say, Child class is inheriting Father class and Father class is inheriting spark TextArea class. now from an mxml file (in FLEX4), i am creating multiple objects of Child class. Father class have few static attributes whose values are set by private methods, calling from constructor. Now the question is: all these static attributes are set every time while Child class objects are being created one by one?
If answer is yes then Is it possible that Father class static attributes are set only once and not depends upon the number of Child class objects creation.
Please provide any suggestion or tips
Thanks in advance.
If you are setting static variables from an object's constructor or methods called from the constructor, then yes, they will be set every time. In order to prevent that, just check whether the variable is already set.
public class Foo {
public static var bar:Object;
public Foo(value:Object) {
if (!bar) {
bar = value;
}
}
}
First decide if those static members are really all that important to store as statics because statics are associated with a Class and not an instance it's usually a signal that you're probably doing something you shouldn't if instances are modifying or reading static members. You probably should use a factory method if you need to share that information with the instances. However, if you're sure you should do it then you can use a static initializer block to initialize the members when the class is loaded. Downside is that block throws an exception it can be hard to track down:
public class SomeObject {
private const _someStaticMember : String;
private const _someOtherStaticMember : SomeOtherObject;
static {
_someStaticMember = "foobar";
_someOtherStaticMember = new SomeOtherObject();
}
}
Related
I need a little help understanding how classes work in Actionscript 3. I understand you start with "package" and why and then go to import any necessary libraries, as well as then naming the class and stating if it's public/private and extends anything.
After that is what I don't understand. It seems you write "(public) function class name()
I don't understand why you do this and what goes in the curly brackets.
I've probably missed a bit of earlier reading because I've done a little reading but I can't seem to get it.
Could someone try explain it to me? Thanks.
ActionScript 3 Classes
The package statement.
Okay, so firstly like you mentioned, a class must be wrapped by a package1. This gives us the first block, where you need to define the class.
package
{
// Your class here.
}
The package statement reflects the location of the class relative to the .fla2. For example, if you have a folder "classes" within the same directory as the project .fla, then classes within that folder will need a package statement that reflects that:
package classes
{
// Your class here.
}
Defining the class.
Within a package statement, you may insert one class. Do not confuse this with the package itself, which can contain many classes - each class just needs to have its own file with the same package statement.
A class definition is made up of up to 5 parts:
The namespace. A class can be internal or public. An internal class can only be seen by classes within the same package, whereas public classes can be seen from anywhere in the project.
The class name.
A base class (optional). If a base class is defined, then your new class will act as an extension to that class, inheriting all of the qualities of the base class.
An interface to implement (optional). Interfaces are an advanced topic thus I suggest you forget about these for now until your AS3 and OOP have evolved.
If you wanted to create a class called "Person" within the package classes, then we would end up with:
package classes
{
public class Person
{
// Class qualities here.
}
}
Properties.
Classes can contain properties. Properties are defined using the var keyword. They may belong to one of a number of namespaces (including your own) and are used to hold values that belong to your class. Properties are most commonly found clustered together at the top of your class.
Our Person class may enjoy the properties height and weight:
package classes
{
public class Person
{
// Properties.
public var height:Number = 1.70;
public var weight:Number = 67.5;
}
}
These properties can be accessed via any instance of Person that you create. Each instance will have its own set of these properties.
Class constructors (I believe this is what you're asking about).
Constructors are used to hold logic that should be run as soon as an instance of your class is created. The class constructor has the same name as the class itself. It must be public and it does not return anything. Constructors can accept arguments, which are typically used to pass in references to dependencies for that class or required values.
package classes
{
public class Person
{
// Properties.
public var height:Number = 1.70;
public var weight:Number = 67.5;
// Constructor.
public function Person(height:Number, weight:Number)
{
this.height = height;
this.weight = weight;
}
}
}
Methods.
Methods are used to hold logic that can be run when calling that method. Methods often return values and can accept arguments. Methods can belong to any namespace that you would expect properties to be able to belong to.
We may want to be able to easily determine the BMI of each instance of Person that we create, so we should create a method for that:
package classes
{
public class Person
{
// Properties.
public var height:Number = 170;
public var weight:Number = 65.5;
// Constructor.
public function Person(height:Number, weight:Number)
{
this.height = height;
this.weight = weight;
}
// Determine my BMI and return the result.
public function getBMI():Number
{
return weight / (height * height);
}
}
}
Instances.
Now that we've defined our new class, we can create instances of this class using the new keyword. This can be done from anywhere that can access the Person class, which in this case is anywhere in the project because we've made the class public.
Though the class is public, accessing it from anywhere outside of the package it belongs in will require the use of an import statement. This statement will need to be used within any class that belongs to a different package. The import statement follows the same name used for the package and includes the name of the class you want to include on the end:
import classes.Person;
Once you've imported Person, you can create instances of it and assign them to a variable with different height and weight values:
var marty:Person = new Person(71, 1.76);
var bruce:Person = new Person(96.4, 1.72);
We can then obtain the BMI for each person using their getBMI() method:
trace(marty.getBMI()); // 22.9
trace(bruce.getBMI()); // 32.6
1 You can place classes outside of a package which can be referred to in the same .as file.
2 You can add more source paths, and packages can be relative to that.
The function that have the same name as class is a constructor. In curly brackets is basically part of code that will execute instantly when object will be created. Try to search info about constructors, they exist I think in every object oriented programming language (I may be wrong), so you have a lot of resources.
You can also read about this concept on Wikipedia.
The function that is named the same as the class is the constructor. It's optional, so you can leave it out if you don't need it. A default constructor will be added, which essentially does nothing.
The constructor lets you write code that executes immediately after an instance of the class is created (ie when another bit of code runs new ClassName(). You would typically use it to initialise some variables that are used by the class. Defining a constructor also lets you handle constructor arguments, which other code can pass when they use the new operator.
I have an AS3 Singleton:
package
{
public class Singleton
{
public function Singleton(enforcer:SingletonEnforcer):void
{
if(!enforcer){throw new Error("Only one instance of Singleton Class allowed.");}
}
private static var _instance:Singleton;
public static function getInstance():Singleton
{
if(!Singleton._instance)
{
Singleton._instance=new Singleton(new SingletonEnforcer());
}
return Singleton._instance;
}
}
}
class SingletonEnforcer{}
Consider prop and func() to be a property and method respectively of the Singleton class.
How should I access them?
1. Make them static and use this:
Singleton.getInstance();
Singleton.prop;
Singleton.func();
2. Not make them static and use this:
Singleton.getInstance().prop;
Singleton.getInstance().func();
Does it matter, or is it just visual prefference?
Thank you.
The reason to use a singleton instance is so that you can have class members used in a (relatively) static way.
I won't get into the arguments over whether or not to use a singleton here, there's a very long debate over whether it's a good pattern or not.
Typically, when singletons are used, you store access to them in a local variable and use them like any other class instance. The primary difference, is instead of using:
foo = new Foo();
You use:
foo = Foo.instance;
//Actionscript supports properties which makes this a self-initializing call
-or-
foo = Foo.getInstance();
Followed by
foo.bar();
foo.baz();
foo.fizz = 'buzz';
This doesn't mean that Foo can't have static members of the class, but the rules for adding static members on a Singleton are the same for adding static members to any other class. If the function belongs to the instance, it should be used on the instance, if it belongs to the class, it should be static.
Possibly bad practice but I'm not well versed in software design anyway (I'm sure this question would have been asked before but I can't seem to find the right terminology)...Anyhow, it's just another curiosity of mine I'd like to have answered.
So I have worked in a way where I type a base class variable to type Object or Sprite or something similar so that in my subclasses, I can instantiate my custom classes into them and store it. And when I access it, I just cast that variable to ensure I can access the methods.
Take this example, so that you know what I'm talking about:
public class BaseClass
{
protected var the_holder_var:Object;
public function BaseClass()
{
//Whatever abstract implementation here...
}
}
Now, my subclasses of that base class usually use an interface but for simplicity sake, I'll just write it without it.
public class AnExtendedClass extends BaseClass
{
public function AnExtendedClass()
{
//Instantiate my own class into the base class variable
this.the_holder_var = new ACustomClassOfMine();
//Then I can use the 'hackish' getter function below to
//access the var's functions.
this.holder_var.somefunction()
}
private function get holder_var():ACustomClassOfMine
{
return this.the_holder_var as ACustomClassOfMine;
}
}
This works and I'm sure it will make some ppl cringe (I sometimes cringe at it too).
So now, my question, is there a way to recast/retype that base var in my extended subclass?
kinda like this:
public class ExtendedClass extends BaseClass
{
//Not possible I know, but as a reference to see what I'm asking about
//Just want to change the type....
override protected var the_holder_var:ACustomClassOfMine;
public function ExtendedClass()
{
//Then I can forget about having that hackish getter method.
this.the_holder_var = new ACustomClassOfMine();
this.the_holder_var.somefunction();
}
}
I was thinking of typing most of my base class vars that I use as holders as type * and retyping them as I extend the class. (I could use it here too but yeah...)
Thoughts? Comments? Ideas?
I actually think your code (apart from the hypothetical addition at the end) is pretty alright. The practise of adding accessors to solve the type issue you're dealing with is a solid one. I would advise to rename the accessor to show it is a cast, maybe get holderVarAsCustom():ACustomClassOfMine (I'm also not a big fan of the underscores, that's another language's convention), but that's personal preference. What I'd do to solve your last problem is just create a matching setter function:
private function set holderVarAsCustom(value:ACustomClassOfMine):void {
this.the_holder_var = value;
}
This way you can access the correctly typed holder var for both read and write operations with complete type safety:
holderVarAsCustom = new ACustomClassOfMine();
holderVarAsCustom.someFunction();
I would definately advise against dropping the type safety by including arrays and what not, that just makes it unstable.
I must admit that i'm a little confused as to why you want to do this, but here goes. Could you not utilise the fact that Array's can hold different data types. So something like this:
public class BaseClass
{
protected var customStorage:Array;
public function BaseClass()
{
//Whatever abstract implementation here...
}
}
You could then access it with an associative method and a property:
public class AnExtendedClass extends BaseClass
{
private static const myName:String = "myName";
public function AnExtendedClass()
{
//Instantiate my own class into the base class variable
customStorage[myName] = new ACustomClassOfMine();
objectIWant.somefunction()
}
private function get objectIWant():ACustomClassOfMine
{
return ACustomClassOfMine(customStorage[myName]);
}
}
Is that any better?
I would not try to tinker this behaviour, since you can't change the declared type of a variable once declared, no matter how hard you try.
What I do in such cases, I either cast the variable if I use it sparingly or the object it references may change, or I add another variable with the type I want and let the other variable point to the new one. Like this:
public class A {
protected var object:Object;
public function A() {
//Whatever abstract implementation here...
}
}
and
public class B extends A {
protected var other:MyClass;
public function B() {
super();
this.other = new MyClass();
this.object = this.other;
}
}
Having it this way, class A uses the object via the this.object reference, and class B can use the this.other or both. But both references point to the same object. The only issues with this are:
having two references for in the same class to the same object is ugly (so are untyped variables and casts)
if the object one of them may point can change during runtime, you must be really carefull to synchronize these changes
Phrased differently, this question could read, "What is the order of compile-time variable declarations and definitions?"
I can't recall specific examples at the moment, but I know I've run into trouble when initializing const and static values in my class definitions due to the declaration of those values occurring out of order.
I know I can instantiate objects when declaring static const members, like so:
public class ConstsWithNewObjects {
public static const DEFINED_NOW_2:Object = {something:"Defined!"};
public static const DEFINED_NOW_3:Object = new CustomObject("Defined!");
}
But, if I'm accessing one of those members from another static or const value, I imagine race conditions arising, like so:
public class ConstsWithOtherConsts {
public static const DEFINED_NOW_1:Object = DEFINED_NOW_3; // Does this exist, yet?
}
ActoinScript Hero Jack Dunstan has covered this exact topic in great detail on his blog: Class Bootup Part 2.
Regardless of Jack's findings; I would recommend, for the sanity of your readers; that you keep your static initialiser code as clean, and simple as possible - don't forget that static fields can call static methods; you can also make use of a static Class initialiser method as well.
I'm trying to figure out when it would be appropriate for a class to have both static and non-static functions. AKA:
$obj = new ClassA;
$obj->doOOPStuff();
$something = ClassA::doStaticStuff();
Note: This example is done in PHP, however the question is language agnostic .
It seems that if you have a class that is meant to be instantiated, any functions that can be called statically, most likely belong in another class.
Is there any viable cases where I would have a class that used static AND non-static members?
One example: when Creation has to happen in a specific way.
class Foo {
public:
static Foo* Create(...params...);
private:
Foo();
};
Consider String class in .NET. It contains a non-static Split method which breaks some instance into a string[] and a static Join method, which takes a string[] and transform it into a string again.
A static method is applicable when you don't need to keep any state. So Math.Sin() just depends on its parameters and, given same parameters, output will always be the same. A non-static method can have different behavior is called multiple times, as it can keep a internal state.
If the functionality provided by static methods is relevant to that class and its objects, why not. It is pretty common.
Static method are most often factory methods
public class MyClass {
public static MyClass createMyClass(int a, double b) {..}
public static MyClass createSubclassOfMyClass(int c, boolean cond) {..}
public int calculateThis();
public double calculateThat();
}
Another use is to access some property that is logically bound that that class, but not separately to instances. For example - a cache:
(Note - of course synchronization should be taken into account in this example)
public class MyClass {
public static final Cache cache = new Cache();
public static void putInCacheIfNeeded(Object obj) {..}
public static void replaceInCache(Object obj) {..}
public void doSomethingCacheDependend(Object obj) {
if (something) {
MyClass.putInCacheIfNeeded(obj);
} else {
MyClass.replaceInCache(obj);
}
}
}
(Java language for the examples)
Imagine your constructor has two overloads that both are strings:
public class XmlDocument
{
public static XmlDocument CreateFromFile(string filePath);
public static XmlDocument CreateFromXml(string xml);
}
The static function can provide meaningful name to the constructor.
$dialog = DialogFoo::createOpenDialog();
$dialog = DialogFoo::createDocumentOpenDialog();
$dialog = DialogFoo::createImageOpenDialog();
It could also be used to enforce Singleton pattern.
$dialog = DialogFoo::getInstance()
Static class members are most useful where everything must either be in an object or be in a global scope; they are less useful in a language such as Python that supports module-level scopes.
I use static methods to instantiate new objects when I dont want the to give access to the constructor. I ensure that any necessary preconditions are carried out on the class before creating and object. In this example I have a counter to return how many objects are created, if I have 10 objects I prevent any more from being instantiated.
class foo {
private:
static int count;
foo() {}
public:
static foo bar() {
count++;
if (count<=10){
return new foo;
} else {
return null;
}
Let's assume a class has instance methods, here are some good use case for having static methods too:
For static utility methods
Such methods apply to any instance, for example String.format(String, Object...) in Java.
Use them when you don't want to create a specific instance for the job.
For static factory methods
Factory methods are methods that simply instantiate objects like the getInstance() and valueOf() methods in the Java API. getInstance() is the conventional instantiation method in singletons while valueOf() are often type-conversion methods, like in String.valueOf(int).
Use them to improve performance via object-caching, in interface-based frameworks (like the Collections Framework in Java) where you may want to return a subtype, to implement singletons (cough).
In general, static functions produce functionality highly related to class itself. It may be some helper functions, factory methods etc. In this case all functionality contains in one place, it correspond to DRY principle, increases cohesion and reduces coupling.