I know some of the terms I use are confusing. To clarify, a driver class is basically one built on a class definition (starting with public class...) but is a method itself with the header public static void main (String args[]).
The point of this post is to resolve my serious confusion. (I am a beginner in programming)
to me, since a driver class is a method, all it does is to implement itself. But things kinda turn out to be the opposite . For example:
to implement a constructor in a driver class, you simply put down the constructor heading, like public Rectangle(), with its name being the same as that of the class. but in a class definition, to creat a object/ implement a constructor, you also have to write down happen inside that constructor, so you use the expression "type name = new type name ()".
PS: I might have used some terms wrongly, correct me thanks. Or some concept
I'll try to answer this the best way that I can.
Let's look at each of the keywords in a "driver class method" and determine the meaning.
public - this method is publicly callable by a class outside of it
static - this method is callable WITHOUT an instance of the class. In Java, look at the Math class. You don't need to instantiate an instance of the Math class to use the sqrt function (Math m = New Math(); m.sqrt(25);), you can just use Math.sqrt(25).
void - this method returns nothing
main - name of the method
Now that we have that cleared up, let's ask ourselves why these things have to be here for a "driver class"
The Virtual Machine (the program that runs your custom programs) is hard coded to look for a method named main that is public and can also be called WITHOUT CREATING AN INSTANCE OF YOUR CLASS.
So this means that when your program first runs, there is no instance of it.
To counter this, you can either create all of your methods and properties as static (generally considered bad practice) OR you can create an instance of your own class inside of it's own entry method, and begin to call the non-static methods and properties that belong to the instance.
I hope this makes sense.
Related
I know global variables are supposed to be bad but is it possible to create global classes? I am creating an application and I want to have one class that handles sound. From any class I would like to be able to say soundhandler.playSound(); without having to pass references all over the place. It should just know it is there.
Any help greatly appreciated.
You're referring to static members.
Your class SoundHandler would have a static method called playSound(), which can be implemented like so:
package
{
public class SoundHandler
{
public static function playSound():void
{
// #todo Logic
}
}
}
Your playSound() method is now accessible via:
SoundHandler.playSound();
Note: You mentioned global methods being bad, however this is a perfect candidate for these and something I would actually recommend (as much as I hate using static).
Additional: ActionScript 3's Math class contains mostly static members e.g. Math.round()
Your question (comment): Do I need to initiate SoundHandler in the document class?
No, in fact you shouldn't make an instance of SoundHandler at all. The only requirement is that you must have SoundHandler imported in your current class to access it:
import yourpackage.SoundHandler;
I'm making a class that supports the Singleton use (one instance is available), yet it also supports normal instance use (via a public constructor).
If you only want one, use that one. If you want 5, new them up.
I clearly can't call this singleton, or some other dev will come along and make my constructor non-public. What can I call this to indicate how it is to be used? Naming is hard.
Some guesses for your amusement:
"StaticallyAvailable"?
"ThreadReady"?
"SingletonOptional"?
It sounds like you've got a "default instance". You could name your object along those lines.
Usually the point of a singleton is for an object that has an unique instance. If multiple copies of the class can exist, then it means that "oneness" is not a necessary behavior. This is just like any other object.
Probably, the reason why you code it as a Singleton is for the global access. Just call it a global object then.
A Pool ?
(esp if you know how about the instance count early, but want to encapsulate some of the behaviour of constructing / destroying)
This does not sound like a singleton to me, it sounds like a regular class that always has at least one instance. Calling this a singleton, and writing the code as though it was one (eg. private static MySingleton instance = new MySingleton();) is confusing - decouple the "always present" instance from your class definition somehow. Make it clear in your implementation that this is a normal class that just happens to always have at least 1 instance around.
You could create a default instance getter.
private TheClass defaultInstance;
public Default{ get{ return defaultInstance??(defaultInstance = new TheClass());}
I currently pass a reference to my model through the constructor to any class that needs it in my simple mvc pattern, this can get annoying at times when it starts to go deeper.
How do Classes such as LoadMax allow you from anywhere to simple import the class, and do something like addChild(LoaderMax.getContent("bg"));? Replicating this should surely be a good way to have my model work, without the complexity of big frameworks?
Statics are your friend
As previous answers have noted, TweenLite/Max etc. makes heavy use of static members to get work done. This is exactly like the Math class, for example, and can be a very convenient design pattern. You have global access to the class, and that can definitely alleviate the issue of getting access to variables through deeply nested classes.
Statics are the enemy
Statics, however, bring certain problems to the table. Most importantly, they tend to reduce flexibility and modularity of classes through the often unnecessary addition of tightly coupled relationships. It's a bit like pouring concrete over your application. It does work, but changing behavior becomes difficult as project features change.
Static members != instance members
Note, very clearly, that a static member "belongs" to the class itself, and not an instance of that class. Static members have no access to instance members. This causes troubles when you want to mix these members up in logic. You tend to have to make everything static (the so-called "static-cling" effect). Static patterns are often argued to be argued to be "anti" object-oriented, for precisely this reason. Once you build a structure on a static pattern you tend to lose many of the principles that makes OOD powerful.
In small does, they're pretty nice
That all being said - TweenLite is a great example of a static pattern that is totally appropriate - its a utility package, one that logic is not dependent on. And that should probably be how you leverage statics, too.
To reduce reliance on statics, or even global vars, it does often mean writing more code, but the flexibility in app structure gained is often quite worth it. #Marty_Wallace has a pretty good solution imo.
Demeter and the Paperboy
Finally, I'll just mention the Law of Demeter, or the Principle of Least Knowledge, and the related Paperboy and the Wallet example, which is often pointed to in discussions of statics:
Each unit should have only limited knowledge about other units: only
units "closely" related to the current
unit.
Each unit should only talk to its friends; don't talk to strangers.
Only talk to your immediate friends.
Hopefully that sheds a little bit of light on a fairly complicated and not-often obvious issue.
This is done using the static namespace, however I discourage the use of this.
package
{
public class Main
{
public static function sayHell():void
{
trace("hello!");
}
}
}
You can now call sayHello() like this from anywhere in the application (assuming you've imported the class).
Main.sayHello();
Another thing you can do (to make the entire class accessible from within the application) is create a static property that refers to the class itself:
package
{
public class Something
{
public static var instance:Something;
public function Something()
{
instance = this;
}
public function someFunction():void
{
trace('hello!');
}
}
}
Which you can now use like so:
Something.instance.someFunction();
The only thing to note here is that you need to create an instance of Something for this to work to call the constructor and define instance.
What I would do
Create a base class for all objects in your application
Create a manager class that takes care of these objects
Create a setter within your base class to define the manager
Here's an example:
Base
package
{
public class Base extends Object
{
private var _manager:Manager;
public function set manager(m:Manager):void
{
_manager = m;
init();
}
protected function init():void
{
manager.someFunction();
}
public function get manager():Manager{ return _manager; }
}
}
Manager
package
{
public class Manager extends Object
{
public function someFunction():void
{
trace('hello!');
}
}
}
Now anything that extends Base will have access to anything held in Manager via the manager getter property. All you need to do is make sure you define the manager, which is easily achieved from within anything that extends Base like so:
var something:SomeExtendingClass = new SomeExtendingClass();
something.manager = manager;
The example you gave is just a static method, but to answer your question about a global instance of a class:
package myPackage
{
public var globalVariable:MyClass = new MyClass();
}
You can access it with:
import myPackage.globalVariable;
trace(globalVariable);
I think you have to rethink in which way you want to name your classes.
You can instantiate whatever class you want, at run-time, but to access a instance by name, you have to make changes in your structure. For example, the getContent() function you mentioned in LoaderMax, all it does is to search in an array for the given loader that matchs the name, among other things. You can read the name variable comment for a description.
A name that you use to identify the loader instance. This name can be fed to the getLoader() or getContent() methods or traced at any time. Each loader's name should be unique. If you don't define one, a unique name will be created automatically, like "loader21".
So in this system, you have to name every single member (loaders in this case) if you want to be able to search them. Because if I call getClassInstance("myinstance"), what is "myinstance" representing? Where should I name it?
That said, if you want to do it for DisplayObjects only, you can use getChildByName. But again, you have to name every DisplayObject (just set the name variable).
Hope this helps.
Please retag this question to include languages to which it is relevant
So my java book had a whole chapter on nested classes, but ended on the note that you should only really use them when it comes to "modeling composition relationships and implementing internals of a class you want to hide". So lets discuss when you would want to use nested classes and some examples.
A nested/inner class is just a class that's only ever used specifically in the context of another class, which doesn't have it's own class file. If it's linked to an instance, it can only be instantiated in the context of a parent class instance; it can see private data, or only private static data if it's a static class.
The java developer site has a nested classes tutorial with one example:
http://java.sun.com/docs/books/tutorial/java/javaOO/nested.html
A couple examples of usage:
Hide a concrete implementation of an
interface:
(Thinking of a database session for a tool like Hibernate): Suppose you have a Session interface, and a SessionFactory which returns an instance of a Session. The SessionImpl concrete class that implements the Session interface could be an innner class of the factory that knows how to construct and initialize it.
Supply information by implementing an
interface:
In the Wicket web framework, each GUI component has an associated "model", whose job is to wire data to the component. The interface looks something like:
public interface IModel extends IDetachable {
public Object getObject();
public Object setObject();
}
Suppose you have some special logic to retrieve data for a custom GUI component that you've written. Since no other component retrieves data the same way, you could use an anonymous class at the point where the IModel is supplied to take care of the data retrieval. If you have another point in the same class where you need to reuse your IModel implementation, you could make it an inner class. Later, if you need the model elsewhere, you could convert it to a top-level class.
Generally you use an inner class in a situation where you need a class definition, but that class is only usable or only makes sense in the context of the parent class.
A real life usage i had with nested classes, was in a global settings object.
The parent class was a Singleton, with nested classes as settings categories.
Settings
File settings
Print settings
Etc.
There was no real point in making the inner object as separate classes, as their would be no use for them outside the settings class scope.
I use nested classes for encapsulating algorithms that would be usually done as a method with lots of arguments. I use class that has raw data and I put algorithms into separate file in nested class (using partial keyword). That way I can put properties for that algorithm and its (working) data lives after algorithm is done.
I know that can be easily done without nested classes but this feels right because algorithm is purposely built for parent class.
public partial class Network
{
partial void initFDLF()
{
fdlf=new FDLF(this);
}
public FDLF fdlf;
public class FDLF
{
internal bool changed=true;
internal bool pvchange=true;
public double epsilon = 0.001;
public bool fdlfOk=false;
public void init(){...}
public void run(){...}
...
So, coming upon the subject of Factories, I'm wondering how they are set up.
From where I stand, I can see 3 types of Factories:
All In One
A factory that basically contains all of the classes used in an application. It feels like it is just having a factory for the sake of having a factory, and doesn't really feel structured.
Example (Where ClassA, Class B, and ClassC have nothing in common except being in the same App):
class Factory
{
public static function buildClassA()
public static function buildClassB()
public static function buildClassC()
}
Code samples provided are in PHP. However, this question is language-agnostic.
Built-In Factory
The next one is mixing in static functions with the regular functions in order to make special creation patterns (see this question)
Example:
class ClassA
{
public static function buildClass()
public function __construct()
}
Factory On-the-Side
The last one I can think of is having a factory for individual classes, or individual sets of classes. This just seems to variable to be used in an uniform manner.
Example (Where ClassA, B, and C are related, and 1, 2, and 3 are related):
class FactoryAlpha
{
public static function buildClassA()
public static function buildClassB()
public static function buildClassC()
}
class FactoryNumeric
{
public static function buildClass1()
public static function buildClass2()
public static function buildClass3()
}
My question is: Are all of these bad ideas, are any of them bad ideas? Are there other ways of creating factories? Are any of these actually good ideas? What is a good/best way to create Factories.
The point of a factory seems to be to have the code that uses it not need to know which concrete class will be constructed (this should be handled by configuring the factory). That seems to rule out "All-in One" and "Factory-on-the-Side".
I like the approach that Java libraries often use: You have a static method that creates the Factory. The Factory has a getInstance method that creates the instance. This gives you two points of configuration (via system properties): The default FactoryImpl has a number of settings, such as the class it should produce, and if these configuration options are not enough, you can also swap out the FactoryImpl altogether.
As for "All-in One" vs "Factory-on-the-Side", a Factory should not produce unrelated classes I think. Again, it Java terms, every factory produces instances of a certain interface.
"All-in-One" sounds like something that should be replaced with Dependency Injection (where you have a container that produces all kinds of instances and injects them into the application).
If you are really interested in "Preferred technologies", I'd replace them all with Dependency Injection.
If that seems to heavy, just remember that you may not be seeing every use for your factory so don't "New" a hard-coded class in your factory. Instead, have a "Setter" that can specify what class needs to be injected.
This will come in handy later when you are unit testing and need to start injecting mock classes.
But as you make this more general, abstract and reusable, you'll end up back at DI. (Just don't say I didn't warn you)
There's really just two standard sorts of factories, at least according to GOF and the slew of patterns books that followed: The basic Factory, and the Abstract Factory.
A Factory generally returns a concrete instance that the caller refers to through an interface, like so:
// createWidget() here instantiates a BigWidget or SmallWidget or whatever the context calls for
IWidget widget = WidgetFactory.createWidget(someContextValue);
Using a factory with an interface in this way keeps the caller from being coupled into a specific type of the returned object. Following the venerable Single Responsibility Principle, a factory should do one thing, that is, return a concrete instance of the interface that was called for, and nothing more. A basic factory should only have the job of creating one type of object.
An Abstract Factory, on the other hand, can be thought of as a factory of factories, and might be closer to what you were thinking of as an "all in one" factory. An Abstract Factory is usually configured at start-up to return a group of related factories, for instance factories that might create a particular family of GUIs depending on a given context. This is an example of Dependency Inversion that has largely been replaced by using IOC containers like Spring.