If I have a Cat and Dog class that implement PetBase. And they each hold an object called Owner. And Owner holds an object called Emotion. How would I limit accessing certain properties or functions or function parameters on the Emotion class based on whether it belongs to a Cat or Dog? Like so:
Dog d = new Dog();
d.Owner.Emotion.SetFearLevel(10); // dog owners can have a fear level from 1-10 so let the user decide.
Cat c = new Cat();
c.Owner.Emotion.SetFearLevel(); // all cat owners have the same fear level so I don't want the user to be able to pass in a parameter but still be able to call SetFearLevel(). How do I enforce this?
In this example, I want to restrict the Cat owners from being able to pass in a parameter to SetFearLevel(), but give the Dog owners the flexibility to be as afraid as they want (ie. be able to pass in a parameter to SetFearLevel()).
What do I have to change in the design?
[EDIT]
It was a toss up between Jordao's and DavidFrancis's answers. In the end, I went with DavidFrancis's design due to the tree structure nature of the app.
SetFearLevel is a different signature so you need 2 different subtypes of a base Emotion type.
Then you would need a separate owner subtype for each pet type.
Return types can usually be Covariant (ie a subtype) so each owner subtype can return the specific Emotion subtype that applies to that owner.
You could encapsulate the access to the functionality that you need in the classes themselves:
dog.setOwnerFearLevel(5);
cat.setOwnerFear();
Just be careful with Demeter transmogrifiers.
Your linkages are the wrong way around. You want to start with owner.SetFearLevel(5). Owner owner has to know about his/her own pet and his/her own emotions. Hence the method can check, "Do I own a cat or a dog?" and then set it's emotion instance properly: "I am not afraid dispite that parameter of 5 (because I own a cat)." Or to put it another way, the owner references the pet, not the pet the owner.
To see this more clearly, note that your model easily allows one person to own any number of dogs and cats. You can always create a new pet and make this hapless person the owner. This can be useful, but it makes calculating his/her fear level rather complicated. In a sense, it's almost impossible, because, while for any given pet you know the owner, given any owner you don't know the pet. (An easily fixed problem, I admit.)
So, reference the pet (or pets--maybe use the maximum fear factor) in the Owner class and move the SetFearLevel method to the Owner class from the Emotion class, and everything should fit together nicely.
I have to add a bunch of trivial or seldom used attributes to an object in my business model.
So, imagine class Foo which has a bunch of standard information such as Price, Color, Weight, Length. Now, I need to add a bunch of attributes to Foo that are rarely deviating from the norm and rarely used (in the scope of the entire domain). So, Foo.DisplayWhenConditionIsX is true for 95% of instances; likewise, Foo.ShowPriceWhenConditionIsY is almost always true, and Foo.PriceWhenViewedByZ has the same value as Foo.Price most of the time.
It just smells wrong to me to add a dozen fields like this to both my class and database table. However, I don't know that wrapping these new fields into their own FooDisplayAttributes class makes sense. That feels like adding complexity to my DAL and BLL for little gain other than a smaller object. Any recommendations?
Try setting up a separate storage class/struct for the rarely used fields and hold it as a single field, say "rarelyUsedFields" (for example, it will be a pointer in C++ and a reference in Java - you don't mention your language.)
Have setters/getters for these fields on your class. Setters will check if the value is not the same as default and lazily initialize rarelyUsedFields, then set the respective field value (say, rarelyUsedFields.DisplayWhenConditionIsX = false). Getters they will read the rarelyUsedFields value and return default values (true for DisplayWhenConditionIsX and so on) if it is NULL, otherwise return rarelyUsedFields.DisplayWhenConditionIsX.
This approach is used quite often, see WebKit's Node.h as an example (and its focused() method.)
Abstraction makes your question a bit hard to understand, but I would suggest using custom getters such as Foo.getPrice() and Foo.getSpecialPrice().
The first one would simply return the attribute, while the second would perform operations on it first.
This is only possible if there is a way to calculate the "seldom used version" from the original attribute value, but in most common cases this would be possible, providing you can access data from another object storing parameters, such as FooShop.getCurrentDiscount().
The problem I see is more about the Foo object having side effects.
In your example, I see two features : display and price.
I would build one or many Displayer (who knows how to display) and make the price a component object, with a list of internal price modificators.
Note all this is relevant only if your Foo objects are called by numerous clients.
What is the difference between an Instance and an Object?
Is there a difference or not?
The Instance and Object are from Object Oriented Programming.
For some programming languages like Java, C++, and Smalltalk, it is important to describe and understand code. In other languages that used in Structured Programming, this concept doesn't exist.
This is a view from Structural Programming. There's no real significant difference that should consume too much of your time. There might be some fancy language that some people might take up a lot of spaces to write about, but at the end of the day, as far as a coder, developer, programmer, architect, is concerned, an instance of a class and an object mean the same thing and can often be used interchangeably. I have never met anyone in my career that would be picky and spend a half-hour trying to point out the differences because there's really none. Time can be better spent on other development efforts.
UPDATE With regards to Swift, this is what Apple who invented Swift prefers :
An instance of a class is traditionally known as an object. However,
Swift classes and structures are much closer in functionality than in
other languages, and much of this chapter describes functionality that
can apply to instances of either a class or a structure type. Because
of this, the more general term instance is used.
Excellent question.
I'll explain it in the simplest way possible:
Say you have 5 apples in your basket. Each of those apples is an object of type Apple, which has some characteristics (i.e. big, round, grows on trees).
In programming terms, you can have a class called Apple, which has variables size:big, shape:round, habitat:grows on trees. To have 5 apples in your basket, you need to instantiate 5 apples. Apple apple1, Apple apple2, Apple apple3 etc....
Alternatively: Objects are the definitions of something, instances are the physical things.
Does this make sense?
Instance: instance means just creating a reference(copy).
object: means when memory location is associated with the object (is a run-time entity of the class) by using the new operator.
In simple words, Instance refers to the copy of the object at a particular time whereas object refers to the memory address of the class.
Object:
It is a generice term basically it is a Software bundle that has state(variables) and behaviour(methods)
Class:
A blue print(template) for an object
instance-it's a unique object thing for example you create a object two times what does that mean is yo have created two instances
Let me give an example
Class student()
{
private string firstName;
public student(string fname)
{
firstName=fname;
}
Public string GetFirstName()
{
return firstName;
}
}
Object example:
Student s1=new student("Martin");
Student s2=new student("Kumar");
The s1,s2 are having object of class Student
Instance:
s1 and s2 are instances of object student
the two are unique.
it can be called as reference also.
basically the s1 and s2 are variables that are assigned an object
Objects and instances are mostly same; but there is a very small difference.
If Car is a class, 3 Cars are 3 different objects. All of these objects are instances. So these 3 cars are objects from instances of the Car class.
But the word "instance" can mean "structure instance" also. But object is only for classes.
All of the objects are instances.
Not all of the instances must be objects. Instances may be "structure instances" or "objects".
I hope this makes the difference clear to you.
Let's say you're building some chairs.
The diagram that shows how to build a chair and put it together corresponds to a software class.
Let's say you build five chairs according to the pattern in that diagram. Likewise, you could construct five software objects according to the pattern in a class.
Each chair has a unique number burned into the bottom of the seat to identify each specific chair. Chair 3 is one instance of a chair pattern. Likewise, memory location 3 can contain one instance of a software pattern.
So, an instance (chair 3) is a single unique, specific manifestation of a chair pattern.
Quick and Simple Answer
Class : a specification, blueprint for an object...
Object : physical presence of the class in memory...
Instance : a unique copy of the object (same structure, different data)...
An object is a construct, something static that has certain features and traits, such as properties and methods, it can be anything (a string, a usercontrol, etc)
An instance is a unique copy of that object that you can use and do things with.
Imagine a product like a computer.
THE xw6400 workstation is an object
YOUR xw6400 workstation, (or YOUR WIFE's xw6400 workstation) is an instance of the xw6400 workstation object
Java is an object-oriented programming language (OOP). This means, that everything in Java, except of the primitive types is an object.
Now, Java objects are similar to real-world objects. For example we can create a car object in Java, which will have properties like current speed and color; and behavior like: accelerate and park.
That's Object.
Instance, on the other side, is a uniquely initialized copy of that object that looks like Car car = new Car().
Check it out to learn more about Java classes and object
Once you instantiate a class (using new), that instantiated thing becomes an object. An object is something that can adhere to encapsulation, polymorphism, abstraction principles of object oriented programming and the real thing a program interacts with to consume the instance members defined in class. Object contains instance members (non-static members).
Thus instance of a class is an object. The word ‘instance’ is used when you are referring to the origin from where it born, it's more clearer if you say ‘instance of a class’ compared to ‘object of a class’ (although the latter can be used to).
Can also read the 'Inner classes' section of this java document on nested classes - https://docs.oracle.com/javase/tutorial/java/javaOO/nested.html
I can't believe, except for one guy no one has used the code to explain this, let me give it a shot too!
// Design Class
class HumanClass {
var name:String
init(name:String) {
self.name = name
}
}
var humanClassObject1 = HumanClass(name: "Rehan")
Now the left side i.e: "humanClassObject1" is the object and the right side i.e: HumanClass(name: "Rehan") is the instance of this object.
var humanClassObject2 = HumanClass(name: "Ahmad") // again object on left and it's instance on the right.
So basically, instance contains the specific values for that object and objects contains the memory location (at run-time).
Remember the famous statement "object reference not set to an instance of an object", this means that non-initialised objects don't have any instance.
In some programming languages like swift the compiler will not allow you to even design a class that don't have any way to initialise all it's members (variable eg: name, age e.t.c), but in some language you are allowed to do this:
// Design Class
class HumanClass {
var name:String // See we don't have any way to initialise name property.
}
And the error will only be shown at run time when you try to do something like this:
var myClass = HumanClass()
print(myClass.name) // will give, object reference not set to an instance of the object.
This error indicates that, the specific values (for variables\property) is the "INSTANCE" as i tried to explain this above!
And the object i.e: "myClass" contains the memory location (at run-time).
This answer may be seen as trite, but worrying about the differences between an instance and object is already trite city.
I think its best depicted in javascript:
let obj= {"poo":1}
// "obj" is an object
verses
Class Trash {
constructor(){this.poo = 1;}
}
let i = new Trash();
// "i" is an instance
When a variable is declared of a custom type (class), only a reference is created, which is called an object. At this stage, no memory is allocated to this object. It acts just as a pointer (to the location where the object will be stored in future). This process is called 'Declaration'.
Employee e; // e is an object
On the other hand, when a variable of custom type is declared using the new operator, which allocates memory in heap to this object and returns the reference to the allocated memory. This object which is now termed as instance. This process is called 'Instantiation'.
Employee e = new Employee(); // e is an instance
However, in some languages such as Java, an object is equivalent to an instance, as evident from the line written in Oracle's documentation on Java:
Note: The phrase "instantiating a class" means the same thing as "creating an object." When you create an object, you are creating an "instance" of a class, therefore "instantiating" a class.
An instance is a specific representation of an object. An object is a generic thing while an instance is a single object that has been created in memory. Usually an instance will have values assigned to it's properties that differentiates it from other instances of the type of object.
If we see the Definition of Object and Instance object -
Memory allocated for the member of class at run time is called object or object is the instance of Class.
Let us see the Definition of instance -
Memory allocated For Any at run time is called as instance variable.
Now understand the meaning of any run time memory allocation happen in C also through Malloc, Calloc, Realloc such:
struct p
{
}
p *t1
t1=(p) malloc(sizeof(p))
So here also we are allocating run time memory allocation but here we call as instance so t1 is instance here we can not say t1 as object so Every object is the instance of Class but every Instance is not Object.
Object - An instance of a class that has its own state and access to all of the behaviour defined by its class.
Instance - Reference to an memory area for that particular class.
Class : A class is a blue print.
Object : It is the copy of the class.
Instance : Its a variable which is used to hold memory address of the object.
A very basic analytical example
Class House --> Blueprint of the house. But you can't live in the blue print. You need a physical House which is the instance of the class to live in. i.e., actual address of the object is instance. Instances represent objects.
There are 3 things you need to understand : Class , Object and Instance.
Class : Class is the blueprint code from which you will create an Object(s)
Object : When memory is allocated to the data entity (created from blueprint class) , that data entity or reference to it is called Object
Instance : When data is filled in an Object , it becomes an instance of that Object. It can also be called a state of that Object.
Example : In context with C# (objects are reference type here)
Lets say we have a class like this (This is your blueprint code)
public class Animal
{
//some fields and methods
}
We create an object like this
Animal a = new Animal();
Animal b = a;
Animal c = a;
Animal d = b;
So here is the question : How many objects and instances are here ?
Answer : There is only 1 object but 4 instances.
Why ?
In first line (Animal a = new Animal();),we created an Object from class Animal with new Operator. That Object is somewhere on your RAM. And the reference to that Object is in "a".
We have 1 object and 1 instance at this time.
Now in next line, we assign b with a. Here Object is not copied but the reference of object from "a" is stored in "b" too. Thus , we have 2 instances , "a and b".
This goes on and we only copy reference of same object located at some memory.
Finally , we have 4 instances "a,b,c,d" of a single object that was created with new Operator.
(Read how reference type works in C# for more. I hope you understand my language)
each object said to be an instance of its class but each instance of the class has its own value for each attributes
intances shares the attribute name and operation with their intances of class but an object contains an implicit reference to his on class
I can't believe this could be hard to be explain but it actually easier than all the answers I read. It just simple like this.
Firstly, you need understand the definition:
Instance is a **unique copy-product of an Object.
**unique - have different characteristic but share the same class compare to object
Object is a name that been used to keep the Class information (i.e
method)
Let say, there is an toy_1 as an object.
There is also toy_2 as an object ----> which ALSO an INSTANCE to toy_1.
At the same time, toy_1 also an INSTANCE to toy_2. (remember again INSTANCE is a COPY-PRODUCT)
That is why most of the answer I found said it is INTERCHANGABLE. Thank you.
I think if we consider other approaches than OOP (mainly by assuming the term Class hasn't always been used, as it's the case for many C projects, which still applied the concept of Objects), following definitions would make the most sense:
A Class defines an interface that objects adhere to.
An Object is an aggregate of different fields. (It doesn't have to "physically" exist, but it can).
All Objects of the same Class can be used in the same way, defined by the Class.
An Instance is a unique realization of an Object.
As many OOP languages use static typing, the Object description is usually part of the Class already. As such, when talking about an Object in C/C++, what usually is meant is the Instance of an Object.
In languages that do not have static typing (such as JavaScript), Objects can have different fields, while still sharing the same Class.
Regarding the difference between an object and an instance, I do not think there is any consensus.
It looks to me like people change it pretty much interchangeably, in papers, blog posts, books or conversations.
As for me, the way I see it is, an object is a generic and alive entity in the memory, specified by the language it is used in. Just like the Object class in Java. We do not much care its type, or anything else associated with it, whether it is managed by a container or not.
An instance is an object but associated with a type, as in this method accepts Foo instances, or you can not put Animal instances in an instance of
a List of Vehicles.
objects for example have locks associated with them, not instances, whereas instances have methods. objects are garbage collected, not instances.
But as I said, this is only how I see it, and I do not think there is any organisation we can refer to for a standard definition between them and everyone will pretty much have their slightly different understanding / definitions (of course within limits).
An object is a generic thing, for example, take a linear function in maths
ax+b is an object, While 3x+2 is an instance of that object
Object<<< Instance
General<<< Specific
There is nothing more to this
An object can be a class, say you have a class called basketball.
but you want to have multiple basketballs so in your code you create more than 1 basketball
say basketball1 and basketball2.
Then you run your application.
You now have 2 instances of the object basketball.
Object refers to class and instance refers to an object.In other words instance is a copy of an object with particular values in it.
I'm trying to confirm now, what I believe about the Data Mapper pattern. So here we go:
Section A:
A Data Mapper is a class which is used to create, update and delete objects of another Class. Example: A class called Cat, and a Data Mapper called CatDataMapper. And a database table called cats. But it could also be an xml file called cats.xml, or an hard-coded array called cats. The whole point of that Data Mapper is to free the Business Logic which uses the Cat class from thinking about "how to get an exisiting cat", or "how to save a cat", "where to save a cat". As a user of the Data Mapper it looks like a blackbox with well-defined methods like getCat(int id), saveCat(Cat catObject), deleteCat(Cat catObject), and so on.
Section B:
First I thought it would be clever if Cat inherits from CatDataMapper, because calling such functions then is a bit more convenient. For example, methods like catWithId(int id) could be static (class method) and return an instance of a Cat, initialized with data from anywhere. And when I work with a cat object in my code, I could simply call myCat->save(); to store it whereever the Data Mapper will store it (don't care where and how, the Data Mapper hides this complexity from the user).
In conclusion, I'm a little bit confused now ;)
Do you think that Section A is valid for the Data Mapper pattern? And if I would do it additionaly as described in Section B, would that be bad? Why?
I think your Section A corresponds to the definiton of the Data Mapper pattern as given by Martin Fowler
Be careful with the details of your implementation language. In Section B having catWithId() be a static member of the cat class may interfere with polymorphic behavior of the method.
In java, the JVM will dispatch a static method based on the declared type of the reference.
Try this out:
1. create a class CatDataMapper with the static method catWithId(int id)
2. create a class Cat extending CatDataMapper that has the desired Business Logic behavior
3. subclass Cat with LoggedCat that logs all activity, including the activity from CatDataMapper
4. do Cat foo = new LoggedCat()
5. do Cat bar = foo.catWithId(5)
note which method is called, it should be the static method of CatDataMapper not the static method of LoggedCat
http://faq.javaranch.com/view?OverridingVsHiding gives a more in-depth discussion of this.
I think this is an OK approach. Aside from the naming conventions used, you're following a well known Data Access pattern here and you're allowing the users of the Cat objects to perform CRUD operations without having to talk to the CatDataMapper which is always a plus in my book.
I would usggest looking at Spring Container technology for this if you're in the java world.
How do you go about changing the subtype of a row in NHibernate? For example if I have a Customer entity and a subclass of TierOneCustomer, I have a case where I need to change a Customer to a TierOneCustomer but the TierOneCustomer should have the same Id (PK) as the original Customer entity.
The mapping looks something like this:
<class name="Customer" table="SiteCustomer" discriminator-value="C">
<id name="Id" column="Id" type="Int64">
<generator class="identity" />
</id>
<discriminator column="CustomerType" />
... properties snipped ...
<subclass name="TierOneCustomer" discriminator-value="P">
... more properties ...
</subclass>
</class>
I'm using the one-table per class hierarchy model, so using plain-sql, it'd be just a matter of a sql update of the discriminator (CustomerType) and set the appropriate columns relevant for the type. I can't find the solution in NHibernate, so would appreciate any pointers.
I'm also thinking whether the model is correct considering this use-case, but before I go down that route, I want to make sure doing as described above is actually possible in the first place. If not, I'll almost certainly think about changing the model.
Short answer is yes, you can change the discriminator value for the particular row(s) using native SQL.
However, I don't think NHibernate is intended to work this way, since the discriminator is generally "invisible" to the Java layer, where its value is supposed to be set initially according to the class of the persisted object and never changed.
I recommend looking into a cleaner approach. From the standpoint of the object model, you're trying to convert a superclass object into one of its subclass types while not changing the identity of its persisted instance, and that's where the conflict is (the converted object isn't really supposed to be the same thing). Two alternative approaches are:
Create a new instance of TierOneCustomer based on the information in the original Customer object, then delete the original object. If you were relying on the Customer's Primary Key for retrieval, you'll need to take note of the new PK.
or
Change your approach so the object type (discriminator) doesn't need to change. Instead of relying on a subclass to distinguish TierOneCustomer from Customer, you can use a property that you can modify freely at any time, i.e. Customer.Tier = 1.
Here are some related discussions on the Hibernate Forums that may be of interest:
Can we update the discriminator column in Hibernate
Table-per-Class Problem: Discriminator and Property
Converting a persisted instance into a subclass
You're doing something wrong.
What you are trying to do is to change the type of an object. You can't do that in .NET or in Java. That simply doesn't make sense. An object is of exactly one concrete type, and its concrete type cannot be changed from the time the object is created until the time the object is destroyed (black magic notwithstanding). In order to accomplish what you are trying to do, but with the class hierarchy you laid out, you would have to destroy the customer object which you want to turn into a tier-one customer object, create a new tier-one customer object, and copy all the relevant properties from the customer object to the tier-one customer object. That is how you do it with objects, in object-oriented languages, with your class hierarchy.
Obviously, the class hierarchy you have isn't working for you. You don't destroy customers in real life when they become tier-one customers! So don't do it with objects either. Instead, come up with a class hierarchy that makes sense, given the scenarios you need to implement. Your use scenarios include:
A customer who previously is not tier-one status now becomes tier-one status.
That means you need a class hierarchy which can accurately capture this scenario. As a hint, you should favor composition over inheritance. That means, it may be a better idea to have a property named IsTierOne, or a property named DiscountStrategy, etc., depending on what works best.
The entire purpose of NHibernate (and Hibernate for Java) is to make the database invisible. To allow you to work with objects natively, with the database magically there behind the scenes to make your objects persistent. NHibernate will let you work with the database natively, but that's not the type of scenario which NHibernate is built for.
This is REALLY late, but may be of use to the next person looking to do something similar:
While the other answers are correct that you shouldn't change the discriminator in most cases, you can do it purely within the scope of NH (no native SQL), with some clever use of mapped properties. Here's the gist of it using FluentNH:
public enum CustomerType //not sure it's needed
{
Customer,
TierOneCustomer
}
public class Customer
{
//You should be able to use the Type name instead,
//but I know this enum-based approach works
public virtual CustomerType Type
{
get {return CustomerType.Customer;}
set {} //small code smell; setter exists, no error, but it doesn't do anything.
}
...
}
public class TierOneCustomer:Customer
{
public override CustomerType Type {get {return CustomerType.TierOneCustomer;} set{}}
...
}
public class CustomerMap:ClassMap<Customer>
{
public CustomerMap()
{
...
DiscriminateSubClassesOnColumn<string>("CustomerType");
DiscriminatorValue(CustomerType.Customer.ToString());
//here's the magic; make the discriminator updatable
//"Not.Insert()" is required to prevent the discriminator column
//showing up twice in an insert statement
Map(x => x.Type).Column("CustomerType").Update().Not.Insert();
}
}
public class TierOneCustomerMap:SubclassMap<TierOneCustomer>
{
public CustomerMap()
{
//same idea, different discriminator value
...
DiscriminatorValue(CustomerType.TierOneCustomer.ToString());
...
}
}
The end result is that the discriminator value is specified for inserts, and used to determine the instantiated type on retrieval, but then if a record of a different subtype with the same Id is saved (as if the record was cloned or un-bound from the UI to a new type), the discriminator value is updated on the existing record with that ID as an object property, so that future retrievals of that type are as the new object. The setter is required on the properties because AFAIK NHibernate can't be told that a property is read-only (and thus "write-only" to the DB); in NHibernate's world, if you write something to the DB, why wouldn't you want it back?
I used this pattern recently to allow users to change the basic type of a "tour", which is in reality a set of rules governing the scheduling of the actual "tour" (a single digital "visit" to a client's on-site equipment to ensure it all works properly). While they're all "tour schedules" and need to be collectable in lists/queues etc as such, the different types of schedules require very different data and very different processing, calling for a similar data structure as the OP has. I therefore completely understand the OP's desire to treat a TierOneCustomer in a substantially different way while minimizing the effect at the data layer, so, here ya go.
If you're doing it offline (e.g. in a DB upgrade script), just use SQL and ensure consistency yourself.
If this is something you plan will happen in while the app is running, I think your requirements are wrong, just like keeping the same pointer address for a different object is wrong.
If you save the ID and use it to access the customer again (e.g. in a URL) consider making a new field that contains a token for this that will be the business key. Since it's not the ID, it's easy to create a new entity instance and copy over the token (you'll probably need to remove the token from the old one).