Related
In my understanding, a static member belongs to the class rather than to a specific instance of that class. It can be useful if either all instances share this specific characteristic with the exact same value, or if I do not want to create any instances of the class at all.
So, if I have a class Car, and all my cars will always have exactly 4 wheels, I could store the number of wheels as a static member of the class Car rather than as a instance variable of a myCar class instance.
But why should it be not possible in Haxe to access the static variable from a class instance? Doesn't make any sense to me.
class Car
{
public static var noOfWheels:Int = 4;
public static function getNoOfWheels():Int
{
return Car.noOfWheels;
}
}
class Main
{
static function main()
{
myCar = new Car();
trace (myCar.noOfWheels);
trace (myCar.getNoOfWheels());
trace (Type.getClass(myCar).noOfWheels);
}
}
Neither of those traces lead to the desired result. The first and second trace result in an error of the type:
Cannot access static field XY from a class instance
while the third leads to:
Class <Car> has no field noOfWheels
Edit for clarification:
I have several child classes of the Car class, inheriting all its properties. In some cases, like the class ItalianVan, I declare the static variable noOfWheels again, thus overshadowing the original Car.noOfWheels.
class ItalianVan extends Car
{
public static var noOfWheels:Int = 3;
}
Now, if I have an arbitrary car instance, I would like to know how many wheels it has. If I access the Car.noOfWheels, the answer would always be 4 wheels, even if that special car actually was a three-wheeled italian van.
Maybe the answer is: Don't use static variables for stuff like that!
But it isn't obvious to me why.
Seems unnecessary to make noOfWheels an instance variable, if all members of that class have the same number of wheels.
I've never used Haxe but I can see that you are accessing to the myCar variable.
Try this:
trace (Car.noOfWheels);
trace (Car.getNoOfWheels());
When you want to access to a static variable you should use the class name.
To access a static variable from an instance maybe you can add a non static method that returns the result of the static call.
I have Class structure like below, this below scenario will create a cyclic reference. How to avoid this situation?
public class classA
{
public classA()
{
classB b= new classB();
b.classBMethod();
}
public void classAMethod()
{
Console.WriteLine("Class A Method");
}
}
public class classB
{
public classB()
{
classC c = new classC();
c.classCMethod();
}
public void classBMethod()
{
Console.WriteLine("Class B Method");
}
}
public class classC
{
public classC()
{
classA a = new classA();
a.classAMethod();
}
public void classCMethod()
{
Console.WriteLine("Class C Method");
}
}
How to avoid circular reference? Please tell me different alternatives to design this
Your code does not have a circular reference problem.
Circular reference occurs when you start following references and end up where you started. In your case, what you do is declaring local variables and then you have:
new ClassA()-> (calls) -> new ClassB()->(calls)->new ClassC()->calls->new ClassA()-> (calls) -> new ClassB()->(calls)-> etc forever
The GC is smart enough to resolve circular references, but what you are doing is fundamentally flawed. Perhaps you should explain what you are trying to achieve instead.
This is creating a spiral data-structure to which there is no end.
However, the simplest way to solve this riddle and still be able to start with any class (A,B, or C), is to add a public boolean flag to the objects that determines if a cycle has occurred. If this flag is false you continue, if it is true you stop the cycle. If instead you are trying to create this spiral with no end, you may need to add an update method called once per frame to avoid an overload of operations in an instance.
I could give a less vague answer if I knew exactly what you were trying to create with this type of logic. I'm sorry if this was unclear.
Can a class return an object of itself.
In my example I have a class called "Change" which represents a change to the system, and I am wondering if it is in anyway against design principles to return an object of type Change or an ArrayList which is populated with all the recent Change objects.
Yes, a class can have a method that returns an instance of itself. This is quite a common scenario.
In C#, an example might be:
public class Change
{
public int ChangeID { get; set; }
private Change(int changeId)
{
ChangeID = changeId;
LoadFromDatabase();
}
private void LoadFromDatabase()
{
// TODO Perform Database load here.
}
public static Change GetChange(int changeId)
{
return new Change(changeId);
}
}
Yes it can. In fact, that's exactly what a singleton class does. The first time you call its class-level getInstance() method, it constructs an instance of itself and returns that. Then subsequent calls to getInstance() return the already-constructed instance.
Your particular case could use a similar method but you need some way of deciding the list of recent changes. As such it will need to maintain its own list of such changes. You could do this with a static array or list of the changes. Just be certain that the underlying information in the list doesn't disappear - this could happen in C++ (for example) if you maintained pointers to the objects and those objects were freed by your clients.
Less of an issue in an automatic garbage collection environment like Java since the object wouldn't disappear whilst there was still a reference to it.
However, you don't have to use this method. My preference with what you describe would be to have two clases, changelist and change. When you create an instance of the change class, pass a changelist object (null if you don't want it associated with a changelist) with the constructor and add the change to that list before returning it.
Alternatively, have a changelist method which creates a change itself and returns it, remembering the change for its own purposes.
Then you can query the changelist to get recent changes (however you define recent). That would be more flexible since it allows multiple lists.
You could even go overboard and allow a change to be associated with multiple changelists if so desired.
Another reason to return this is so that you can do function chaining:
class foo
{
private int x;
public foo()
{
this.x = 0;
}
public foo Add(int a)
{
this.x += a;
return this;
}
public foo Subtract(int a)
{
this.x -= a;
return this;
}
public int Value
{
get { return this.x; }
}
public static void Main()
{
foo f = new foo();
f.Add(10).Add(20).Subtract(1);
System.Console.WriteLine(f.Value);
}
}
$ ./foo.exe
29
There's a time and a place to do function chaining, and it's not "anytime and everywhere." But, LINQ is a good example of a place that hugely benefits from function chaining.
A class will often return an instance of itself from what is sometimes called a "factory" method. In Java or C++ (etc) this would usually be a public static method, e.g. you would call it directly on the class rather than on an instance of a class.
In your case, in Java, it might look something like this:
List<Change> changes = Change.getRecentChanges();
This assumes that the Change class itself knows how to track changes itself, rather than that job being the responsibility of some other object in the system.
A class can also return an instance of itself in the singleton pattern, where you want to ensure that only one instance of a class exists in the world:
Foo foo = Foo.getInstance();
The fluent interface methods work on the principal of returning an instance of itself, e.g.
StringBuilder sb = new StringBuilder("123");
sb.Append("456").Append("789");
You need to think about what you're trying to model. In your case, I would have a ChangeList class that contains one or more Change objects.
On the other hand, if you were modeling a hierarchical structure where a class can reference other instances of the class, then what you're doing makes sense. E.g. a tree node, which can contain other tree nodes.
Another common scenario is having the class implement a static method which returns an instance of it. That should be used when creating a new instance of the class.
I don't know of any design rule that says that's bad. So if in your model a single change can be composed of multiple changes go for it.
I am new to OOP. Though I understand what polymorphism is, but I can't get the real use of it. I can have functions with different name. Why should I try to implement polymorphism in my application.
Classic answer: Imagine a base class Shape. It exposes a GetArea method. Imagine a Square class and a Rectangle class, and a Circle class. Instead of creating separate GetSquareArea, GetRectangleArea and GetCircleArea methods, you get to implement just one method in each of the derived classes. You don't have to know which exact subclass of Shape you use, you just call GetArea and you get your result, independent of which concrete type is it.
Have a look at this code:
#include <iostream>
using namespace std;
class Shape
{
public:
virtual float GetArea() = 0;
};
class Rectangle : public Shape
{
public:
Rectangle(float a) { this->a = a; }
float GetArea() { return a * a; }
private:
float a;
};
class Circle : public Shape
{
public:
Circle(float r) { this->r = r; }
float GetArea() { return 3.14f * r * r; }
private:
float r;
};
int main()
{
Shape *a = new Circle(1.0f);
Shape *b = new Rectangle(1.0f);
cout << a->GetArea() << endl;
cout << b->GetArea() << endl;
}
An important thing to notice here is - you don't have to know the exact type of the class you're using, just the base type, and you will get the right result. This is very useful in more complex systems as well.
Have fun learning!
Have you ever added two integers with +, and then later added an integer to a floating-point number with +?
Have you ever logged x.toString() to help you debug something?
I think you probably already appreciate polymorphism, just without knowing the name.
In a strictly typed language, polymorphism is important in order to have a list/collection/array of objects of different types. This is because lists/arrays are themselves typed to contain only objects of the correct type.
Imagine for example we have the following:
// the following is pseudocode M'kay:
class apple;
class banana;
class kitchenKnife;
apple foo;
banana bar;
kitchenKnife bat;
apple *shoppingList = [foo, bar, bat]; // this is illegal because bar and bat is
// not of type apple.
To solve this:
class groceries;
class apple inherits groceries;
class banana inherits groceries;
class kitchenKnife inherits groceries;
apple foo;
banana bar;
kitchenKnife bat;
groceries *shoppingList = [foo, bar, bat]; // this is OK
Also it makes processing the list of items more straightforward. Say for example all groceries implements the method price(), processing this is easy:
int total = 0;
foreach (item in shoppingList) {
total += item.price();
}
These two features are the core of what polymorphism does.
Advantage of polymorphism is client code doesn't need to care about the actual implementation of a method.
Take look at the following example.
Here CarBuilder doesn't know anything about ProduceCar().Once it is given a list of cars (CarsToProduceList) it will produce all the necessary cars accordingly.
class CarBase
{
public virtual void ProduceCar()
{
Console.WriteLine("don't know how to produce");
}
}
class CarToyota : CarBase
{
public override void ProduceCar()
{
Console.WriteLine("Producing Toyota Car ");
}
}
class CarBmw : CarBase
{
public override void ProduceCar()
{
Console.WriteLine("Producing Bmw Car");
}
}
class CarUnknown : CarBase { }
class CarBuilder
{
public List<CarBase> CarsToProduceList { get; set; }
public void ProduceCars()
{
if (null != CarsToProduceList)
{
foreach (CarBase car in CarsToProduceList)
{
car.ProduceCar();// doesn't know how to produce
}
}
}
}
class Program
{
static void Main(string[] args)
{
CarBuilder carbuilder = new CarBuilder();
carbuilder.CarsToProduceList = new List<CarBase>() { new CarBmw(), new CarToyota(), new CarUnknown() };
carbuilder.ProduceCars();
}
}
Polymorphism is the foundation of Object Oriented Programming. It means that one object can be have as another project. So how does on object can become other, its possible through following
Inheritance
Overriding/Implementing parent Class behavior
Runtime Object binding
One of the main advantage of it is switch implementations. Lets say you are coding an application which needs to talk to a database. And you happen to define a class which does this database operation for you and its expected to do certain operations such as Add, Delete, Modify. You know that database can be implemented in many ways, it could be talking to file system or a RDBM server such as MySQL etc. So you as programmer, would define an interface that you could use, such as...
public interface DBOperation {
public void addEmployee(Employee newEmployee);
public void modifyEmployee(int id, Employee newInfo);
public void deleteEmployee(int id);
}
Now you may have multiple implementations, lets say we have one for RDBMS and other for direct file-system
public class DBOperation_RDBMS implements DBOperation
// implements DBOperation above stating that you intend to implement all
// methods in DBOperation
public void addEmployee(Employee newEmployee) {
// here I would get JDBC (Java's Interface to RDBMS) handle
// add an entry into database table.
}
public void modifyEmployee(int id, Employee newInfo) {
// here I use JDBC handle to modify employee, and id to index to employee
}
public void deleteEmployee(int id) {
// here I would use JDBC handle to delete an entry
}
}
Lets have File System database implementation
public class DBOperation_FileSystem implements DBOperation
public void addEmployee(Employee newEmployee) {
// here I would Create a file and add a Employee record in to it
}
public void modifyEmployee(int id, Employee newInfo) {
// here I would open file, search for record and change values
}
public void deleteEmployee(int id) {
// here I search entry by id, and delete the record
}
}
Lets see how main can switch between the two
public class Main {
public static void main(String[] args) throws Exception {
Employee emp = new Employee();
... set employee information
DBOperation dboper = null;
// declare your db operation object, not there is no instance
// associated with it
if(args[0].equals("use_rdbms")) {
dboper = new DBOperation_RDBMS();
// here conditionally, i.e when first argument to program is
// use_rdbms, we instantiate RDBM implementation and associate
// with variable dboper, which delcared as DBOperation.
// this is where runtime binding of polymorphism kicks in
// JVM is allowing this assignment because DBOperation_RDBMS
// has a "is a" relationship with DBOperation.
} else if(args[0].equals("use_fs")) {
dboper = new DBOperation_FileSystem();
// similarly here conditionally we assign a different instance.
} else {
throw new RuntimeException("Dont know which implemnation to use");
}
dboper.addEmployee(emp);
// now dboper is refering to one of the implementation
// based on the if conditions above
// by this point JVM knows dboper variable is associated with
// 'a' implemenation, and it will call appropriate method
}
}
You can use polymorphism concept in many places, one praticle example would be: lets you are writing image decorer, and you need to support the whole bunch of images such as jpg, tif, png etc. So your application will define an interface and work on it directly. And you would have some runtime binding of various implementations for each of jpg, tif, pgn etc.
One other important use is, if you are using java, most of the time you would work on List interface, so that you can use ArrayList today or some other interface as your application grows or its needs change.
Polymorphism allows you to write code that uses objects. You can then later create new classes that your existing code can use with no modification.
For example, suppose you have a function Lib2Groc(vehicle) that directs a vehicle from the library to the grocery store. It needs to tell vehicles to turn left, so it can call TurnLeft() on the vehicle object among other things. Then if someone later invents a new vehicle, like a hovercraft, it can be used by Lib2Groc with no modification.
I guess sometimes objects are dynamically called. You are not sure whether the object would be a triangle, square etc in a classic shape poly. example.
So, to leave all such things behind, we just call the function of derived class and assume the one of the dynamic class will be called.
You wouldn't care if its a sqaure, triangle or rectangle. You just care about the area. Hence the getArea method will be called depending upon the dynamic object passed.
One of the most significant benefit that you get from polymorphic operations is ability to expand.
You can use same operations and not changing existing interfaces and implementations only because you faced necessity for some new stuff.
All that we want from polymorphism - is simplify our design decision and make our design more extensible and elegant.
You should also draw attention to Open-Closed Principle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open/closed_principle) and for SOLID (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solid_%28Object_Oriented_Design%29) that can help you to understand key OO principles.
P.S. I think you are talking about "Dynamic polymorphism" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamic_polymorphism), because there are such thing like "Static polymorphism" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_metaprogramming#Static_polymorphism).
You don't need polymorphism.
Until you do.
Then its friggen awesome.
Simple answer that you'll deal with lots of times:
Somebody needs to go through a collection of stuff. Let's say they ask for a collection of type MySpecializedCollectionOfAwesome. But you've been dealing with your instances of Awesome as List. So, now, you're going to have to create an instance of MSCOA and fill it with every instance of Awesome you have in your List<T>. Big pain in the butt, right?
Well, if they asked for an IEnumerable<Awesome>, you could hand them one of MANY collections of Awesome. You could hand them an array (Awesome[]) or a List (List<Awesome>) or an observable collection of Awesome or ANYTHING ELSE you keep your Awesome in that implements IEnumerable<T>.
The power of polymorphism lets you be type safe, yet be flexible enough that you can use an instance many many different ways without creating tons of code that specifically handles this type or that type.
Tabbed Applications
A good application to me is generic buttons (for all tabs) within a tabbed-application - even the browser we are using it is implementing Polymorphism as it doesn't know the tab we are using at the compile-time (within the code in other words). Its always determined at the Run-time (right now! when we are using the browser.)
Why should we make the constructor private in class? As we always need the constructor to be public.
Some reasons where you may need private constructor:
The constructor can only be accessed from static factory method inside the class itself. Singleton can also belong to this category.
A utility class, that only contains static methods.
By providing a private constructor you prevent class instances from being created in any place other than this very class. There are several use cases for providing such constructor.
A. Your class instances are created in a static method. The static method is then declared as public.
class MyClass()
{
private:
MyClass() { }
public:
static MyClass * CreateInstance() { return new MyClass(); }
};
B. Your class is a singleton. This means, not more than one instance of your class exists in the program.
class MyClass()
{
private:
MyClass() { }
public:
MyClass & Instance()
{
static MyClass * aGlobalInst = new MyClass();
return *aGlobalInst;
}
};
C. (Only applies to the upcoming C++0x standard) You have several constructors. Some of them are declared public, others private. For reducing code size, public constructors 'call' private constructors which in turn do all the work. Your public constructors are thus called delegating constructors:
class MyClass
{
public:
MyClass() : MyClass(2010, 1, 1) { }
private:
MyClass(int theYear, int theMonth, int theDay) { /* do real work */ }
};
D. You want to limit object copying (for example, because of using a shared resource):
class MyClass
{
SharedResource * myResource;
private:
MyClass(const MyClass & theOriginal) { }
};
E. Your class is a utility class. That means, it only contains static members. In this case, no object instance must ever be created in the program.
To leave a "back door" that allows another friend class/function to construct an object in a way forbidden to the user. An example that comes to mind would be a container constructing an iterator (C++):
Iterator Container::begin() { return Iterator(this->beginPtr_); }
// Iterator(pointer_type p) constructor is private,
// and Container is a friend of Iterator.
Everyone is stuck on the Singleton thing, wow.
Other things:
Stop people from creating your class on the stack; make private constructors and only hand back pointers via a factory method.
Preventing creating copys of the class (private copy constructor)
This can be very useful for a constructor that contains common code; private constructors can be called by other constructors, using the 'this(...);' notation. By making the common initialization code in a private (or protected) constructor, you are also making explicitly clear that it is called only during construction, which is not so if it were simply a method:
public class Point {
public Point() {
this(0,0); // call common constructor
}
private Point(int x,int y) {
m_x = x; m_y = y;
}
};
There are some instances where you might not want to use a public constructor; for example if you want a singleton class.
If you are writing an assembly used by 3rd parties there could be a number of internal classes that you only want created by your assembly and not to be instantiated by users of your assembly.
This ensures that you (the class with private constructor) control how the contructor is called.
An example : A static factory method on the class could return objects as the factory method choses to allocate them (like a singleton factory for example).
We can also have private constructor,
to enfore the object's creation by a specific class
only(For security reasons).
One way to do it is through having a friend class.
C++ example:
class ClientClass;
class SecureClass
{
private:
SecureClass(); // Constructor is private.
friend class ClientClass; // All methods in
//ClientClass have access to private
// & protected methods of SecureClass.
};
class ClientClass
{
public:
ClientClass();
SecureClass* CreateSecureClass()
{
return (new SecureClass()); // we can access
// constructor of
// SecureClass as
// ClientClass is friend
// of SecureClass.
}
};
Note: Note: Only ClientClass (since it is friend of SecureClass)
can call SecureClass's Constructor.
You shouldn't make the constructor private. Period. Make it protected, so you can extend the class if you need to.
Edit: I'm standing by that, no matter how many downvotes you throw at this.
You're cutting off the potential for future development on the code. If other users or programmers are really determined to extend the class, then they'll just change the constructor to protected in source or bytecode. You will have accomplished nothing besides to make their life a little harder. Include a warning in your constructor's comments, and leave it at that.
If it's a utility class, the simpler, more correct, and more elegant solution is to mark the whole class "static final" to prevent extension. It doesn't do any good to just mark the constructor private; a really determined user may always use reflection to obtain the constructor.
Valid uses:
One good use of a protected
constructor is to force use of static
factory methods, which allow you to
limit instantiation or pool & reuse
expensive resources (DB connections,
native resources).
Singletons (usually not good practice, but sometimes necessary)
when you do not want users to create instances of this class or create class that inherits this class, like the java.lang.math, all the function in this package is static, all the functions can be called without creating an instance of math, so the constructor is announce as static.
If it's private, then you can't call it ==> you can't instantiate the class. Useful in some cases, like a singleton.
There's a discussion and some more examples here.
I saw a question from you addressing the same issue.
Simply if you don't want to allow the others to create instances, then keep the constuctor within a limited scope. The practical application (An example) is the singleton pattern.
Constructor is private for some purpose like when you need to implement singleton or limit the number of object of a class.
For instance in singleton implementation we have to make the constructor private
#include<iostream>
using namespace std;
class singletonClass
{
static int i;
static singletonClass* instance;
public:
static singletonClass* createInstance()
{
if(i==0)
{
instance =new singletonClass;
i=1;
}
return instance;
}
void test()
{
cout<<"successfully created instance";
}
};
int singletonClass::i=0;
singletonClass* singletonClass::instance=NULL;
int main()
{
singletonClass *temp=singletonClass::createInstance();//////return instance!!!
temp->test();
}
Again if you want to limit the object creation upto 10 then use the following
#include<iostream>
using namespace std;
class singletonClass
{
static int i;
static singletonClass* instance;
public:
static singletonClass* createInstance()
{
if(i<10)
{
instance =new singletonClass;
i++;
cout<<"created";
}
return instance;
}
};
int singletonClass::i=0;
singletonClass* singletonClass::instance=NULL;
int main()
{
singletonClass *temp=singletonClass::createInstance();//return an instance
singletonClass *temp1=singletonClass::createInstance();///return another instance
}
Thanks
You can have more than one constructor. C++ provides a default constructor and a default copy constructor if you don't provide one explicitly. Suppose you have a class that can only be constructed using some parameterized constructor. Maybe it initialized variables. If a user then uses this class without that constructor, they can cause no end of problems. A good general rule: If the default implementation is not valid, make both the default and copy constructor private and don't provide an implementation:
class C
{
public:
C(int x);
private:
C();
C(const C &);
};
Use the compiler to prevent users from using the object with the default constructors that are not valid.
Quoting from Effective Java, you can have a class with private constructor to have a utility class that defines constants (as static final fields).
(EDIT: As per the comment this is something which might be applicable only with Java, I'm unaware if this construct is applicable/needed in other OO languages (say C++))
An example as below:
public class Constants {
private Contants():
public static final int ADDRESS_UNIT = 32;
...
}
EDIT_1:
Again, below explanation is applicable in Java : (and referring from the book, Effective Java)
An instantiation of utility class like the one below ,though not harmful, doesn't serve
any purpose since they are not designed to be instantiated.
For example, say there is no private Constructor for class Constants.
A code chunk like below is valid but doesn't better convey intention of
the user of Constants class
unit = (this.length)/new Constants().ADDRESS_UNIT;
in contrast with code like
unit = (this.length)/Constants.ADDRESS_UNIT;
Also I think a private constructor conveys the intention of the designer of the Constants
(say) class better.
Java provides a default parameterless public constructor if no constructor
is provided, and if your intention is to prevent instantiation then a private constructor is
needed.
One cannot mark a top level class static and even a final class can be instantiated.
Utility classes could have private constructors. Users of the classes should not be able to instantiate these classes:
public final class UtilityClass {
private UtilityClass() {}
public static utilityMethod1() {
...
}
}
You may want to prevent a class to be instantiated freely. See the singleton design pattern as an example. In order to guarantee the uniqueness, you can't let anyone create an instance of it :-)
One of the important use is in SingleTon class
class Person
{
private Person()
{
//Its private, Hense cannot be Instantiated
}
public static Person GetInstance()
{
//return new instance of Person
// In here I will be able to access private constructor
}
};
Its also suitable, If your class has only static methods. i.e nobody needs to instantiate your class
It's really one obvious reason: you want to build an object, but it's not practical to do it (in term of interface) within the constructor.
The Factory example is quite obvious, let me demonstrate the Named Constructor idiom.
Say I have a class Complex which can represent a complex number.
class Complex { public: Complex(double,double); .... };
The question is: does the constructor expects the real and imaginary parts, or does it expects the norm and angle (polar coordinates) ?
I can change the interface to make it easier:
class Complex
{
public:
static Complex Regular(double, double = 0.0f);
static Complex Polar(double, double = 0.0f);
private:
Complex(double, double);
}; // class Complex
This is called the Named Constructor idiom: the class can only be built from scratch by explicitly stating which constructor we wish to use.
It's a special case of many construction methods. The Design Patterns provide a good number of ways to build object: Builder, Factory, Abstract Factory, ... and a private constructor will ensure that the user is properly constrained.
In addition to the better-known uses…
To implement the Method Object pattern, which I’d summarize as:
“Private constructor, public static method”
“Object for implementation, function for interface”
If you want to implement a function using an object, and the object is not useful outside of doing a one-off computation (by a method call), then you have a Throwaway Object. You can encapsulate the object creation and method call in a static method, preventing this common anti-pattern:
z = new A(x,y).call();
…replacing it with a (namespaced) function call:
z = A.f(x,y);
The caller never needs to know or care that you’re using an object internally, yielding a cleaner interface, and preventing garbage from the object hanging around or incorrect use of the object.
For example, if you want to break up a computation across methods foo, bar, and zork, for example to share state without having to pass many values in and out of functions, you could implement it as follows:
class A {
public static Z f(x, y) {
A a = new A(x, y);
a.foo();
a.bar();
return a.zork();
}
private A(X x, Y y) { /* ... */ };
}
This Method Object pattern is given in Smalltalk Best Practice Patterns, Kent Beck, pages 34–37, where it is the last step of a refactoring pattern, ending:
Replace the original method with one that creates an instance of the new class, constructed with the parameters and receiver of the original method, and invokes “compute”.
This differs significantly from the other examples here: the class is instantiable (unlike a utility class), but the instances are private (unlike factory methods, including singletons etc.), and can live on the stack, since they never escape.
This pattern is very useful in bottoms-up OOP, where objects are used to simplify low-level implementation, but are not necessarily exposed externally, and contrasts with the top-down OOP that is often presented and begins with high-level interfaces.
Sometimes is useful if you want to control how and when (and how many) instances of an object are created.
Among others, used in patterns:
Singleton pattern
Builder pattern
On use of private constructors could also be to increase readability/maintainability in the face of domain-driven design.
From "Microsoft .NET - Architecing Applications for the Enterprise, 2nd Edition":
var request = new OrderRequest(1234);
Quote, "There are two problems here. First, when looking at the code, one can hardly guess what’s going
on. An instance of OrderRequest is being created, but why and using which data? What’s 1234? This
leads to the second problem: you are violating the ubiquitous language of the bounded context. The
language probably says something like this: a customer can issue an order request and is allowed to
specify a purchase ID. If that’s the case, here’s a better way to get a new OrderRequest instance:"
var request = OrderRequest.CreateForCustomer(1234);
where
private OrderRequest() { ... }
public OrderRequest CreateForCustomer (int customerId)
{
var request = new OrderRequest();
...
return request;
}
I'm not advocating this for every single class, but for the above DDD scenario I think it makes perfect sense to prevent a direct creation of a new object.
If you create a private constructor you need to create the object inside the class
enter code here#include<iostream>
//factory method
using namespace std;
class Test
{
private:
Test(){
cout<<"Object created"<<endl;
}
public:
static Test* m1(){
Test *t = new Test();
return t;
}
void m2(){
cout<<"m2-Test"<<endl;
}
};
int main(){
Test *t = Test::m1();
t->m2();
return 0;
}