Search Results

Search found 3338 results on 134 pages for 'desing patterns'.

Page 69/134 | < Previous Page | 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76  | Next Page >

  • Setting the type of a field in a superclass from a subclass (Java)

    - by Ibolit
    Hi. I am writing a project on Google App Engine, within it I have a number of abstract classes that I hope I will be able to use in my future projects, and a number of concrete classes inheriting from them. Among other abstract classes I have an abstract servlet that does user management, and I hava an abstract user. The AbstractUser has all the necessary fields and methods for storing it in the datastore and telling whether the user is registered with my service or not. It does not implement any project specific functionality. The abstract servlet that manages users, refers only to the methods declared in the AbstractUser class, which allows it to generate links for logging in, logging out and registering (for unregistered users). In order to implement the project-specific user functionality I need to subclass the Abstract user. The servlets I use in my project are all indirect descendants from that abstract user management servlet, and the user is a protected field in it, so the descendant servlets can use it as their own field. However, whenever i want to access any project specific method of the concrete user, i need to cast it to that type. i.e. (abstract user managing servlet) ... AbstractUser user = getUser(); ... abstract protected AbstractUser getUser(); (project-specific abstract servlet) @Override protected AbstractUser getUser() { return MyUserFactory.getUser(); } any other project specific servlet: int a = ((ConcreteUser) user).getA(); Well, what i'd like to do is to somehow make the type of “user” in the superclass depend on something in the project-specific abstract class. Is it at all possible? And i don't want to move all the user-management stuff into a project-specific layer, for i would like to have it for my future projects already written :) Thank you for your help.

    Read the article

  • Decorator Design Pattern Use With Service Objects (wSingleton)

    - by Dustin
    I'm working on a project where I need to add some functionality to a service object and using a decorator to add it in seems like a good fit. However, I've only ever used decorators with simple beans, never on a singleton like a service object. Has anyone ever done this before and what are the pros and cons? In this case I don't think creating a subclass will work so a decorator seems to be a good fit. What are your thoughts on doing this?

    Read the article

  • What exactly is GRASP's Controller about?

    - by devoured elysium
    What is the idea behind Grasp's Controller pattern? My current interpretation is that sometimes you want to achieve something that needs to use a couple of classes but none of those classes could or has access to the information needed to do it, so you create a new class that does the job, having references to all the needed classes(this is, could be the information expert). Is this a correct view of what Grasp's Controller is about? Generally when googling or SO'ing controller, I just get results about MVC's (and whatnot) which are topics that I don't understand about, so I'd like answers that don't assume I know ASP.NET's MVC or something :( Thanks

    Read the article

  • c# class design - what can I use instead of "static abstract"?

    - by Ryan
    I want to do the following public abstract class MyAbstractClass { public static abstract int MagicId { get; } public static void DoSomeMagic() { // Need to get the MagicId value defined in the concrete implementation } } public class MyConcreteClass : MyAbstractClass { public static override int MagicId { get { return 123; } } } However I can't because you can't have static abstract members. I understand why I can't do this - any recommendations for a design that will achieve much the same result? (For clarity - what I am trying to do is provide a library with an abstract base class but the concrete versions MUST implement a few properties/methods themselves and yes, there are good reasons for keeping it static.)

    Read the article

  • Alternative to singleton for unique resources

    - by user1320881
    I keep reading over and over again that one should avoid using singletons for various reasons. I'm wondering how to correctly handle a situation where a class represents a unique system resource. For example, a AudioOutput class using SDL. Since SDL_OpenAudio can only be open once at a time it makes no sense having more then one object of this type and it seems to me preventing accidentally making more then one object would actually be good. Just wondering what experienced programmers think about this, am i missing another option ?

    Read the article

  • Should the program logic reside inside the gui object class or be external to the class?

    - by hd112
    I have a question about how to structure code in relation to GUI objects. Suppose I have a dialog that has a list control that has a bunch of names obtained from a database. The user can edit the names. Does the logic reside inside that dialog class or should it be from the outside. To illustrate what I mean, here’s some pseudo code showing the structure of the code when the logic is handled outside the dialog class: NamesDialog : wxDialog { Private: ..stuff.. Public: ... SetNames(wxStringArray names); wxStringArray GetNames(); ..stuff.. } So the user of the class would do something like: wxStringArray names = DatabaseManager::Get()->GetNames(); names.Sort(); NamesDialogObject.SetNames(names); NamesDialogObject.ShowModal(); wxStringArray modified_names = NamesDialogObject.GetNames(); AddToDatabase(modified_names); //or something like this. On the other hand, the database logic can reside inside the NamesDialog class itself. In the show method I can query the database for the names and as the user interacts with the controls (list control in this case), the database can be updated from the event handlers. As a result the NamesDialog class only has the Show() method as there is no need to use SetNames or GetNames() etc. Which method is generally preferred? I don’t have much work experience so I’m not sure which is the proper way to handle it. Sometimes it's easier to handle everything in the class but getting access to objects it interacts with can be challenging. Generally can do it by having the relevant objects be singletons like the database manager in the above example.

    Read the article

  • Many-to-many relationship in oop

    - by Manu
    what is best way to model many-to-many relationship? lets say we have a two classes , Team and Player any given Player can be in multiple Team s any Team can have as many Player s as they like I like to call methods like playerX.getTeamList() to get the list of all the Team s he/she is in teamY.getPlayerList() to get the list of all the Player s in the team (or have some other way to do this effectively) I can think of two ways of doing this , but they just don't feels like good oop pattens. can you think of any good ways , perhaps a design patten ?

    Read the article

  • Session vs singleton pattern

    - by chobo
    Hi, I have a web application where I would like to pull user settings from a database and store them for Global access. Would it make more sense to store the data in a Singleton, or a Session object? What's the difference between the two? Is it better to store the data as an object reference or break it up into value type objects (ints and strings)? Thanks!

    Read the article

  • correct technical term for this pattern

    - by Oliver A.
    sometimes I use a pattern which is very similar to the singleton pattern: There is one default instance which and a static get method to aces it. But you may create other instances and pass it as optional parameter and if you want to and you can even replace the default instance with a instance from a child class. So it is NO SINGLETON at all but it is used like one singleton in most cases. Anyone got an idea who to call something like this ? Maybe half*** singleton? domiton?

    Read the article

  • Avoiding sub-type selection in view code

    - by John Donoghue
    Hi, I have some code where the model contains some classes like (vb.net pseudocode, but could be any OO language): Enum AttributeType Boolean Date String End Enum MustInherit Class Attibute Must Override Function Type As AttributeType End Class Class BooleanAttribute: Attribute Function Type As AttributeType Return AttributeType.Boolean End Function End Class And the view contains some code like: Select Case AttributeType Case Boolean //Display checkbox control Case Date //Display date picker control Case String //Display textbox control End Select I don't really like the code in the view, for the hopefully obvious reasons (what happens when I get a new attribute type etc). My question is, how should I replace it? I could easily add a method to the concrete classes, but that pollutes the model with UI stuff so that's a horrible idea. I could move the select into a factory, but that seems to be just hiding the problem. Can anybody advise a better approach?

    Read the article

  • benefit of having a factory for object creation?

    - by ajsie
    I'm trying to understand the factory design pattern. I don't understand why it's good to have a middleman between the client and the product (object that the client wants). example with no factory: $mac = new Mac(); example with a factory: $appleStore = new AppleStore(); $mac = $appleStore->getProduct('mac'); How does the factory pattern decouple the client from the product? Could someone give an example of a future code change that will impact on example 1 negative, but positive in example 2 so I understand the importance of decoupling? Thanks.

    Read the article

  • C++ Singleton design pattern

    - by Artem Barger
    Recently I've bumped into a realization/implementation of the Singleton design pattern for C++. It has looked like this (I have adopted it from the real life example): // a lot of methods are omitted here class Singleton { public: static Singleton* getInstance( ); ~Singleton( ); private: Singleton( ); static Singleton* instance; }; From this declaration I can deduce that the instance field is initiated on the heap. That means there is a memory allocation. What is completely unclear for me is when exactly the memory is going to be deallocated? Or is there a bug and memory leak? It seems like there is a problem in the implementation. My main question is, how do I implement it in the right way?

    Read the article

  • How to handle request/response propagation up and down a widget hierarchy in a GUI app?

    - by fig-gnuton
    Given a GUI application where widgets can be composed of other widgets: If the user triggers an event resulting in a lower level widget needing data from a model, what's the cleanest way to be able to send that request to a controller (or the datastore itself)? And subsequently get the response back to that widget? Presumably one wouldn't want the controller or datastore to be a singleton directly available to all levels of widgets, or is this an acceptable use of singleton? Or should a top level controller be injected as a dependency through a widget hierarchy, as far down as the lowest level widget that might need that controller? Or a different approach entirely?

    Read the article

  • More swing design & actions

    - by takoi
    Im pretty new to gui programming so i've been reading through every post on this site about swing and design. Whats been answered over and over again is that one should have a class which handles all the action. Like this: (GUI being some JFrame) Now, this works great for one-way actions, like OpenDialog. But the actions for buttons in DialogA and B will have to have access to all the components (there will be many) in its dialog, and the controller. This is where im stuck. The only sane way i can see is to put it in DialogA/B but i would then need to pass the controller all the way down, through classes that dont even need it, and it'll get all spaghetti. Really dont want that. Someone must have encountered this problem before. So where should i put this Action? Or should i just drop the whole design?

    Read the article

  • Should I use a class in this: Reading a XML file using lxml.

    - by PulpFiction
    Hi everyone. This question is in continuation to my previous question, in which I asked about passing around an ElementTree. I need to read the XML files only and to solve this, I decided to create a global ElementTree and then parse it wherever required. My question is: Is this an acceptable practice? I heard global variables are bad. If I don't make it global, I was suggested to make a class. But do I really need to create a class? What benefits would I have from that approach. Note that I would be handling only one ElementTree instance per run, the operations are read-only. If I don't use a class, how and where do I declare that ElementTree so that it available globally? (Note that I would be importing this module) Please answer this question in the respect that I am a beginner to development, and at this stage I can't figure out whether to use a class or just go with the functional style programming approach.

    Read the article

  • UI Design - design pattern for city/country drop down? (ASP.NET MVC)

    - by JK
    What is the best way to do a city/country dropdown pair in ASP.NET MVC? I see lots of places with country above city, but that's unnatural: in real life we write city/country. I've used city, then country, but the problem is that the user then has to go backwards after changing the country. The other problem is what do you do about cities/countries not in your list? If city/country are both drop downs, then the user cant type their own city if it is missing. But if you have a dropdown and a textbox, that makes it unwieldy (you end up with 4 controls to enter 2 pieces of data). Are there any examples websites where the city/country dropdown pair are done in a very useable and clear manner?

    Read the article

  • How to implement the disposable pattern in a class that inherits from another disposable class?

    - by TheRHCP
    Hi, I often used the disposable pattern in simple classes that referenced small amount of resources, but I never had to implement this pattern on a class that inherits from another disposable class and I am starting to be a bit confused in how to free the whole resources. I start with a little sample code: public class Tracer : IDisposable { bool disposed; FileStream fileStream; public Tracer() { //Some fileStream initialization } public void Dispose() { this.Dispose(true); GC.SuppressFinalize(this); } protected virtual void Dispose(bool disposing) { if (!disposed) { if (disposing) { if (fileStream != null) { fileStream.Dispose(); } } disposed = true; } } } public class ServiceWrapper : Tracer { bool disposed; ServiceHost serviceHost; //Some properties public ServiceWrapper () { //Some serviceHost initialization } //protected override void Dispose(bool disposing) //{ // if (!disposed) // { // if (disposing) // { // if (serviceHost != null) // { // serviceHost.Close(); // } // } // disposed = true; // } //} } My real question is: how to implement the disposable pattern inside my ServiceWrapper class to be sure that when I will dispose an instance of it, it will dispose resources in both inherited and base class? Thanks.

    Read the article

  • Sequential coupling in code

    - by dotnetdev
    Hi, Is sequential coupling (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sequential_coupling) really a bad thing in code? Although it's an anti-pattern, the only risk I see is calling methods in the wrong order but documentation of an API/class library with this anti-pattern should take care of that. What other problems are there from code which is sequential? Also, this pattern could easily be fixed by using a facade it seems. Thanks

    Read the article

  • What pattern is this? php

    - by user151841
    I have several classes that are basically interfaces to database rows. Since the class assumes that a row already exists ( __construct expects a field value ), there is a public static function that allows creation of the row and returns an instance of the class. Here's an example ( without the actual database inserts ): class selfStarter { public $type; public function __construct( $type ) { $this->type = $type; } public static function create( $type ) { if ( ! empty($type) ) { $starter = & new selfStarter($type); return $starter; } } } $obj1 = selfStarter::create( "apple" ); $obj2 = & new selfStarter( "banana" ); What is this pattern called?

    Read the article

  • How should nested components interact with model in a GUI application?

    - by fig-gnuton
    Broad design/architecture question. If you have nested components in a GUI, what's the most common way for those components to interact with data? For example, let's say a component receives a click on one of its buttons to save data. Should the save request be delegated up that component's ancestors, with the uppermost ancestor ultimately passing the request to a controller? Or are models/datastores in a GUI application typically singletons, so that a component at any level of a hierarchy can directly get/set data? Or is a controller injected as a dependency down the hierarchy of components, so that any given component is only one intermediary away from the datastore/model?

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76  | Next Page >