In smalltalk, when we create a object by calling new which calls initialize . I want to initialize but with my own parameters(passed at run time). How can I do that.
e.g. Myobjcet new
but how do I pass parameters to this so they get passed to initialize.
I am using Pharo.
If I recall, reimplementing class methods new and initialize should be avoided.
Instead, you can create your own class method (other than new or initialize) that takes parameters, and use those when creating your new instance. For example in Squeak look at the class method with: for class Collection. It first creates a collection instance, and then adds to the instance the object passed as an argument.
with: anObject
"Answer an instance of me containing anObject."
^ self new
add: anObject;
yourself
Your Pharo maybe based on Squeak, so you should find the same, or a similar class method for Collection in your image.
Correctly writing the instantiation and initialization code of complex object hierarchies is tricky in Smalltalk. What is more, the default initialization logic as implemented in Object is different across different Smalltalk dialects (i.e. Pharo decided to introduce a default initializer, making things worse).
To avoid confusion and to have clear and consistent rules the Seaside team decided to apply the following rules for all their code:
Object-Initialization at Seaside
Also the Seaside code includes Code Critic rules that check for mistakes in the use of the proposed initialization pattern.
Related
I program in PHP but this is a general Object orientation question.
What do we feel about calling singleton classes from within an object vs calling one outside and passing the variable in?
Option one:
$instance = Singleton::getInstance();
$obj = new ClassName();
$obj->setSingleton($instance);
Option two:
class ClassName
{
public function __construct(){
$instance = Singleton::getInstance();
$instance->doSomething();
}
}
Is this just a "per-use" decision (i.e. singleton implementing interface, etc) or are there rules?
I can see passing objects VS singletons but one about singleton instances vs calling? Think typical code with lots of classes and many uses for the singleton instance... Are there any rules for this?
Either is fine, but when others will look at your code it might be less obvious they're dealing with a singleton in your option #1, especially if the code grows big. IMHO it's perfectly valid to keep a reference of your singleton in the body of a function when you need to call it a few times in a row, but I wouldn't keep it as member variable.
Keeping a member variable also implies your objects will be bigger for no apparent reason.
I have a problem in understanding OOP...
This is it :
Sometime's you create an object with this syntax:
Object ObjectName = new Object();
But sometimes, we don't need to do that like in Android:
Textview TextviewName;
Or in J2ME:
form formName;
I already searched it and I got some information (but not sure) that this is because of static method... is it true? I think it has a relation with Polymorphism.. is it true?
Thanks all.
PS : Sory if I made some mistakes, English is not my native languange :D
Forget static methods - they're not relevant here. I'd advocate only looking at static methods / elements when you've truly grasped what objects are.
In Java, you can do this:
Object object;
Just as well as you can do this:
Object object = new Object();
In the first example, you're creating a reference but you're not populating that reference with anything, in the second example you're creating a reference and populating it with a new object, on which you can call methods, modify values and so on.
If you try and call methods on the first declaration you won't be able to - there's nothing there. Depending on the language and how you've declared it this might produce an error at runtime or a compile time error (Java does both depending on whether it's a field or a local variable.) The principle though is the same for all OO languages, you can't dereference (call methods, fields, etc.) on a reference that hasn't been populated, because in effect you're trying to call a method on something that isn't there.
you are mixing different languages and it's not the case of static methods nor polymorphism..
i suggest to read a good book of OOP beginning with the basis.. you can find "Thinking in c++" for free on the net..
Your Textview would not be initialized. Any try at using it would result in a NullReference error. In order for an object to actually be created, you have to use the new syntax or a function that returns a valid object.
However, this is a syntax-dependent issue, so first decide what language you want to study. If your Textview had been declared in C++, it would actually create an object, on the stack.
It is my understanding that it is difficult to create constructors of classes in Smalltalk and Objective-C. This is because the constructor can't be a message of a class instance because the class Class is not yet defined.
As far as I can tell, the solution is to create a new class whose only instance is itself a class. But how does the constructor work in this situation? I don't understand the process.
I'm talking in terms of Smalltalk. There are two types of things that you could reasonably call constructors here. One is the method that initializes a new instance of a class. The other is the things that initializes a class. Neither of them is difficult.
For instance initialization, the convention is that you implement the "new" method on the class as
new
^super new initialize
(do the superclass's implementation of new, and then send the "initialize" message to the result and return it)
Lots of classes may already inherit this implementation, so you just need to write an initialize method as
initialize
super initialize.
foo := 1.
etc.
To initialize a new class, the mechanism is similar. You implement a class method called "initialize", and it will automatically get sent when the class is loaded into a new Smalltalk environment (image).
The solution is to create a method on the class which does all the necessary initialisation of the instance.
I'm reading about constructors,
When an object is instantiated for a class, c'tors (if explicitly written or a default one) are the starting points for execution. My doubts are
is a c'tor more like the main() in
C
Yes i understand the point that you
can set all the default values using
c'tor. I can also emulate the behavior
by writing a custom method. Then why a c'tor?
Example:
//The code below is written in C#.
public class Manipulate
{
public static int Main(string[] args) {
Provide provide = new Provide();
provide.Number(8);
provide.Square();
Console.ReadKey();
return 0;
}
}
public class Provide {
uint num;
public void Number(uint number)
{
num = number;
}
public void Square()
{
num *= num;
Console.WriteLine("{0}", num);
}
}
Am learning to program independently, so I'm depending on programming communities, can you also suggest me a good OOP's resource to get a better understanding. If am off topic please excuse me.
Head First OOA&D will be a good start.
Dont you feel calling a function for setting each and every member variable of your class is a bit overhead.
With a constructor you can initialize all your member variables at one go. Isnt this reason enough for you to have constructors.
Constructor and Destructor functionality may be emulated using regular methods. However, what makes those two type of methods unique is that the language treats them in a special way.
They are automatically called when an object is created or destroyed. This presents a uniform means to handle the most delicate operations that must take place during those two critical periods of an object's lifetime. It takes out the possibility of an end user of a class forgetting to call those at the appropriate times.
Furthermore, advanced OO features such as inheritance require that uniformity to even work.
First of all, most answers will depend at least a bit on the language you're using. Reasons that make great sense in one language don't necessarily have direct analogs in other languages. Just for example, in C++ there are quite a few situations where temporary objects are created automatically. The ctor is invoked as part of that process, but for most practical purposes it's impossible to explicitly invoke other member functions in the process. That doesn't necessarily apply to other OO languages though -- some won't create temporary objects implicitly at all.
Generally you should do all your initialization in the constructor. The constructor is the first thing called when an instance of your class is created, so you should setup any defaults here.
I think a good way to learn is comparing OOP between languages, it's like seeing the same picture from diferent angles.
Googling a while:
java (I prefer this, it's simple and full)- http://java.sun.com/docs/books/tutorial/java/concepts/
python - http://www.devshed.com/c/a/Python/Object-Oriented-Programming-With-Python-part-1/
c# - http://cplus.about.com/od/learnc/ss/csharpclasses.htm
Why constructors?
The main diference between a simple function (that also could have functions inside) and an Object, is the way that an Object can be hosted inside a "variable", with all it functions inside, and that also can react completly diferent to an other "variable" with the same kind of "object" inside. The way to make them have the same structure with diferent behaviours depends on the arguments you gave to the class.
So here's a lazy example:
car() is now a class.
c1 = car()
c2 = car()
¿c1 is exactly c2? Yes.
c1 = car(volkswagen)
c2 = car(lamborghini)
C1 has the same functionalities than C2, but they are completly diferent kinds of car()
Variables volkswagen and lamborghini were passed directly to the constructor.
Why a -constructor-? why not any other function? The answer is: order.
That's my best shot, man, for this late hours. I hope i've helped somehow.
You can't emulate the constructor in a custom method as the custom method is not called when the object is created. Only the constructor is called. Well, of course you can then call your custom method after you create the object, but this is not convention and other people using your object will not know to do this.
A constructor is just a convention that is agreed upon as a way to setup your object once it is created.
One of the reasons we need constructor is 'encapsulation',the code do something initialization must invisible
You also can't force the passing of variables without using a constructor. If you only want to instantiate an object if you have say an int to pass to it, you can set the default constructor as private, and make your constructor take an int. This way, it's impossible to create an object of that class without having it take an int.
Sub-objects will be initialized in the constructor. In languages like C++, where sub-objects exist within the containing object (instead of as separate objects connected via pointers or handles), the constructor is your only chance to pass parameters to sub-object constructors. Even in Java and C#, any base class is directly contained, so parameters to its constructor must be provided by your constructor.
Lastly, any constant (or in C#, readonly) member variables can only be set from the constructor. Even helper functions called from the constructor are unable to change them.
When programming C++ we used to create copy constructors when needed (or so we were taught). When switching to Java a few years ago, I noticed that the Cloneable interface is now being used instead. C# followed the same route defining the ICloneable interface. It seems to me that cloning is part of the definition of OOP. But I wonder, why were these interfaces created, and the copy constructor seems to have been dropped?
When I thought about it, I came to the thought that a copy constructor would not be useful if one needs to make a copy of an object whose type is not known (as in having a reference to a base type). This seems logical. But I wonder whether there are other reasons that I do not know of, for which the Cloneable interfaces have been favored over copy constructors?
I think it's because there is no such inherent need for a copy constructor in Java and in C# for reference types. In C++ objects are named. You can (and you will most often) copy (and in C++1x move) them around e.g when returning from functions, since returning pointers require you to allocate dynamic memory which would be slow and painful to manage. The syntax is T(x) so it makes sense to make a constructor taking a T reference. C++ couldn't make a clone function, since that would require returning an object by value again (and thus another copy).
But in Java, objects are unnamed. There are only references to them, which can be copied, but the object itself isn't copied. For the cases when you actually need to copy them, you can use the clone call (but i read in other anwers clone is flawed. i'm no java programmer so i cannot comment that). Since not the object itself is returned, but rather a reference to it, a clone function will suffice. Also a clone function can be overriden. That's not going to work with copy constructors. And incidentally, in C++ when you need to copy a polymorphic object, a clone function is required too. It's got a name, the so-called virtual copy constructor.
Because C++ and Java (and C#) aren't the same thing. C++ has no built-in interfaces because interfaces aren't part of the language. You can fake them with abstract classes but they aren't how you think about C++. Also, in C++ assignment is normally deep.
In Java and C# assignment just involves copying the handle to the internal object. Basically when you see:
SomeClass x = new SomeClass();
in Java or C#, there's a level of indirection builtin that doesn't exist in C++. In C++, you write:
SomeClass* x = new SomeClass();
Assignment in C++ involves the dereferenced value:
*x = *another_x;
In Java you can get access to the "real" object as there is no dereference operator like *x. So to do a deep copy, you need a function: clone(). And both Java and C# wrapped that function into an interface.
It's the issues of final type and of cascading the clone operation through the super classes which is not addressed by copy constructors - they are not extensible. But the Java clone mechanism is widely considered badly broken too; especially problems where a subclass does not implement clone(), but inherits from a superclass that implements cloneable.
I strongly recommend you research cloning carefully, whatever path you choose - you will likely choose the clone() option, but make sure you know exactly how to do it properly. It's rather like equals() and hashCode() - looks simple on the surface, but it has to be done exactly right.
I think you haven't get the right point. I give you my two cents.
Fundamentally there's a problem: creating a clone of a class without knowing the exact class type. If you use copy constructor, you cannot.
Here is an example:
class A {
public A(A c) { aMember = c.aMember }
int aMember;
}
class B : A {
public B(B c) : base(c) { bMember = c.bMember }
int bMember;
}
class GenericContainer {
public GenericContainer(GenericContainer c) {
// XXX Wrong code: if aBaseClass is an instance of B, the cloned member won't
// be a B instance!
aBaseClass = new A(c.aBaseClass);
}
A aBaseClass;
}
The Clone method, if declare virtual, could create the right class instance of the generic member.
An this problem is common to every language, C# C++ or Java...
Maybe this is what you was meaning, but I cannot understand this from any answer.
Just wanted to add that in Java the copy constructor is not completely useless.
There are cases where your class has a private instance variable of a mutable non-final type, e.g. Date, and has a setter and getter for the variable. In the setter, you should make a copy of the given date, because the caller could modify it later and thereby manipulate your object's internal state (usually by accident, but maybe intentional). In the getter, the same precaution is required.
The defensive copy could be implemented by calling clone() (the class Date is cloneable), but a malicious caller could call the setter with a subclass of Date which overrides the clone() method with {return this;}, and so the caller might still be able to manipulate your object. This is where the copy constructor comes into play: By calling new Date(theDate), you are sure to get a fresh Date instance with the same timestamp as the given date, without any connection between the two date instances. In the getter, you could use the clone method, because you know the private variable will be of class Date, but for consistency, usually the copy constructor is used there, too.
Also note that the copy constructor would note be required if the Date class was final (calling clone() were safe) or immutable (no copy required).
I think its only because once u have defined a copy constructor, you could never pass the reference itself again. (Unless it would have a function that does that...but thats not any easier than using the clone() method.)
In C++ its not a problem: you can pass the whole object or its reference.