In my Restler index.php let's say I've done this:
$r->addAPIClass('Person');
$r->addAPIClass('Team');
And now I'm inside one of the methods defined in Person, and I have a need to call one of the methods defined in Team. What's the right way to get a handle to the Team API so that I can call one of its methods?
There is nothing special, doing it with Restler.
If it is a static method directly call Team::method(parameter)
Otherwise create an instance either
at constructor if you need it in many methods and store it in a private variable
at the method level
If you are using a database model, it may already provide you with an instance of team as a relationship
Related
Let's assume I wrote a class Authentication that provides methods for registering users and signing them in.
Of course I need another class DB that will run the actual database statements and retrieve the data.
When importing Authentication in another application to make use of it, I would call its method signUpUser() that will sign up a user.
Now this method will run essentially a method with the same name and purpose that you would expect from Authentication.signUpUser() but actually doing the database statements in DB.
Is there any way of preventing this "methods in this class do nothing but calling another methods" approach? Should I event prevent such wrapper functions? What are good habits here and why?
I know that CreationPolicy.Shared means singleton, as explained in here in this SO question.
So what about NonShared?
Should I have something like this?
Bind<IDataRepositoryFactory>().To<DataRepositoryFactory>().InTransientScope();
Or should I leave it without any scope like
Bind<IDataRepositoryFactory>().To<DataRepositoryFactory>();
What is the difference between the above two?
The default scope in Ninject is Transient, which effectively means a new instance will be created every time one is requested, so there is no difference between your two examples.
More on Ninject scopes here:
Transient - A new instance of the type will be created each time one is requested. This is the default scope if none is specified.
Singleton - Only a single instance of the type will be created, and the same instance will be returned for each subsequent request.
Thread - One instance of the type will be created per thread.
Request - One instance of the type will be created for each Web Request. See the Ninject.Web.Common InRequestScope article for more information before using this.
Named, Call, Parent - Supplied by an extension. See Ninject.Extensions.NamedScope extension for more information before using this.
Custom - You can also easily define your own scopes using the .InScope(Func selectScope) method.
I have a class called Contact and one called Account
and I have a method called public static Account GetAccount(Contact c) {...}
Where is the best place to put this method? What design patterns should I be looking at?
A) With the Contact class
B) With the Account class
C) Have the method accessible in both classes
D) Somewhere else?
There are probably many good answers to your question. I'll take a stab at an answer, but it will have my personal biases baked in it.
In OOP, you generally don't see globally accessible) functions, disconnected from, but available to all classes. (Static methods might be globally available, but they are still tied to a particular class). To follow up on dkatzel's answer, a common pattern is in OOP is instance manager. You have a class or instance that provides access to a a database, file store, REST service, or some other place where Contact or Account objects are saved for future use.
You might be using a persistence framework with your Python project. Maybe something like this: https://docs.djangoproject.com/en/dev/topics/db/managers/
Some persistence frameworks create handy methods instance methods like Contact.getAccount() -- send the getAccount message to a contact and the method return the associated Account object. ...Or developers can add these sorts of convenience methods themselves.
Another kind of convenience method can live on the static side of a class. For example, the Account class could have a static getAccountForContact() method that returns a particular account for a given Contact object. This method would access the instance manager and use the information in the contact object to look up the correct account.
Usually you would not add a static method to the Contact class called getAccountForContact(). Instead, you would create an instance method on Contact called getAccount(). This method could then call Account.getAccountForContact() and pass "self" in as the parameter. (Or talk to an instance manager directly).
My guiding principle is typically DRY - do not repeat yourself. I pick the option that eliminates the most copy-and-paste code.
If you define your method in this way, it's not really connected with either of your classes. You can as well put it in a Util class:
public class AccountUtil{
public static Account getAccount(Contact c){ ... }
// you can put other methods here, e.g.
public static Contact getContact(Account a){ ... }
}
This follows the pattern of grouping static functions in utility classes like Math in Java / C#.
If you would like to bound the function to a class in a clear way, consider designing your class like this:
public class Contact{
public Account getAccount(){ ... } // returns the Account of this Contact
// other methods
}
In OOP it is generally recommended that you avoid using global functions when possible. If you want a static function anyways, I'd put it in a separate class.
It depends on how the lookup from Contact to Account happens but I would vote for putting it in a new class that uses the Repository pattern.
Repository repo = ...
Account account = repo.getAccount(contact);
That way you can have multiple Repository implemtations that look up the info from a database, or an HTTP request or internal mapping etc. and you don't have to modify the code that uses the repositories.
My vote is for a new class, especially if the function returns an existing account object. That is, if you have a collection of instances of Contact and a collection of instances of Account and this function maps one to the other, use a new class to encapsulate this mapping.
Otherwise, it probably makes sense as a method on Contact if GetAccount returns a new account filled in from a template. This would hold if GetAccount is something like a factory method for the Account class, or if the Account class is just a record type (instances of which have lifetimes which are bound to instances of Contact).
The only way I see this making sense as part of Account is if it makes sense as a constructor.
I'd like to link my custom domain object into the Petrel free memory command. My domain object caches data while visualised and this cache could be cleared when the user wants to free memory.
I have found the IMemorySaver interface and tried declaring this on my custom domain object but the FreeMemory method is not called when the user choose to free memory in Petrel.
Any ideas?
Neal
In Ocean 2013.1 a new API has been introduced that allows custom domain objects and ToggleWindows from a plug-in to be told when the user has invoked the ‘Free memory’ feature (this will also work for programmatic calls to PetrelSystem.ForceFreeMemory()).
The API follows a similar pattern to the existing INameInfoFactory and IImageInfoFactory APIs.
In order to use the API you need to create a factory object for your custom domain object (or ToggleWindow) that implements the new IResourceSaverFactory interface.
This interface requires that you implement a single method called GetResourceSaver(). This
method will return a ResourceSaver object that is associated with your custom domain object (or ToggleWindow).
ResourceSaver is an abstract class and you should implement the FreeResources() method on your derived class.
When the ‘Free memory’ feature is invoked the system will use your ResourceSaverFactory to obtain a ResourceSaver object for each of your custom domain object (or ToggleWindow) instances.
The FreeResources() method will be called on your ResouceSaver
objects.
Regards,
Chippy
Neal, the IMemorySaver is declared as a service interface, which you should not re-implement.
Having said that, participation in Petrel's controlled resource management is a fair requirement.
I'm redesigning an old VB6 application into VB.net and there is one thing I'm not sure on the best way to do.
In the VB6 application whenever we created a new instance of a component, we would pass in the user details (user name and the like) so we new who was performing the tasks. However, no that I'm redesigning I've created some nice class designs, but I'm having to add in user details into every class and it just looks wrong.
Is there a VB.net way of doing this so my classes can just have class specific details? Some way so that if my classes need to know who is performing a task, they can get the information themselves, rather than having it passed in whenever the objects are created?
You could put the details of the current user in a class that is accessible by all class instances of your application.
One place you could consider putting it is in the MyApplication class. You could also create a module and place it there.
Could you wrap the current user details into an object, and pass the object when you create the others? They would just keep a reference, and delegate to the user object for user-specific stuff.
That seems like the obvious way?