This is purely a coding practice question concerning VB.NET structures. Where do you keep one?
As an example, I've created a structure for the simple purpose of keeping information organized, I'd like this structure to be stand-alone, not belonging to any class so I wouldn't have to access it through SomeClass.MyStructure but rather simply MyStructure. So, do I keep it in a separate class and import it into my namespace? Do I keep it in a module (Static class, essentially)? Do I just make a separate VB.NET code file and place is there (I would like it to live in a separate file). Just to clarify, I need this structure to be accesses by the whole application, not just a single class.
What do you usually do in such cases?
A structure is a Type, much like a Class.
So Yes, put it in a separate file. Then it will be 'in a namespace', the project-default one.
Related
I'm in a state of a design dilemma wherein I'm unable to decide whether an enum should be considered as a part of models or not. The definition I have for models is that they represent knowledge.
With that logic, an enum should be a model. Moreover, I have seen in some codebases that enums are stored as tables in the DB so that the knowledge is stored in the DB itself and can be accessed later for joins, or from code.
What do you guys usually do? For example, if you have a file called models.py which contains models, will you store the enums in it? Or will you create a new file enums.py?
ok under the assumption that models can be understood as classes:
If I design the namespaces and class-structures of a project I usually safe enumerations in separate files like "CarTypes.class", "Color.class" and put it in the same namespaces as the classes which will access those.
But that depends on the accessibility I have to grant other classes towards those enumerations. If only one class uses a enumeration or structure I will not put it in a separate file and rather will define the enum/struct inside the file of that particular class. But if it should be accessible over multiple classes or namespaces I definitely go for the first approach.
Hope that helped a bit. ^^
Is it a good practice to define a category within the same .h/.m files of another class? I know it will build with no error and be exactly the same as if it was defined separately.
The main reason I want to do this is because I'm working on an open source control and I want it to have a single .h/.m file.
In general, the biggest problem with combining multiple classes and categories into the same header/implementation is impaired searchability. When a class is in a file with another class, the file name will no longer reflect the fact that the header/implementation contains your other class, making it much harder for others to look for your class.
If your project is small and self-contained, however, the searchability is less of an issue. When there is only one file to search, there is no question of where each particular piece of code is: it's all in that one file. It sounds like your project is both small and self-contained, so I see no problem in placing all code in a single source file if you want it that way.
Another alternative could be placing each class and category in a separate header/implementation pair of files, and then defining a header that includes them all. This would let you keep an ideal project organization, and let your users include a single header to use your component.
If you need this category in just one place I’d say that it’s not that bad having the category within the .m file.
Obviously, if you need that category in multiple places, you should definitely move to its own file: the convention is to name it in this way:
BaseClass+categoryName.{h,m}
e.g.:
NSString+reverseString.h
NSString+reverseString.m
I just want advice on whether I could improve structure around a particular class which handles all disk access functions
The structure of my program is that I have a class called Disk which gets data from flatfiles and databases on a, you guessed it, hard disk drive. I have functions like
LoadTextFileToStringList,
WriteStringToTextFile,
DeleteLineInTextFile
etc
which are kind of "generic methods"
In the same class I also have some more specific methods such as GetXFromDisk where X might be a particular field in a database table/query.
Should I separate out the generic methods from the specialised. Should I make another class which inherits the generic methods. At the moment my class is static as there is no need to have an internal state of the class.
I'm not really OOPing am I?
Thanks
Thomas
If you are using only static static functions you are not really OOPing as you said. It is writing procedural code in OO language.
You should look to create classes which represent objects in your problem domain like File and TextFile. These classes should have operations like DeleteLine, WriteLIne, Load etc.
Also, in which ever language you are programming, it is likely to have a good File IO library. Try to use that in your code as much as possible. If needed just write wrappers over the library classes to provide some additional functionality.
Well, what you seem to have in your code is a Utilities class where you bundle in all the file methods.
This could indicate some design issue but IMHO it is ok, since it is common to have utility classes in OOP designs.
It haves the benefit of being able to add extra methods or modify existing ones easy since you will not have any derived classes extending the Utility class to be affected.
For example java has static methods everywhere. E.g. Collection class.
I would suggest to have the class's contructor be private and have the naming such that is obvious that this is a Utilities class.
I've written a abstract base class TCPIP sever in its own namespace/library. Currently I have the derived class (more specific TCPIP server; with DataHandler) in the .exe project of the solution.
I'm almost 100% certain this is how I will go, but part of me wants to put the derived class in the base class project. What are some good reasons for/against this?
I believe YAGNI, KISS and The Rule Of Three apply here. If you don't have immediate plans to try to reuse the derived class, then keep it in the application namespace. If you find later there is a second project/application that can use something like your derived class then keep to your plan and use it as a "template" to create another similar derived class by cut and paste.
If you find a third occasion to do this again, then you can take a look and see if there is a reasonably useful subclass sitting in there. Don't get distracted trying to spot reusable abstractions too early.
"Why do I need the base class library"?
Usually because you want to use it in multiple projects.
If this is the case, do you need to use the derived class in other projects?
If you plan on having other exe's use the your derived class its helpful if it there and not in the exe.
My reasoning in favor of this approach is that if I put the dervied class in the .exe namespace, I will have access to all those classes (e.g. data queue). However, if I put the derived class in base project, I'd have to grant access to all the classes in the .exe namespace in order to use just one of them (using DotExeNamespace;).
A lot of the time I will have a Business object that has a property for a user index or a set of indexes for some data. When I display this object in a form or some other view I need the users full name or some of the other properties of the data. Usually I create another class myObjectView or something similar. What is the best way to handle this case?
To further clarify:
If I had a class an issue tracker and my class for an issue has IxCreatedByUser as a property and a collection of IxAttachment values (indexes for attachment records). When I display this on a web page I want to show John Doe instead of the IxCreatedByUser and I want to show a link to the Attachment and the file name on the page. So usually I create a new class with a Collection of Attachment objects and a CreatedByUserFullName property or something of that nature. It just feels wrong creating this second class to display data on a page. Perhaps I am wrong?
The façade pattern.
I think your approach, creating a façade pattern to abstract the complexities with multiple datasources is often appropriate, and will make your code easy to understand.
Care should be taken to create too many layers of abstractions, because the level of indirection will ruin the initial attempt at making the code easier to read. Especially, if you feel you just write classes to match what you've done in other places. For intance if you have a myLoanView, doesn't necessarily you need to create a myView for every single dialogue in the system. Take 10-steps back from the code, and maybe make a façade which is a reusable and intuitive abstraction, you can use in several places.
Feel free to elaborate on the exact nature of your challenge.
One key principle is that each of your classes should have a defined purpose. If the purpose of your "Business object" class is to expose relevant data related to the business object, it may be entirely reasonable to create a property on the class that delegates the request for the lookup description to the related class that is responsible for that information. Any formatting that is specific to your class would be done in the property.
Here's some guidelines to help you with deciding how to handle this (pretty common, IMO) pattern:
If you all you need is a quickie link to a lookup table that does not change often (e.g. a table of addresses that links to a table of states and/or countries), you can keep a lazy-loaded, static copy of the lookup table.
If you have a really big class that would take a lot of joins or subqueries to load just for display purposes, you probably want to make a "view" or "info" class for display purposes like you've described above. Just make sure the XInfo class (for displaying) loads significantly faster than the X class (for editing). This is a situation where using a view on the database side may be a very good idea.