I have this:
public class Base {
public function whoAmI() {
trace("base");
}
}
public class Extended extends Base {
public function Extended() {
this.whoAmI() //prints extended
super.whoAmI() //prints base
var test = super;
test.whoAmI() //prints extended
}
public override function whoAmI() {
trace("extended");
}
}
The problem is when I do var test = super, it seems like this is assigned to test instead of super.
Is it possible to do the assignment so that test.whoAmI() prints "base"?
Edit: In the comments it is being said that using super in the way I propose would break overriding. I don't think that's the case. The way I am thinking of it, super could be used the same way as this. I understand that is not the way super is implemented, but using it that way would not break overriding as people are claiming. So for example the same way this is possible:
var test = this;
test.whoAmI();
This should be possible:
var test = super;
super.whoAmI();
It is obviously the choice of the language implementer to not do things this way, and I don't understand the reason why. It doesn't break things, but I guess it does make them more complicated.
I am not suggesting type-casting this to the super class. Obviously that wouldn't work.
You are thinking of "this" and "super" as 2 different instances, 2 different things but they in fact point to the same object (obviously) so at the end it's always "this". Using super is just a special keyword that allows the instance to point to the overrided definitions up the inheritance chain, it does not point to a different object. So "super" does correctly its job, it points to the instance and allow you each time you use it to access overrided definitions and that's it. There's of course no point on trying to store that keyword in a variable since in that case it just return correctly the instance it points to which is always "this".
It's simply a case of misunderstood inheritance principle and I've seen it before, super is mistaken for some kind of instance wrapper up the inheriatnce chain around the object "this" while it's in fact and always the same object.
No, this is not possible.
If this were possible, then overriding methods wouldn't be possible!
For example, take this function...
public function test(a:Object):void {
trace(a.toString());
}
You'd only get [object Object] back if your idea was how things worked.
Ok I understand what you mean your question is more about language definition and specification.
Look at this exemple in c# that explain how you can manage more precisely overriding in c# :
http://www.dotnet-tricks.com/Tutorial/csharp/U33Y020413-Understanding-virtual,-override-and-new-keyword-in-C
But
let's explain a litlle how it's work.
when you extend a class, it's like if you create an object composed of all the object in the inheritance tree so if B extends A and C extends B you have two objects like this:
(B+A) and (C+B+A) with hierarchy between each other B->A and C->B->A. Super is just a way to ascend in the hierachy.
When you cast a C in A for example. In memory you always have an object (C+B+A) but interpreted as A. When you override you just say that a method in child has an higher priority than in parent.
You can try downcasting this manually to any of your class's predecessors. The pointer will still be equal to this but the methods called will use the class table of the class used to downcast.
public class Extended extends Base {
public function Extended() {
this.whoAmI() //prints extended
super.whoAmI() //prints base
var test:Base = this;
test.whoAmI() //should print base
}
public override function whoAmI() {
trace("extended");
}
}
Should your Base extend something, which methods are known or the superclass is dynamic, and there is code that adds methods to prototype of a class, you might use such a downcast to call a superclass's method that might not be there at compile time, but make sure you first call hasOwnProperty in case of a dynamic class to determine whether a method or property exists.
Related
We started to use Dart's Strong mode with our polymer dart code and honestly it looks terrible. It looks so terrible that I need a second opinion on the matter. It cant be this ugly looking, it honestly cant.
So We were creating a bunch of PolymerDart views using some mix ins for generic code. This generic code is reused everywhere so hence why we made it a mixin.
Our old design:
abstract class MyModel{ ... }
class SubModel extends MyModel with JsProxy{ ... }
#behavior
abstract class MyBehavior implements PolymerBase {
#Property(notify:true)
MyModel model = null;
// ....
}
#PolymerRegister("my-component")
class MyViewModel extends PolymerElement with MyBehavior {
#Property(notify:true)
SubModel model = null;
// ...
}
The purpose was to have a generic model to represent information and we leverage it in the behavior. Since SubModel extends it, we can slot anywhere normally and the behavior would work. My colleague says this is a huge NO and I am confused as to why. He said it a Polymer Issue, so when we leave Polymer it will be able to be done sort of.
He then pushed through the code base a refactor so it works.
#PolymerRegister("my-component")
class MyViewModel extends PolymerElement with MyBehavior {
#Property(notify:true)
MyModel model = null; // <-- changed to parent type from Behavior
//example reference
void test(){
int id = (model as SubModel).id; // <-- using AS to explain what it really is.
}
}
Now he put this EVERYWHERE, updated all references of model.id with (model as SubModel).id. I think this is ugly and just plain wrong. (Granted I get that feeling with everything PolymerDart).
Is this really how this kind of thing is done when dealing with Mixins? Since The mixin already has that definition, we shouldn't need it in the MyViewModel code either.
Can someone explain this to me as to why this is the right thing according to strong mode? Why must this change occur? While I trust in my colleague, something does seem off and I would like a deeper understanding. I believe, that he is correct that maybe it is because entirely due to Polymer Dart, but maybe there is a way to circumventing all property renames, and using (.. as Whatever) everywhere.
analysis_options.yaml:
analyzer:
strong-mode: true
Edit: The reasoning was that since the Model is defined as a property in the behavior, it is non-mutable. We cant override the type in the MyViewModel class. Since SubModel extends MyModel, It should be allowed to exist.
I cannot seem to find any simple examples of this.
I have a WPF UI that I wish to display a view as a child control within another view. The MvxWpfView inherits from UserControl so it should be possible, however I cannot seem to work out how to do the binding.
I get a BindingExpression path error, as it cannot find ChildView property in my ParentViewModel.
So how do I bind a view to control content?
Firstly it's possible that you just need to add the BViewModel you want displayed on AView as a property on ViewModelA
E.g.
public class AViewModel: MvxViewModel
{
public BViewModel ChildViewModel
{
get;set;//With appropriate property changed notifiers etc.
}
}
Then inside AView you just add a BView, and you can set the datacontext of BView as follows:
<UserControl DataContext="{Binding ChildViewModel}"/>
However, if you want something more flexible (and you want the presentation handled differently for different platforms) then you will need to use a Custom Presenter
Inside your setup.cs you override CreateViewPresenter:
protected override IMvxWpfViewPresenter CreateViewPresenter(Frame rootFrame)
{
return new CustomPresenter(contentControl);
}
Now create the class CustomPresenter you need to inherit from an existing presenter. You can choose between the one it's probably using already SimpleWpfPresenter or you might want to go back a bit more to basics and use the abstract implementation
The job of the presenter is to take the viewmodel you have asked it to present, and display it "somehow". Normally that mean identify a matching view, and bind the two together.
In your case what you want to do is take an existing view, and bind a part of it to the second view mode.
This shows how I have done this in WinRT - but the idea is very similar!
public override void Show(MvxViewModelRequest request)
{
if (request.ViewModelType == typeof (AddRoomViewModel))
{
var loader = Mvx.Resolve<IMvxViewModelLoader>();
var vm = loader.LoadViewModel(request, new MvxBundle());
if (_rootFrame.SourcePageType == typeof (HomeView))
{
HomeView view = _rootFrame.Content as HomeView;
view.ShowAddRoom(vm);
}
}
else
{
base.Show(request);
}
}
So what I'm doing is I'm saying if you want me to present ViewModel AddRoom, and I have a reference to the HomeView then I'm going to just pass the ViewModel straight to the view.
Inside HomeView I simply set the data context, and do any view logic I may need to do (such as making something visible now)
internal void ShowAddRoom(Cirrious.MvvmCross.ViewModels.IMvxViewModel vm)
{
AddRoomView.DataContext = vm;
}
Hopefully that makes sense! It's well worth putting a breakpoint in the show method of the presenters so you get a feel how they work - they are really simple when you get your head around them, and very powerful.
In case of creating two similar custom AS3 visual components, ex. Button, with different look, but same function, which methodology is better, more efficient from the aspect of code-execution, speed, performance?
Creating two, almost identical classes, where the only difference is
in the visual components, so I have to write the button-controlling functions two times?
Creating one class, with a parameter input
that defines, which kind of button I would like to have
1:
package {
public class bigButton {
public function bigButton() {
//make a bigButton
}
}
}
and
package {
public class smallButton {
public function smallButton() {
//make a smallButton
}
}
}
or
2:
package {
public class OneKindOfButton {
public function OneKindOfButton(thisIsBigButton:Boolean) {
if (thisIsBigButton == true) {
//make it big
} else {
//make it small
}
}
}
}
In terms of an academic argument about the two structures (not this particular example), I'd have to argue that the first option is "better." Although opinion based posts are generally regarded as worthless by most of the SO community, I have a couple of points to bring up and would like to hear counter arguments.
For the second option of doing it, first off it makes me think that potentially there should be a base class that contains all the original functionality then a sub-class that tweaks some part of the functionality. Secondly it requires a condition in the constructor (and probably elsewhere littered throughout that class) to deal with the two scenarios the one class is handling. I think part of the issue here is that in AS3 there is a tendency to mash up all of the functionality and the view logic into one class, just because it's possible doesn't make it a good idea.
All said, I would probably go the route of having a base class that contains the functionality for the buttons, then make some sub-classes that do things different visually.
Also in terms of run-time efficiency I believe the first scenario will work out better again due to the extra conditions that will have to be checked at run-time with the second scenario. In any case, when performance and optimization is the issue it's always best to just run a test (build a little test app that makes 10,000 of each, run it a couple of times and get an average).
I would just create one kind of button class since you can draw or add other display objects into it. You don't even need a boolean to control that. For example :
public class OneKindOfButton extends Sprite{
public function OneKindOfButton(width:Number,height:Number) {
create(width,height);
}
private function create(width:Number,height:Number):void
{
graphics.clear();
graphics.beginFill(0xff0000,1.0);
graphics.drawRect(0,0,width,height);
graphics.endFill();
}
}
Now you can use this class to create any size of button.
var myButton:OneKindOfButton = new OneKindOfButton(200,20);
myButton.x = 100;
myButton.y = 300;
addChild(myButton);
If you want to use images instead of drawing into the button you can do that too by just adding bitmaps into the button sprite.
I think all these answers kind of miss the point of Flash.
Firstly, I don't think that View classes should ever have constructor arguments in Flash, because right off the bat you're making it impossible to ever use them on the timeline/stage. The Flash player can't (and shouldn't) provide these constructor arguments. The stage and timeline are Flash's biggest strength, so if you're not using them, you're wasting at least 25% of your time (the time where you're setting x, y, width, height, drawing graphics programmatically and all that unnecessary crap). Why lock yourself into a design that actively prevents you from using all the tools at your disposal?
The way I do it is I have one Class that defines the behavior of the button. Then the buttons are differentiated by having a library symbol for the big button, one for the small button, one for the button shaped like a pig, one for the button that looks like a spaceship, whatever. Any of these symbols will have that single Button Class as the Base Class (or more likely, just be defined as a Button in the library, so they subcass SimpleButton). Then I just place an instance of the library symbol on the stage and the variable in whatever parent Class is typed to my Button Class or SimpleButton.
The advantage of doing this is that the parent Classes don't need to know the specific implementation type, just the more general type. This means that the library symbols can have "export for Actionscript in frame N" unchecked, and they can just be compiled in where they are used. This means that initial load time can be reduced to the point that you may not ever need a preloader, depending on what else you have going on.
For more on this approach, see Combining the Timeline with OOP in AS3.
If the only difference between you two buttons is their look, but all the logic is shared, then you should definitely use only one common class.
If you're dealing with spark button, then you can simply specify a different skin for each of your instances (about spark skins).
package
{
import spark.component.Button;
public class MyCustomButton extends Button
{
static public const SMALL:String = "smallButton";
static public const BIG:String = "bigButton";
static private const DEFAULT_SIZE:String = SMALL;
public function MyCustomButton(type:String = DEFAULT_SIZE)
{
super();
if (type == SMALL)
{
setStyle("skinClass", SmallButtonSkin);
}
else
{
setStyle("skinClass", BigButtonSkin);
}
}
}
}
You then have to create to different skin classes where you'll define the visual logic of your buttons.
I'm currently working on a project where I have a ton of classes inheriting from other classes which inherit from other classes and so on. It's probably more complex than it should be, but I am a sucker for abstraction.
Anyway, at times I need to change a getter/setter from being public to private. I suppose it's not really a need, but a desire to cut off things that are preset in child classes, but still need to be publicly accessible in the parent classes.
So an example would be:
Class Base {
public function set label( value:String ):void{};
}
Class A extends Base {}
Class B extends A {
public function B() {
super();
this.label = "stuff";
}
override public function set label( value:String ):void {
//this setter should not be publicly available since the label should not be possible to change in this class
}
}
Currently, I am doing one of two things in these cases:
override the setter to do nothing or set it to the default value so that it can still update/render/whatever
throw an error saying it is unavailable in that class
I've done some searching and everything seems to point to this being impossible, but I've never found it explicitly stated that it is impossible. So is it possible to change the access modifier on an inherited property/function?
It is not possible, and it really should not be, because it leads to confusing and unpredictable class hierarchies. For starters, if you did something like that, you would break the Liskov Substitution Principle: A super class should at all times be replaceable by its derived classes. Changing the API would clearly prevent that - and thus possibly lead to runtime errors and/or inexplicable glitches, if another programmer accidentally exchanged types.
If the classes you are modeling have different behavior in such a way that would make you "hide" an otherwise public API method, you should probably not use inheritance for this - or perhaps in a different way. From what you are describing, I would guess that in a larger part of your hierarchy, you should probably be using composition instead of inheritance, anyway.
It is not possible for the very reason in the comments by Marty Wallace. But it's not an uncommon thing to do.
However in the alternative you used, The property owner is the base class & hence it should always know of anything that the derived class does with it's own properties.
Instead of your hack I would thus prefer something like this :
public class Base {
protected var _isLabelUsable:Boolean = true;
public function set label( value:String ):void {
if (!_isLabelUsable)
throw new Error("Access of undefined property label.");
// Set Label here
}
}
public class A extends Base {
}
public class B extends A {
public function B() {
super();
_isLabelUsable = false;
}
}
These are all valid points, but...
There are cases where they are all void.
Given a base class that comes from an external source. Like, say, mx:Panel.
It has the property 'titleIcon:Class'
The derived class inherits all properties and functions. But people using it shall never set the titleIcon directly, because part of the derived class' functionality depends on the availability of an icon name being known. It provides a property iconName:String. Setting it will also set the titleIcon.
Now how to prevent people from still setting the icon directly? The UI is offering the old property for AS3 and MXML, and the compiler will (of course) not complain.
If titleIcon is a setter/getter pair (in this case, it is), and not final, then the derived class can override the setter and throw an error, while the iconName setter will assign the icon class to super.titleIcon.
However, this is clumsy and will not work for final functions or variables.
If there were a way to at least tell the UI to not offer the property anymore or show a warning...
The problem I'm having is while using Linq2Sql with inheritance after declaring a new instance of the inherited class the discriminator property is still set to its initial value, not the correct value for the sub-type. It gets the correct value after attaching it to a context and calling SubmitChanges(). There are times where I want to declare a new object of the inherited type and call methods on the base class with the base class knowing inherited type it is working with and the most logical choice would be to use the discriminator property.
Is there a way to force the setting of the discriminator property? I don't want to go to all my sub-classes and implement the OnCreated() partial method for something the context already knows how to do.
I did come up with a slightly better workaround than putting code in the OnCreated() method of each inheriting class and figured I'd leave it here in case anyone stumbles here.
In the OnCreated() of the base class I added code that looked similar to this:
partial void OnCreated()
{
if (this is BaseClass1)
{
this.[DiscriminatorProperty] = DiscriminatorValueForBaseClass1;
}
else if(this is BaseClass2)
{
this.[DiscriminatorProperty] = DiscriminatorValueForBaseClass2;
}
}
It is still duplicating the functionality that the context already knows how to do but at least I'm not implementing the OnCreated() in every base class. I also don't like the fact that if a new class is added or a discriminator value changes you have to update it in the DBML and in the OnCreated(). For this reason I'd still like a way for the context to assign the value, in fact it should be doing this when the inherited class is created.