeType(value, propertyInfo.PropertyType); 21: } 22: } 23: } 24:  25: return (value); 26: } 27: #endregion 28:  29: #region Public override methods 30: public override CodeExpression GetCodeExpression(BoundPropertyEntry entry, Object parsedData, ExpressionBuilderContext context) 31: { 32: if (String.IsNullOrEmpty(entry.Expression) == true) 33: { 34: return (new CodePrimitiveExpression(String.Empty)); 35: } 36: else 37: { 38: return (new CodeMethodInvokeExpression(new CodeMethodReferenceExpression(new CodeTypeReferenceExpression(this.GetType()), "GetValue"), new CodePrimitiveExpression(entry.Expression.Trim()), new CodePropertyReferenceExpression(new CodeArgumentReferenceExpression("entry"), "PropertyInfo"))); 39: } 40: } 41: #endregion 42:  43: #region Public override properties 44: public override Boolean SupportsEvaluate 45: { 46: get 47: { 48: return (true); 49: } 50: } 51: #endregion 52: } Next, the code for each expression builder: 1: [ExpressionPrefix("SPContext")] 2: public class SPContextExpressionBuilder : SPBaseExpressionBuilder 3: { 4: #region Public static methods 5: public static Object GetValue(String expression, PropertyInfo propertyInfo) 6: { 7: SPContext context = SPContext.Current; 8: Object expressionValue = DataBinder.Eval(context, expression.Trim().Replace('\'', '"')); 9:  10: expressionValue = Convert(expressionValue, propertyInfo); 11:  12: return (expressionValue); 13: } 14:  15: #endregion 16:  17: #region Public override methods 18: public override Object EvaluateExpression(Object target, BoundPropertyEntry entry, Object parsedData, ExpressionBuilderContext context) 19: { 20: return (GetValue(entry.Expression, entry.PropertyInfo)); 21: } 22: #endregion 23: }   1: [ExpressionPrefix("SPFarmProperty")] 2: public class SPFarmPropertyExpressionBuilder : SPBaseExpressionBuilder 3: { 4: #region Public static methods 5: public static Object GetValue(String propertyName, PropertyInfo propertyInfo) 6: { 7: Object propertyValue = SPFarm.Local.Properties[propertyName]; 8:  9: propertyValue = Convert(propertyValue, propertyInfo); 10:  11: return (propertyValue); 12: } 13:  14: #endregion 15:  16: #region Public override methods 17: public override Object EvaluateExpression(Object target, BoundPropertyEntry entry, Object parsedData, ExpressionBuilderContext context) 18: { 19: return (GetValue(entry.Expression, entry.PropertyInfo)); 20: } 21: #endregion 22: }   1: [ExpressionPrefix("SPField")] 2: public class SPFieldExpressionBuilder : SPBaseExpressionBuilder 3: { 4: #region Public static methods 5: public static Object GetValue(String fieldName, PropertyInfo propertyInfo) 6: { 7: Object fieldValue = SPContext.Current.ListItem[fieldName]; 8:  9: fieldValue = Convert(fieldValue, propertyInfo); 10:  11: return (fieldValue); 12: } 13:  14: #endregion 15:  16: #region Public override methods 17: public override Object EvaluateExpression(Object target, BoundPropertyEntry entry, Object parsedData, ExpressionBuilderContext context) 18: { 19: return (GetValue(entry.Expression, entry.PropertyInfo)); 20: } 21: #endregion 22: }   1: [ExpressionPrefix("SPIsInAudience")] 2: public class SPIsInAudienceExpressionBuilder : SPBaseExpressionBuilder 3: { 4: #region Public static methods 5: public static Object GetValue(String audienceName, PropertyInfo info) 6: { 7: Debugger.Break(); 8: audienceName = audienceName.Trim(); 9:  10: if ((audienceName.StartsWith("'") == true) && (audienceName.EndsWith("'") == true)) 11: { 12: audienceName = audienceName.Substring(1, audienceName.Length - 2); 13: } 14:  15: AudienceManager manager = new AudienceManager(); 16: Object value = manager.IsMemberOfAudience(SPControl.GetContextWeb(HttpContext.Current).CurrentUser.LoginName, audienceName); 17:  18: if (info.PropertyType == typeof(String)) 19: { 20: value = value.ToString(); 21: } 22:  23: return(value); 24: } 25:  26: #endregion 27:  28: #region Public override methods 29: public override Object EvaluateExpression(Object target, BoundPropertyEntry entry, Object parsedData, ExpressionBuilderContext context) 30: { 31: return (GetValue(entry.Expression, entry.PropertyInfo)); 32: } 33: #endregion 34: }   1: [ExpressionPrefix("SPIsInGroup")] 2: public class SPIsInGroupExpressionBuilder : SPBaseExpressionBuilder 3: { 4: #region Public static methods 5: public static Object GetValue(String groupName, PropertyInfo info) 6: { 7: groupName = groupName.Trim(); 8:  9: if ((groupName.StartsWith("'") == true) && (groupName.EndsWith("'") == true)) 10: { 11: groupName = groupName.Substring(1, groupName.Length - 2); 12: } 13:  14: Object value = SPControl.GetContextWeb(HttpContext.Current).CurrentUser.Groups.OfType<SPGroup>().Any(x => String.Equals(x.Name, groupName, StringComparison.OrdinalIgnoreCase)); 15:  16: if (info.PropertyType == typeof(String)) 17: { 18: value = value.ToString(); 19: } 20:  21: return(value); 22: } 23:  24: #endregion 25:  26: #region Public override methods 27: public override Object EvaluateExpression(Object target, BoundPropertyEntry entry, Object parsedData, ExpressionBuilderContext context) 28: { 29: return (GetValue(entry.Expression, entry.PropertyInfo)); 30: } 31: #endregion 32: }   1: [ExpressionPrefix("SPProperty")] 2: public class SPPropertyExpressionBuilder : SPBaseExpressionBuilder 3: { 4: #region Public static methods 5: public static Object GetValue(String propertyName, System.Reflection.PropertyInfo propertyInfo) 6: { 7: SPServiceContext serviceContext = SPServiceContext.GetContext(HttpContext.Current); 8: UserProfileManager upm = new UserProfileManager(serviceContext); 9: UserProfile up = upm.GetUserProfile(false); 10: Object propertyValue = (up[propertyName] != null) ? up[propertyName].Value : null; 11:  12: propertyValue = Convert(propertyValue, propertyInfo); 13:  14: return (propertyValue); 15: } 16:  17: #endregion 18:  19: #region Public override methods 20: public override Object EvaluateExpression(Object target, BoundPropertyEntry entry, Object parsedData, ExpressionBuilderContext context) 21: { 22: return (GetValue(entry.Expression, entry.PropertyInfo)); 23: } 24: #endregion 25: }   1: [ExpressionPrefix("SPQueryString")] 2: public class SPQueryStringExpressionBuilder : SPBaseExpressionBuilder 3: { 4: #region Public static methods 5: public static Object GetValue(String parameterName, PropertyInfo propertyInfo) 6: { 7: Object parameterValue = HttpContext.Current.Request.QueryString[parameterName]; 8:  9: parameterValue = Convert(parameterValue, propertyInfo); 10:  11: return (parameterValue); 12: } 13:  14: #endregion 15:  16: #region Public override methods 17: public override Object EvaluateExpression(Object target, BoundPropertyEntry entry, Object parsedData, ExpressionBuilderContext context) 18: { 19: return (GetValue(entry.Expression, entry.PropertyInfo)); 20: } 21: #endregion 22: }   1: [ExpressionPrefix("SPWebProperty")] 2: public class SPWebPropertyExpressionBuilder : SPBaseExpressionBuilder 3: { 4: #region Public static methods 5: public static Object GetValue(String propertyName, PropertyInfo propertyInfo) 6: { 7: Object propertyValue = SPContext.Current.Web.AllProperties[propertyName]; 8:  9: propertyValue = Convert(propertyValue, propertyInfo); 10:  11: return (propertyValue); 12: } 13:  14: #endregion 15:  16: #region Public override methods 17: public override Object EvaluateExpression(Object target, BoundPropertyEntry entry, Object parsedData, ExpressionBuilderContext context) 18: { 19: return (GetValue(entry.Expression, entry.PropertyInfo)); 20: } 21: #endregion 22: } Registration You probably know how to register them, but here it goes again: add this following snippet to your Web.config file, inside the configuration/system.web/compilation/expressionBuilders section: 1: <add expressionPrefix="SPContext" type="MyNamespace.SPContextExpressionBuilder, MyAssembly, Culture=neutral, Version=1.0.0.0, PublicKeyToken=xxx" /> 2: <add expressionPrefix="SPFarmProperty" type="MyNamespace.SPFarmPropertyExpressionBuilder, MyAssembly, Culture=neutral, Version=1.0.0.0, PublicKeyToken=xxx" /> 3: <add expressionPrefix="SPField" type="MyNamespace.SPFieldExpressionBuilder, MyAssembly, Culture=neutral, Version=1.0.0.0, PublicKeyToken=xxx" /> 4: <add expressionPrefix="SPIsInAudience" type="MyNamespace.SPIsInAudienceExpressionBuilder, MyAssembly, Culture=neutral, Version=1.0.0.0, PublicKeyToken=xxx" /> 5: <add expressionPrefix="SPIsInGroup" type="MyNamespace.SPIsInGroupExpressionBuilder, MyAssembly, Culture=neutral, Version=1.0.0.0, PublicKeyToken=xxx" /> 6: <add expressionPrefix="SPProperty" type="MyNamespace.SPPropertyExpressionBuilder, MyAssembly, Culture=neutral, Version=1.0.0.0, PublicKeyToken=xxx" /> 7: <add expressionPrefix="SPQueryString" type="MyNamespace.SPQueryStringExpressionBuilder, MyAssembly, Culture=neutral, Version=1.0.0.0, PublicKeyToken=xxx" /> 8: <add expressionPrefix="SPWebProperty" type="MyNamespace.SPWebPropertyExpressionBuilder, MyAssembly, Culture=neutral, Version=1.0.0.0, PublicKeyToken=xxx" /> I’ll leave it up to you to figure out the best way to deploy this to your server!

    Read the article

  • Why is there no service-oriented language?

    - by Wolfgang
    Edit: To avoid further confusion: I am not talking about web services and such. I am talking about structuring applications internally, it's not about how computers communicate. It's about programming languages, compilers and how the imperative programming paradigm is extended. Original: In the imperative programming field, we saw two paradigms in the past 20 years (or more): object-oriented (OO), and service-oriented (SO) aka. component-based (CB). Both paradigms extend the imperative programming paradigm by introducing their own notion of modules. OO calls them objects (and classes) and lets them encapsulates both data (fields) and procedures (methods) together. SO, in contrast, separates data (records, beans, ...) from code (components, services). However, only OO has programming languages which natively support its paradigm: Smalltalk, C++, Java and all other JVM-compatibles, C# and all other .NET-compatibles, Python etc. SO has no such native language. It only comes into existence on top of procedural languages or OO languages: COM/DCOM (binary, C, C++), CORBA, EJB, Spring, Guice (all Java), ... These SO frameworks clearly suffer from the missing native language support of their concepts. They start using OO classes to represent services and records. This leads to designs where there is a clear distinction between classes that have methods only (services) and those that have fields only (records). Inheritance between services or records is then simulated by inheritance of classes. Technically, its not kept so strictly but in general programmers are adviced to make classes to play only one of the two roles. They use additional, external languages to represent the missing parts: IDL's, XML configurations, Annotations in Java code, or even embedded DSL like in Guice. This is especially needed, but not limited to, since the composition of services is not part of the service code itself. In OO, objects create other objects so there is no need for such facilities but for SO there is because services don't instantiate or configure other services. They establish an inner-platform effect on top of OO (early EJB, CORBA) where the programmer has to write all the code that is needed to "drive" SO. Classes represent only a part of the nature of a service and lots of classes have to be written to form a service together. All that boiler plate is necessary because there is no SO compiler which would do it for the programmer. This is just like some people did it in C for OO when there was no C++. You just pass the record which holds the data of the object as a first parameter to the procedure which is the method. In a OO language this parameter is implicit and the compiler produces all the code that we need for virtual functions etc. For SO, this is clearly missing. Especially the newer frameworks extensively use AOP or introspection to add the missing parts to a OO language. This doesn't bring the necessary language expressiveness but avoids the boiler platform code described in the previous point. Some frameworks use code generation to produce the boiler plate code. Configuration files in XML or annotations in OO code is the source of information for this. Not all of the phenomena that I mentioned above can be attributed to SO but I hope it clearly shows that there is a need for a SO language. Since this paradigm is so popular: why isn't there one? Or maybe there are some academic ones but at least the industry doesn't use one.

    Read the article

  • Where should instantiated classes be stored?

    - by Eric C.
    I'm having a bit of a design dilemma here. I'm writing a library that consists of a bunch of template classes that are designed to be used as a base for creating content. For example: public class Template { public string Name {get; set;} public string Description {get; set;} public string Attribute1 {get; set;} public string Attribute2 {get; set;} public Template() { //constructor } public void DoSomething() { //does something } ... } The problem is, not only is the library providing the templates, it will also supply quite a few predefined templates which are instances of these template classes. The question is, where do I put these instances of the templates? The three solutions I've come up with so far are: 1) Provide serialized instances of the templates as files. On the one hand, this solution would keep the instances separated from the library itself, which is nice, but it would also potentially add complexity for the user. Even if we provided methods for loading/deserializing the files, they'd still have to deal with a bunch of files, and some kind of config file so the app knows where to look for those files. Plus, creating the template files would probably require a separate app, so if the user wanted to stick with the files method of storing templates, we'd have to provide some kind of app for creating the template files. Also, this requires external dependencies for testing the templates in the user's code. 2) Add readonly instances to the template class Example: public class Template { public string Name {get; set;} public string Description {get; set;} public string Attribute1 {get; set;} public string Attribute2 {get; set;} public Template PredefinedTemplate { get { Template templateInstance = new Template(); templateInstance.Name = "Some Name"; templateInstance.Description = "A description"; ... return templateInstance; } } public Template() { //constructor } public void DoSomething() { //does something } ... } This method would be convenient for users, as they would be able to access the predefined templates in code directly, and would be able to unit test code that used them. The drawback here is that the predefined templates pollute the Template type namespace with a bunch of extra stuff. I suppose I could put the predefined templates in a different namespace to get around this drawback. The only other problem with this approach is that I'd have to basically duplicate all the namespaces in the library in the predefined namespace (e.g. Templates.SubTemplates and Predefined.Templates.SubTemplates) which would be a pain, and would also make refactoring more difficult. 3) Make the templates abstract classes and make the predefined templates inherit from those classes. For example: public abstract class Template { public string Name {get; set;} public string Description {get; set;} public string Attribute1 {get; set;} public string Attribute2 {get; set;} public Template() { //constructor } public void DoSomething() { //does something } ... } and public class PredefinedTemplate : Template { public PredefinedTemplate() { this.Name = "Some Name"; this.Description = "A description"; this.Attribute1 = "Some Value"; ... } } This solution is pretty similar to #2, but it ends up creating a lot of classes that don't really do anything (none of our predefined templates are currently overriding behavior), and don't have any methods, so I'm not sure how good a practice this is. Has anyone else had any experience with something like this? Is there a best practice of some kind, or a different/better approach that I haven't thought of? I'm kind of banging my head against a wall trying to figure out the best way to go. Thanks!

    Read the article

  • Too complex/too many objects?

    - by Mike Fairhurst
    I know that this will be a difficult question to answer without context, but hopefully there are at least some good guidelines to share on this. The questions are at the bottom if you want to skip the details. Most are about OOP in general. Begin context. I am a jr dev on a PHP application, and in general the devs I work with consider themselves to use many more OO concepts than most PHP devs. Still, in my research on clean code I have read about so many ways of using OO features to make code flexible, powerful, expressive, testable, etc. that is just plain not in use here. The current strongly OO API that I've proposed is being called too complex, even though it is trivial to implement. The problem I'm solving is that our permission checks are done via a message object (my API, they wanted to use arrays of constants) and the message object does not hold the validation object accountable for checking all provided data. Metaphorically, if your perm containing 'allowable' and 'rare but disallowed' is sent into a validator, the validator may not know to look for 'rare but disallowed', but approve 'allowable', which will actually approve the whole perm check. We have like 11 validators, too many to easily track at such minute detail. So I proposed an AtomicPermission class. To fix the previous example, the perm would instead contain two atomic permissions, one wrapping 'allowable' and the other wrapping 'rare but disallowed'. Where previously the validator would say 'the check is OK because it contains allowable,' now it would instead say '"allowable" is ok', at which point the check ends...and the check fails, because 'rare but disallowed' was not specifically okay-ed. The implementation is just 4 trivial objects, and rewriting a 10 line function into a 15 line function. abstract class PermissionAtom { public function allow(); // maybe deny() as well public function wasAllowed(); } class PermissionField extends PermissionAtom { public function getName(); public function getValue(); } class PermissionIdentifier extends PermissionAtom { public function getIdentifier(); } class PermissionAction extends PermissionAtom { public function getType(); } They say that this is 'not going to get us anything important' and it is 'too complex' and 'will be difficult for new developers to pick up.' I respectfully disagree, and there I end my context to begin the broader questions. So the question is about my OOP, are there any guidelines I should know: is this too complicated/too much OOP? Not that I expect to get more than 'it depends, I'd have to see if...' when is OO abstraction too much? when is OO abstraction too little? how can I determine when I am overthinking a problem vs fixing one? how can I determine when I am adding bad code to a bad project? how can I pitch these APIs? I feel the other devs would just rather say 'its too complicated' than ask 'can you explain it?' whenever I suggest a new class.

    Read the article

  • Expando Object and dynamic property pattern

    - by Al.Net
    I have read about 'dynamic property pattern' of Martin Fowler in his site under the tag 1997 in which he used dictionary kind of stuff to achieve this pattern. And I have come across about Expando object in c# very recently. When I see its implementation, I am able to see IDictionary implemented. So Expando object uses dictionary to store dynamic properties and is it what, Martin Fowler already defined 15 years ago?

    Read the article

  • Check if an object is facing another based on angles

    - by Isaiah
    I already have something that calculates the bearing angle to get one object to face another. You give it the positions and it returns the angle to get one to face the other. Now I need to figure out how tell if on object is facing toward another object within a specified field and I can't find any information about how to do this. The objects are obj1 and obj2. Their angles are at obj1.angle and obj2.angle. Their vectors are at obj1.pos and obj2.pos. It's in the format [x,y]. The angle to have one face directly at another is found with direction(obj1.pos,obj2.pos). I want to set the function up like this: isfacing(obj1,obj2,area){...} and return true/false depending if it's in the specified field area to the angle to directly see it. I've got a base like this: var isfacing = function (obj1,obj2,area){ var toface = direction(obj1.pos,obj2.pos); if(toface+area >= obj1.angle && ob1.angle >= toface-area){ return true; } return false; } But my problem is that the angles are in 360 degrees, never above 360 and never below 0. How can I account for that in this? If the first object's angle is say at 0 and say I subtract a field area of 20 or so. It'll check if it's less than -20! If I fix the -20 it becomes 340 but x < 340 isn't what I want, I'd have to x 340 in that case. Is there someone out there with more sleep than I that can help a new dev pulling an all-nighter just to get enemies to know if they're attacking in the right direction? I hope I'm making this harder than it seems. I'd just make them always face the main char if the producer didn't want attacks from behind to work while blocking. In which case I'll need the function above anyways. I've tried to give as much info as I can think would help. Also this is in 2d.

    Read the article

  • Hiding System Objects in Object Explorer in SQL Server Management Studio

    While looking through the new features and improvements in SQL Server Management Studio (SSMS) we found a potentially interesting one to Hide System Objects in Object Explorer in SQL Server Management Studio. In this tip we will take a look at how to Hide System Objects in Object Explorer. Join SQL Backup’s 35,000+ customers to compress and strengthen your backups "SQL Backup will be a REAL boost to any DBA lucky enough to use it." Jonathan Allen. Download a free trial now.

    Read the article

  • Term for a single C++ endpoint/object file

    - by Qix
    I have heard several terms for a C++ "Codepoint" (which is what I've heard used the most often), or a .cpp file that is compiled into an object file. For instance, .cpp files can include other .cpp files (or any other file, really, so long as it compiles), but during compilation, there is really only one 'main' code file that is used/generated. I know there is a widely accepted term, I just can't recall what it is. What is the accepted term for the final .c/.cpp file used to generate an object file?

    Read the article

  • Object Dependency in SQL Server

    When a SQL Server object is created that references another SQL Server object, such as a stored procedure called from a trigger, that dependency is recorded by the database engine. This article details how to get at that dependency information.

    Read the article

  • gradient coloring of an object

    - by perrakdar
    I have an object(FBX format) in my project, it's a line drawn in 3D max. I want to color the line in XNA so that the color starts from a specific RGB color in both the start and end points of the line and finish in a specific RGB color.(e.x., from (255,255,255) to (128,128,128). Something like gradient coloring of an object. I need to do that programmatically, since later in my code I have to change these two specific colors a lot.

    Read the article

  • How to conciliate OOAD and Database Design?

    - by user1620696
    Recently I've studied about object oriented analysis and design and I liked a lot about it. In every place I've read people say that the idea is to start with the minimum set of requirements and go improving along the way, revisiting this each iteration and making it better as we contiuously develop and contact the customer interested in the software. In particular, one course from Lynda.com said a lot of that: we don't want to spend a lot of time planing everything upfront, we just want to have the minimum to get started and then improve this each iteration. Now, I've also seem a course from the same guy about database design, and there he says differently. He says that although when working with object orientation he likes the agile iterative approach, for database design we should really spend a lot of time planing things upfront instead of just going along the way with the minimum. But this confuses me a little. Indeed, the database will persist important data from our domain model and perhaps configurations of the software and so on. Now, if I'm going to continuously revist the analysis and design of the model, it seems the database design should change also. In the same way, if we plan all the database upfront it seems we are also planing all the model upfront, so the two ideas seems to be incompatible. I really like agile iterative approach, but I'm also looking at getting better design for the database also, so when working with agile iterative approach, how should we deal with the database design?

    Read the article

  • When are Getters and Setters Justified

    - by Winston Ewert
    Getters and setters are often criticized as being not proper OO. On the other hand most OO code I've seen has extensive getters and setters. When are getters and setters justified? Do you try to avoid using them? Are they overused in general? If your favorite language has properties (mine does) then such things are also considered getters and setters for this question. They are same thing from an OO methodology perspective. They just have nicer syntax. Sources for Getter/Setter Criticism (some taken from comments to give them better visibility): http://www.javaworld.com/javaworld/jw-09-2003/jw-0905-toolbox.html http://typicalprogrammer.com/?p=23 http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?AccessorsAreEvil http://www.darronschall.com/weblog/2005/03/no-brain-getter-and-setters.cfm http://www.adam-bien.com/roller/abien/entry/encapsulation_violation_with_getters_and To state the criticism simply: Getters and Setters allow you to manipulate the internal state of objects from outside of the object. This violates encapsulation. Only the object itself should care about its internal state. And an example Procedural version of code. struct Fridge { int cheese; } void go_shopping(Fridge fridge) { fridge.cheese += 5; } Mutator version of code: class Fridge { int cheese; void set_cheese(int _cheese) { cheese = _cheese; } int get_cheese() { return cheese; } } void go_shopping(Fridge fridge) { fridge.set_cheese(fridge.get_cheese() + 5); } The getters and setters made the code much more complicated without affording proper encapsulation. Because the internal state is accessible to other objects we don't gain a whole lot by adding these getters and setters. The question has been previously discussed on Stack Overflow: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/565095/java-are-getters-and-setters-evil http://stackoverflow.com/questions/996179

    Read the article

  • OOP oriented PHP app source code samples and advice

    - by abel
    The day I have been dreading has arrived. I never felt OOP or good software design was important(I knew they were important, but I thought I could manage without them.). However having read otherwise almost everywhere on the interwebs, I started dreading the day when my client would ask me for new features in an existing app. The day has come and the pain is unbearable! I have never coded my PHP websites "properly"(PHP is my primary language and the bulk of my work. I am learning Python (using web2py)) I take care that the website doesn't fall apart in a daily use scenario. I code pages like I was creating a list of static html files with bits of "magic code" in each of them(this bugs me a lot). How do I make the whole app more or less a single object? For eg. How do I design the object model for an invoicing app? I use a lot of functions for doing any particular thing in the same fashion throughout the app(for eg. validation, generating ids, calculating taxes etc.). I know the basics of OOP in general. Can anyone point me to source code samples of functional apps written in php? Or can someone provide pointers so I can recode my existing apps in a more modular way.

    Read the article

  • Why is an anemic domain model considered bad in C#/OOP, but very important in F#/FP?

    - by Danny Tuppeny
    In a blog post on F# for fun and profit, it says: In a functional design, it is very important to separate behavior from data. The data types are simple and "dumb". And then separately, you have a number of functions that act on those data types. This is the exact opposite of an object-oriented design, where behavior and data are meant to be combined. After all, that's exactly what a class is. In a truly object-oriented design in fact, you should have nothing but behavior -- the data is private and can only be accessed via methods. In fact, in OOD, not having enough behavior around a data type is considered a Bad Thing, and even has a name: the "anemic domain model". Given that in C# we seem to keep borrowing from F#, and trying to write more functional-style code; how come we're not borrowing the idea of separating data/behavior, and even consider it bad? Is it simply that the definition doesn't with with OOP, or is there a concrete reason that it's bad in C# that for some reason doesn't apply in F# (and in fact, is reversed)? (Note: I'm specifically interested in the differences in C#/F# that could change the opinion of what is good/bad, rather than individuals that may disagree with either opinion in the blog post).

    Read the article

  • From a DDD perspective is a report generating service a domain service or an infrastructure service?

    - by Songo
    Let assume we have the following service whose responsibility is to generate Excel reports: class ExcelReportService{ public String generateReport(String fileFormatFilePath, ResultSet data){ ReportFormat reportFormat = new ReportFormat(fileFormatFilePath); ExcelDataFormatterService excelDataFormatterService = new ExcelDataFormatterService(); FormattedData formattedData = excelDataFormatterService.format(data); ExcelFileService excelFileService = new ExcelFileService(); String reportPath= excelFileService.generateReport(reportFormat,formattedData); return reportPath; } } This is pseudo code for the service I want to design where: fileFormatFilePath: path to a configuration file where I'll keep the format of my excel file (headers, column widths, number of columns,..etc) data: the actual records returned from the database. This data can't be used directly coz I might need to make further calculations to the data before inserting them to the excel file. ReportFormat: Value object to hold the report format, has methods like getHeaders(), getColumnWidth(),...etc. ExcelDataFormatterService: a service to hold any logic that need to be applied to the data returned from the database before inserting it to the file. FormattedData: Value object the represents the formatted data to be inserted. ExcelFileService: a wrapper top the 3rd party library that generates the excel file. Now how do you determine whether a service is an infrastructure or domain service? I have the following 3 services here: ExcelReportService, ExcelDataFormatterService and ExcelFileService?

    Read the article

  • Benefits of classic OOP over Go-like language

    - by tylerl
    I've been thinking a lot about language design and what elements would be necessary for an "ideal" programming language, and studying Google's Go has led me to question a lot of otherwise common knowledge. Specifically, Go seems to have all of the interesting benefits from object oriented programming without actually having any of the structure of an object oriented language. There are no classes, only structures; there is no class/structure inheritance -- only structure embedding. There aren't any hierarchies, no parent classes, no explicit interface implementations. Instead, type casting rules are based on a loose system similar to duck-typing, such that if a struct implements the necessary elements of a "Reader" or a "Request" or an "Encoding", then you can cast it and use it as one. Does such a system obsolete the concept of OOP? Or is there something about OOP as implemented in C++ and Java and C# that is inherently more capable, more maintainable, somehow more powerful that you have to give up when moving to a language like Go? What benefit do you have to give up to gain the simplicity that this new paradigm represents?

    Read the article

  • How to REALLY start thinking in terms of objects?

    - by Mr Grieves
    I work with a team of developers who all have several years of experience with languages such as C# and Java. Most of them are young enough to have been shown OOP as a standard way to develop software in university and are very comfortable with concepts such as inheritance, abstraction, encapsulation and polymorphism. Yet, many of them, and I have to include myself, still tend to create classes which are meant to be used in a very functional fashion. The resulting software is often several smaller classes which correctly represent business objects which get passed through larger classes which only supply ways to modify and use those objects (functions). Large complex difficult-to-maintain classes named Manager are usually the result of such behaviour. I can see two theoretical reasons why people might write this type of code: It's easy to start thinking of everything in terms of the database Deep down, for me, a computer handling a web request feels more like a functional operation than an object oriented operation when you think about Request Handlers, Threads, Processes, CPU Cores and CPU operations... I want source code which is easy to read and easy to modify. I have seen excellent examples of OO code which meet these objectives. How can I start writing code like this? How I can I really start thinking in an object oriented fashion? How can I share such a mentality with my colleagues?

    Read the article

  • Mocking concrete class - Not recommended

    - by Mik378
    I've just read an excerpt of "Growing Object-Oriented Software" book which explains some reasons why mocking concrete class is not recommended. Here some sample code of a unit-test for the MusicCentre class: public class MusicCentreTest { @Test public void startsCdPlayerAtTimeRequested() { final MutableTime scheduledTime = new MutableTime(); CdPlayer player = new CdPlayer() { @Override public void scheduleToStartAt(Time startTime) { scheduledTime.set(startTime); } } MusicCentre centre = new MusicCentre(player); centre.startMediaAt(LATER); assertEquals(LATER, scheduledTime.get()); } } And his first explanation: The problem with this approach is that it leaves the relationship between the objects implicit. I hope we've made clear by now that the intention of Test-Driven Development with Mock Objects is to discover relationships between objects. If I subclass, there's nothing in the domain code to make such a relationship visible, just methods on an object. This makes it harder to see if the service that supports this relationship might be relevant elsewhere and I'll have to do the analysis again next time I work with the class. I can't figure out exactly what he means when he says: This makes it harder to see if the service that supports this relationship might be relevant elsewhere and I'll have to do the analysis again next time I work with the class. I understand that the service corresponds to MusicCentre's method called startMediaAt. What does he mean by "elsewhere"? The complete excerpt is here: http://www.mockobjects.com/2007/04/test-smell-mocking-concrete-classes.html

    Read the article

  • How to implement isValid correctly?

    - by Songo
    I'm trying to provide a mechanism for validating my object like this: class SomeObject { private $_inputString; private $_errors=array(); public function __construct($inputString) { $this->_inputString = $inputString; } public function getErrors() { return $this->_errors; } public function isValid() { $isValid = preg_match("/Some regular expression here/", $this->_inputString); if($isValid==0){ $this->_errors[]= 'Error was found in the input'; } return $isValid==1; } } Then when I'm testing my code I'm doing it like this: $obj = new SomeObject('an INVALID input string'); $isValid = $obj->isValid(); $errors=$obj->getErrors(); $this->assertFalse($isValid); $this->assertNotEmpty($errors); Now the test passes correctly, but I noticed a design problem here. What if the user called $obj->getErrors() before calling $obj->isValid()? The test will fail because the user has to validate the object first before checking the error resulting from validation. I think this way the user depends on a sequence of action to work properly which I think is a bad thing because it exposes the internal behaviour of the class. How do I solve this problem? Should I tell the user explicitly to validate first? Where do I mention that? Should I change the way I validate? Is there a better solution for this? UPDATE: I'm still developing the class so changes are easy and renaming functions and refactoring them is possible.

    Read the article

facebook twitter digg google delicious technorati stumbleupon myspace wordpress linkedin gmail igoogle windows live tumblr viadeo yahoo buzz yahoo mail yahoo bookmarks favorites email print

< Previous Page | 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54  | Next Page >