Hey Guys i'm very new in software development,I still no idea when to use which,whats the meaning of service lifetime!it may seem stupid but please help me,i have an interface :
public interface IAccessInfo
{
public IEnumerable<AccessInfo> getResult();
}
what it supposed to do is to returns me the information about my Turbines;here is the implementation of it :
public class AcessInfoData:IAccessInfo
{
private DbContextClass db;
public AcessInfoData(DbContextClass context)
{
db = context;
}
public IEnumerable<AccessInfo> getResult()
{
var turbines = (from c in db.accessinf
where s.user_id == "i0004912"
select new AccessInfo
{
InfoType = c.type,
TurbineId = c.m_plc_id.ToString(),
TurbineIP = c.turbine_ip.ToString(),
TurbineIdSorting = c.turbine_id,
Blade = c.blade,
Certification = c.certification,
}).Distinct();
return turbines;
}
}
it gets an instance of my DB and gets the data;and in my controller i use it like this:
public class AcessInfoController : ControllerBase
{
private IAccessInfo _acess;
public AcessInfoController(IAccessInfo access)
{
_acess = access;
}
[HttpGet]
public IActionResult Index()
{
var rsult = _acess.getResult();
return Ok( rsult);
}
}
now in the Startup i registered it :
services.AddScoped<IAccessInfo, AcessInfoData>();
it works,but if you sk me why i user Scoped and not Singleton or transient i have no idea why,really,any one can make it clear for me?
I will try to explain a little about the mentioned cases:
scoped : For all needs of an object during the life of an operation (such as a request from the client) a single instance of the object is created. (It means that only one instance of the object is sent for all requirements during life time of a request)
Singleton: Creates only one instance of object and sends it for all requirements in the application scope.(For all needs everywhere in the program, only one instance of the object is sent, a bit like static objects).
Transient: Ioc container, makes an instance of object whenever code needs it, that is, it makes an instance for each requirement anywhere in the program and at any time, which means that if the program needs an object 3 times, it makes an independent instance for each.
Instance: In this case, each time an object is needed, only one instance of it is provided to the program, which you defined it in the startup section. (when defining it in the startup section, you specify how to create an instance).
I hope to reduce some of the ambiguities.
Please see the code below :
package bk;
public class A {
protected void methodA() {
System.out.println("Calling the method A !");
}
}
// And I have an another package :
package com;
import bk.A;
public class B extends A {
public void methodB() {
System.out.println("Goi phuong thuc B !");
}
public static void main(String[] args) {
A a = new B();
a.methodA();
}
}
How can I allow a to call methodA()?
Cause methodA() is protected and it can be called within derived classes only. Change it to public if you want to call it like this
Protected methods can only be called from within the class itself, or from derived classes.
The a variable is declared as a variable of type A. Class A itself has no publicly available methodA, so you cannot call it.
Yes, you assign a new B instance to the a variable and the a.methodA() statement is inside the derived B class, but the compiler only sees that a is of type A. It could be any other subclass of A as well, in which case you still wouldn't have access to methodA.
You'll have to tell the compiler that the a variable is actually of type B. Then you will be able to call methodA, because you're calling it from within class B.
B a = new B();
You are trying to access methodA() like it is public. Declaring simply methodA() in the B class is fine, but you cannot do a.methodA().
Conversely if it wasn't a method and simply protected int a;
you could do
a = 1; in class B
but
A a = new A();
a.a = 1;
is not legal
A protected method is visible to inheriting classes, even not part of the same package. A package scope (default) method is not. That is the only difference between protected and package scope.
The theory is that someone extending your class with protected access knows more about what they are doing than someone who is merely using it with public access. They also need more access to your class’s inner workings. Other than that, protected behaves like default package access.
I'm reading this article about how JVM invokes methods, and I think I got most of it. However, I'm still having trouble understanding the need for invokeinterface.
The way I understand it, a class basically has a virtual table of methods and when calling a method with either invokevirtual or invokeinterface this virtual table is consulted.
What is the difference, then, between a method that's defined on an interface and a method defined on a base class? Why the different bytecodes?
The description of the instructions also looks very similar.
The article seems to claim that the method table of an interface can have "different offsets" every time a method is called. What I don't understand is why an interface would have a method table at all, since no object can have the interface as its actual type.
What am I missing?
Each Java class is associated with a virtual method table that contains "links" to the bytecode of each method of a class. That table is inherited from the superclass of a particular class and extended with regard to the new methods of a subclass. E.g.,
class BaseClass {
public void method1() { }
public void method2() { }
public void method3() { }
}
class NextClass extends BaseClass {
public void method2() { } // overridden from BaseClass
public void method4() { }
}
results in the tables
BaseClass
1. BaseClass/method1()
2. BaseClass/method2()
3. BaseClass/method3()
NextClass
1. BaseClass/method1()
2. NextClass/method2()
3. BaseClass/method3()
4. NextClass/method4()
Note, how the virtual method table of NextClass retains the order of entries of the table of BaseClass and just overwrites the "link" of method2() which it overrides.
An implementation of the JVM can thus optimize a call to invokevirtual by remembering that BaseClass/method3() will always be the third entry in the virtual method table of any object this method will ever be invoked on.
With invokeinterface this optimization is not possible. E.g.,
interface MyInterface {
void ifaceMethod();
}
class AnotherClass extends NextClass implements MyInterface {
public void method4() { } // overridden from NextClass
public void ifaceMethod() { }
}
class MyClass implements MyInterface {
public void method5() { }
public void ifaceMethod() { }
}
This class hierarchy results in the virtual method tables
AnotherClass
1. BaseClass/method1()
2. NextClass/method2()
3. BaseClass/method3()
4. AnotherClass/method4()
5. MyInterface/ifaceMethod()
MyClass
1. MyClass/method5()
2. MyInterface/ifaceMethod()
As you can see, AnotherClass contains the interface's method in its fifth entry and MyClass contains it in its second entry. To actually find the correct entry in the virtual method table, a call to a method with invokeinterface will always have to search the complete table without a chance for the style of optimization that invokevirtual does.
There are additional differences like the fact, that invokeinterface can be used together with object references that do not actually implement the interface. Therefore, invokeinterface will have to check at runtime whether a method exists in the table and potentially throw an exception.
Comparing both instructions in the JVM Spec, the very first difference is that invokevirtual checks the accessibility of the method during the lookup, while invokeinterface doesn't.
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;
}