Search Results

Search found 65028 results on 2602 pages for 'two way object databindin'.

Page 59/2602 | < Previous Page | 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66  | Next Page >

• Two Java Update Releases

  - by Tori Wieldt

  Oracle has released two updates of Java, and strongly recommends that all users update. Java SE 7 Update 9 This releases address security concerns. Oracle strongly recommends that all Java SE 7 users upgrade to this release. JavaFX 2.2.3 is now bundled with the JDK on Windows, Mac and Linux x86/x64. Download Release Notes Java SE 6 Update 37 This releases address security concerns. Oracle strongly recommends that all Java SE 6 users upgrade to this release. Download Release Notes

  Read the article

• Why is it good to split a program into multiple classes?

  - by user1276078

  I'm still a student in high school (entering 10th grade), and I have yet to take an actual computer course in school. Everything I've done so far is through books. Those books have taught me concepts such as inheritance, but how does splitting a program into multiple classes help? The books never told me. I'm asking this mainly because of a recent project. It's an arcade video game, sort of like a flash game as some people have said (although I have no idea what a flash game is). The thing is, it's only one class. It works perfectly fine (a little occasional lag however) with just one class. So, I'm just asking how splitting it into multiple classes would help it. This project was in JAVA and I am the only person working on it, for the record.

  Read the article

• Should an image be able to resize itself in OOP?

  - by ChocoDeveloper

  I'm writing an app that will have an Image entity, and I'm already having trouble deciding whose responsibility each task should be. First I have the Image class. It has a path, width, and other attributes. Then I created an ImageRepository class, for retrieving images with a single and tested method, eg: findAllImagesWithoutThumbnail(). But now I also need to be able to createThumbnail(). Who should deal with that? I was thinking about having an ImageManager class, which would be an app-specific class (there would also be a third party image manipulation reusable component of choice, I'm not reinventing the wheel). Or maybe it would be 0K to let the Image resize itself? Or let the ImageRepository and ImageManager be the same class? What do you think?

  Read the article

• How to learn to translate real world problems to code?

  - by StudioWorks

  I'm kind of a beginner to Java and OOP and I didn't quite get the whole concept of seeing a real world problem and translating it to classes and code. For example, I was reading a book on UML and at the beginning the author takes the example of a tic tac toe game and says: "In this example, it's natural to see three classes: Board, Player and Position." Then, he creates the methods in each class and explains how they relate. What I can't understand is how he thought all this. So, where should I start to learn how to see a real world problem and then "translate" it into code?

  Read the article

• Implenting ActiveRecord with inheritance?

  - by King

  I recently converted an old application that was using XML files as the data store to use SQL instead. To avoid a lot of changes I basically created ActiveRecord style classes that inherited from the original business objects. For example SomeClassRecord :SomeClass //ID Property //Save method I then used this new class in place of the other one, because of polymorphism I didn't need to change any methods that took SomeClass as a parameter. Would this be considered 'Bad'? What would be a better alternative?

  Read the article

• Advice on approaching a significant rearrangement/refactoring?

  - by Prog

  I'm working on an application (hobby project, solo programmer, small-medium size), and I have recently redesigned a significant part of it. The program already works in it's current state, but I decided to reimplement things to improve the OO design. I'm about to implement this new design by refactoring a big part of the application. Thing is I'm not sure where to start. Obviously, by the nature of a rearrangement, the moment you change one part of the program several other parts (at least temporarily) break. So it's a little 'scary' to rearrange something in a piece of software that already works. I'm asking for advice or some general guidelines: how should I approach a significant refactoring? When you approach rearranging large parts of your application, where do you start? Note that I'm interested only in re-arranging the high-level structure of the app. I have no intention of rewriting local algorithms.

  Read the article

• How to Automatically run two commands after login?

  - by Covi

  I have these two commands that I need to manually run every time after login: autossh -M 2000 -N -f -q -D 127.0.0.1:7070 [email protected] and sudo mkdir /media/C sudo mount /dev/sda2 /media/C I'd like to make them automatically run every time I boot and login to my computer. I'm currently using 10.04LTS. BTW, I only vaguely know what init.d or runlevel mean. But I still prefer to know a command-line based way to achieve this, not a fancy GUI way. Also, the autossh will only succeed after Ubuntu automatically detect and connect to my network, so should we let it retry infinitely until successfully executed? Thank you!

  Read the article

• Should interface only be used for behavior and not to show logical data grouped together?

  - by jags

  Should an interface only be used to specify certain behavior? Would it be wrong to use interface to group logically related data? To me it looks like we should not use interface to group logically related data as structure seems a better fit. A class may be used but class name should indicate something like DTO so that user gets the impression that class does not have any behavior. Please let me know if my assumption is correct. Also, are there any exceptions where interface can be used to group logically related data?

  Read the article

• How to handle status columns in designing tables

  - by altsyset

  How to handle multiple statuses for a table entry, for example an item table may have an active, inactive, fast moving, and/or batch statuses. And I wanted to handle them in single column with VARCHAR type. Also I might set each of those attributes as a boolean with different columns. But I am not sure what consequences this might lead to. So if you have experienced such situations which one would be the best way to handle it?

  Read the article

• How to insert images using labels in NetBeans IDE, Java? [migrated]

  - by Vaishnavi Kanduri

  I'm making a virtual mall using NetBeans IDE 7.3.1 I inserted images using the following steps: Drag and drop label onto frame Go to label properties Click on ellipsis of 'icon' option Import to project, select desired image Resize or reposition it accordingly. Then, I saved the project, copied the project folder into a pendrive, tried to 'Open Project' in mate's laptop, using the same Java Netbeans IDE version. When I tried to open the frames, they displayed empty labels, without images. What went wrong?

  Read the article

• Two approaches to adding freelance/contract work to resume [on hold]

  - by melhosseiny

  Approach A Title, Company A Freelance + Title, Company B Title, Company C Freelance + Title, Company D Title, Intern, Company E Approach B Title, Company A Title, Company B Title, Self Title, Intern, Company D In approach B, you would list all freelance/contract work you did under the "Title, Self" experience. For example: Company A Project 1 Project 2 Company B Project 1 Question Which of these two approaches is better? And why? Update I think there's value in this question to the community as it relates specifically to programmers. I'd think that handling this issue on a resume is career-specific. Also, I've found similar questions on the site: Referring to freelance marketplaces as evidence of the experience for a potential full-time employer How to write freelancing in resume for programmers job In any case, I don't think it should be closed. It should be migrated to The Workplace or Freelancing.

  Read the article

• Assigning an item to an existing array in a list within a dictionary [on hold]

  - by Rouke

  I have a Dictionary declared like: public var PoolDict : Dictionary.<String, List.<GameObject[]> >; I made a function to add items to the list and array function Add(key:String, obj:GameObject) { if(!PoolDict.ContainsKey(key)) { PoolDict[key] = new List.<GameObject[]>(); } //PlaceHolder - Not what will be in final version PoolDict[key].Add(null); //Attempts - Errors- How to add to existing array? PoolDict[key].Add(obj); PoolDict[key][0].Add(obj); } I'd like to replace the line after //PlaceHolder with code that will assign a gameObject to an existing array in a list that's associated with a key. How could this be done?

  Read the article

• Use constructor or setter method?

  - by user633600

  I am working on a UI code where I have an Action class, something like this - public class MyAction extends Action { public MyAction() { setText("My Action Text"); setToolTip("My Action Tool tip"); setImage("Some Image"); } } When this Action class was created it was pretty much assumed that the Action class wont be customizable (in a sense- its text, tooltip or image will be not be changed anywhere in the code). Of late, now we are in need of changing the action text at some location in code. So I suggested my co-worker to remove the hardcoded action text from the constructor and accept it as an argument, so that everybody is forced to pass the action text. Something like this code below - public class MyAction extends Action { public MyAction(String actionText) { setText(actionText); setTooltip("My Action tool tip); setImage("My Image"); } } He however thinks that since setText() method belongs to base class. It can be flexibly used to pass the action text wherever action instance is created. That way, there is no need to change the existing MyAction class. So his code would look something like this. MyAction action = new MyAction(); //this creates action instance with the hardcoded text action.setText("User required new action text"); //overwrite the exisitng text. I am not sure if that is a correct way to deal with problem. I think in above mentioned case user is anyway going to change the text, so why not force him while constructing the action. The only benefit I see with the original code is that user can create Action class without much thinking about setting text.

  Read the article

• Is this a violation of the Liskov Substitution Principle?

  - by Paul T Davies

  Say we have a list of Task entities, and a ProjectTask sub type. Tasks can be closed at any time, except ProjectTasks which cannot be closed once they have a status of Started. The UI should ensure the option to close a started ProjectTask is never available, but some safeguards are present in the domain: public class Task { public Status Status { get; set; } public virtual void Close() { Status = Status.Closed; } } public ProjectTask : Task { public override void Close() { if (Status == Status.Started) throw new Exception("Cannot close a started Project Task"); base.Close(); } } Now when calling Close() on a Task, there is a chance the call will fail if it is a ProjectTask with the started status, when it wouldn't if it was a base Task. But this is the business requirements. It should fail. Can this be regarded as a violation?

  Read the article

• Eloquera Database 2.7.0 is released (native .NET object database)

  Eloquera ( www.eloquera.com ) originally designed and developed for use in the Web environment and its designed as native .NET application in C#. Eloquera wasnt ported from Java as many other databases. Eloquera natively as part of architecture supports: Save the data with a single line of code// Create the object we would like to work with. Movie movie = new Movie() { Location = "Sydney", Year = 2010, OpenDates = new DateTime[] { new DateTime(2003, 12, 10),...Did you know that DotNetSlackers also publishes .net articles written by top known .net Authors? We already have over 80 articles in several categories including Silverlight. Take a look: here.

  Read the article

• Bitmap & Object Collision Help

  - by MarkEz

  Is it possible to detect when an object and a bitmap collide. I have an arraylist of sprites that I am shooting with an image. I tried using this method here but as soon as the bitmap appears the sprite disappears, this is in the Sprite class: public boolean isCollision(Bitmap other) { // TODO Auto-generated method stub if(other.getWidth() > x && other.getWidth() < x + width && >other.getHeight() > y && other.getHeight() < y + height); return true; }

  Read the article

• Interface hierarchy design for separate domains

  - by jerzi

  There are businesses and people. People could be liked and businesses could be commented on: class Like class Comment class Person implements iLikeTarget class Business implements iCommentTarget Likes and comments are performed by a user(person) so they are authored: class Like implements iAuthored class Comment implements iAuthored People's like could also be used in their history: class history class Like implements iAuthored, iHistoryTarget Now, a smart developer comes and says each history is attached to a user so history should be authored: interface iHistoryTarget extends iAuthored so it could be removed from class Like: class Person implements iLikeTarget class Business implements iCommentTarget class Like implements iHistoryTarget class Comment implements iAuthored class history interface iHistoryTarget extends iAuthored Here, another smart guy comes with a question: How could I capture the Authored fact in Like and Comment classes? He may knows nothing about history concept in the project. By scalling these kind of functionallities, interfaces may goes to their encapsulated types which cause more type strength, on the other hand explicitness suffered and also code end users will face much pain to process. So here is the question: Should I encapsulate those dependant types to their parent types (interface hierarchies) or not or explicitly repeat each type for every single level of my type system or ...?

  Read the article

• Is this JS code a good way for defining class with private methods?

  - by tigrou

  I was recently browsing a open source JavaScript project. The project is a straight port from another project in C language. It mostly use static methods, packed together in classes. Most classes are implemented using this pattern : Foo = (function () { var privateField = "bar"; var publicField = "bar";     function publicMethod() { console.log('this is public');     } function privateMethod() { console.log('this is private'); } return {   publicMethod : publicMethod, publicField : publicField }; })(); This was the first time I saw private methods implemented that way. I perfectly understand how it works, using a anonymous method. Here is my question : is this pattern a good practice ? What are the actual limitations or caveats ? Usually i declare my JavaScript classes like that : Foo = new function () { var privateField = "test"; this.publicField = "test";     this.publicMethod = function()     { console.log('this method is public'); privateMethod();     } function privateMethod() { console.log('this method is private'); } }; Other than syntax, is there any difference with the pattern show above ?

  Read the article

• Designing a single look up entity

  - by altsyset

  In almost every application you have this look up entity that provides a dynamic references. This are things like type, category, etc. These entities will always have id, name, desc So at first I designed different entities for each look up. Like education_type, education_level, degree_type.... But on a second thought I decided to have on entity for each of these kinds of entities. But when I am done with the design and check the relation this entity will be referenced by almost all entities in the system and I don't believe that is appropriate. So What is your take on this? Can you give me some clear pros and cons?

  Read the article

• OOP Design: relationship between entity classes

  - by beginner_

  I have at first sight a simple issue but can't wrap my head around on how to solve. I have an abstract class Compound. A Compound is made up of Structures. Then there is also a Container which holds 1 Compound. A "special" implementation of Compound has Versions. For that type of Compound I want the Container to hold the Versionof the Compound and not the Compound itself. You could say "just create an interface Containable" and a Container holds 1 Containable. However that won't work. The reason is I'm creating a framework and the main part of that framework is to simplify storing and especially searching for special data type held by Structure objects. Hence to search for Containers which contain a Compound made up of a specific Structure requires that the "Path" from Containerto Structure is well defined (Number of relationships or joins). I hope this was understandable. My question is how to design the classes and relationships to be able to do what I outlined.

  Read the article

• Is there a better way to handle data abstraction in this example?

  - by sigil

  I'm building an application that retrieves Sharepoint list data via a web service SPlists.Lists. To create an instance of the web service, I have the following class: class SharepointServiceCreator { public SPlists.Lists createService() { listsService.Url = "http://wss/sites/SPLists/_vti_bin/lists.asmx"; listsService.Credentials = System.Net.CredentialCache.DefaultCredentials; SPlists.Lists listsService=new SPlists.Lists(); } } I'm concerned that this isn't good OOP abstraction, though, because in order to create this service elsewhere in my application, I would need the following code: class someClass { public void someMethod() { SharepointServiceCreator s=new SharepointServiceCreator() SPlists.Lists listService=s.createService() } } Having to use declare the instance of listService in someMethod as type SPlists.Lists seems wrong, because it means that someClass needs to know about how SharepointServiceCreator is implemented. Or is this ok?

  Read the article

• Should single purpose utility app use a class

  - by jmoreno

  When writing a small utility app, that does just one thing, should that one thing be encapsulated in a seperate class, or just let it be part of whatever class/module is used to start the application? I.e. Main would consist of 2 or three lines calling the constructor and then the DoIt methods, nothing else. Or should Main be the DoIt method, with whatever functions it needs added to the main class? Asking because I want to get some alternative perspective, but couldn't find a similar question. If my google-fu is bad and there's a dup, please close.

  Read the article

• "Default approach" when creating a class from scratch: getters for everything, or limited access?

  - by Prog

  Until recently I always had getters (and sometimes setters but not always) for all the fields in my class. It was my 'default': very automatic and I never doubted it. However recently some discussions on this site made me realize maybe it's not the best approach. When you create a class, you often don't know exactly how it's going to be used in the future by other classes. So in that sense, it's good to have getters and setter for all of the fields in the class. So other classes could use it in the future any way they want. Allowing this flexibility doesn't require you to over engineer anything, only to provide getters. However some would say it's better to limit the access to a class, and only allow access to certain fields, while other fields stay completely private. What is your 'default' approach when building a class from scratch? Do you make getters for all the fields? Or do you always choose selectively which fields to expose through a getter and which to keep completely private?

  Read the article

• Is there a pattern to restrict which classes can update another class?

  - by Mike

  Say I have a class ImportantInfo with a public writable property Data. Many classes will read this property but only a few will ever set it. Basically, if you want to update Data you should really know what you're doing. Is there a pattern I could use to make this explicit other than by documenting it? For example, some way to enforce that only classes that implement IUpdateImportantData can do it (this is just an example)? I'm not talking about security here, but more of a "hey, are you sure you want to do that?" kind of thing.

  Read the article

• "Collection Wrapper" pattern - is this common?

  - by Prog

  A different question of mine had to do with encapsulating member data structures inside classes. In order to understand this question better please read that question and look at the approach discussed. One of the guys who answered that question said that the approach is good, but if I understood him correctly - he said that there should be a class existing just for the purpose of wrapping the collection, instead of an ordinary class offering a number of public methods just to access the member collection. For example, instead of this: class SomeClass{ // downright exposing the concrete collection. Things[] someCollection; // other stuff omitted Thing[] getCollection(){return someCollection;} } Or this: class SomeClass{ // encapsulating the collection, but inflating the class' public interface. Thing[] someCollection; // class functionality omitted. public Thing getThing(int index){ return someCollection[index]; } public int getSize(){ return someCollection.length; } public void setThing(int index, Thing thing){ someCollection[index] = thing; } public void removeThing(int index){ someCollection[index] = null; } } We'll have this: // encapsulating the collection - in a different class, dedicated to this. class SomeClass{ CollectionWrapper someCollection; CollectionWrapper getCollection(){return someCollection;} } class CollectionWrapper{ Thing[] someCollection; public Thing getThing(int index){ return someCollection[index]; } public int getSize(){ return someCollection.length; } public void setThing(int index, Thing thing){ someCollection[index] = thing; } public void removeThing(int index){ someCollection[index] = null; } } This way, the inner data structure in SomeClass can change without affecting client code, and without forcing SomeClass to offer a lot of public methods just to access the inner collection. CollectionWrapper does this instead. E.g. if the collection changes from an array to a List, the internal implementation of CollectionWrapper changes, but client code stays the same. Also, the CollectionWrapper can hide certain things from the client code - from example, it can disallow mutation to the collection by not having the methods setThing and removeThing. This approach to decoupling client code from the concrete data structure seems IMHO pretty good. Is this approach common? What are it's downfalls? Is this used in practice?

  Read the article

< Previous Page | 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66  | Next Page >