I missed a few CS classes, namely the ones going over topics such as polymorphism, inheritence, and abstract classes. I'm not asking you to do my homework but I have no idea where to even start to get further guidance, so giving me a skeleton or something would help me greatly, I'm so confused.
So the problem is to create an employee abstract class with two subclasses, permanentEmployee and TempEmployee.I must store information such as name,department,and salary in these subclasses and then order them according to how the user wants them ordered. I know I start out like this
public abstract class Employee
{
}
public class TempEmployee extends Employee
{
\\variables such as name, salary, etc, here?
}
public class PermEmployee extends Employee
{
\\here too?
}
but I have no idea how to store variables in there much less access them later for ordering and displaying,. Please guidance.
If all you're looking for is an example of class-level data members in Java, this should help:
public class SomeClass {
private int someInt;
public int getSomeInt() {
return this.someInt;
}
public void setSomeInt(int someInt) {
this.someInt = someInt;
}
}
Regarding polymorphism, be aware that methods are polymorphic, but values are not. As you place values and methods (getters and setters) in your base class and derived classes, I encourage you to experiment with these concepts thoroughly. Try moving the entire value/getter/setter to the base class, try moving just the value but not the getter/setter, try putting the value in both and the getter/setter in both, etc. See how it behaves.
Make sure that any value/method/etc. that you put in your base class is applicable to all derived classes. If there's ever an exception to that rule, then you would need to move that member out of the base class and into only derived classes where it applies. Note that you can have a complex hierarchy of base classes to accommodate this if needed.
When it comes time to access these members for sorting/display/etc., consuming code would use the getters/setters. For example:
SomeClass myInstance = new SomeClass();
myInstance.setSomeInt(2);
System.out.println(myInstance.getSomeInt());
I am not sure which language you working with, but as it has "extends" I am sure you are not working with c# or CSharp, it can be Java. So I would recommend you to go for TutorialsPoint. This particular article has abstraction described here.
Just to make it easy for you, in Interface and abstraction we always create a structure or the base, it has all the common things defined or declared (Obviously interface has only methods and no variables can be declared inside it).
So as said, in above example, EmployeeId, EmployeeName, EmployeeAddress ...etc should be defined in the base class that is Abstract Base class Employee, But in TempEmployee you can have a criteria such as EmpTermPeriod, EmpContractRenewalDate, EmpExternalPayrollCompanyName (Have made names long and self descriptive) and PermEmployee to have fields like EmpJoiningDate, EmpConfirmationDate, EmpGraduityDate...etc.
I hope it helps.
Related
I was reading an article about composition vs inheritance and the article uses the terms "domain class" and "implementation class". The author specifically says "Domain classes should use implementation classes, not inherit from them". Please explain the difference between a domain class and an implementation class.
The example of an implementation class given in the article is ArrayList. It's not part of the code describing business entities, it's just a commonly-used general purpose class.
This contrasts with the Customer class that they mention. Customer would be a class that is part of the domain, where it is describing an entity specific to the business.
The article is telling you not to extend from utility classes like this when creating domain classes.
How to Misuse Inheritance - Example 2
Creating a domain-concept class by inheriting from an implementation class is a common misuse of inheritance. For example, suppose we want to do something with a certain segment of our customers. The easy and obvious thing to do is to subclass ArrayList, call it CustomerGroup, and start coding, right?
Wrong. That would be a cross-domain inheritance relationship, and those should be avoided:
1) ArrayList is a subclass of list already, a utility collection - an implementation class.
2) CustomerGroup is another subclass - a domain class.
3) Domain classes should use implementation classes, not inherit from them.
If you need to implement a CustomerGroup class it could have an ArrayList as an instance member, like this:
public class CustomerGroup {
private List<Customer> customers = new ArrayList<>();
public List<Customer> getCustomers() {return customers;}
}
but you wouldn't make the class itself be a subclass of ArrayList.
The reason is that when you subclass something the users of your class get all the functionality of the superclass even if it isn't appropriate. You don't really need a domain class to see this in action, just go check out the source for java.util.Properties, which is badly designed, extending java.util.Hashtable. When you use a Properties object the methods from Hashtable are available to you, even though they are totally unnecessary and confusing, and using the superclass methods doesn't work or causes problems.
Been doing objective-c for 5 years, so please bear with me.
I'm struggling to find documentation that clearly explains why you would want to nest a class definition, inside of another.
If I had two classes like the following, it makes sense to me that they are declared above and below each other. You may even want to have a nested property that references the other.
class DataImporter {
}
class DataGenerator {
}
But I don't understand why a nested arrangement like the following would be useful.
class DataImporter {
class DataGenerator {
} }
You would do that for Namespacing. This way you can have the classes with the same name (like DataGenerator). But for different purposes. This one would be DataImporter.DataGenerator class, but you could have another OtherClass.DataGenerator class which would be a totally different one.
Like in Objective-C when you had 2 or 3 letters before the name of the class (ex: UIView). But when you created your own, it would be like SSView
You can also declare the inner class private and use it just in that file.
I have an inherited class which i would like to point to from the base class. Example below
class Base
{
inherited* test;
};
class inherited: Base
{
};
the purpose of this is so that the base class (a character) contains a linked list of the inherited class (items)
ps apologies for any mistakes, i'm new to this site
It might be possible to trick the compiler into accomplishing this, but it's most certainly bad OOP design. If all you want to do is be able to store an instance of the inherited class but can treat it like the base class, then you can simply make inherited* test a base* test and it will accept pointers to either inherited or base (or any other subclass of base).
If you actually want base to treat that instance as inherited, you need to rethink your class hierarchy because you don't actually have an inheritance tree here.
In Programming in Scala: A Comprehensive Step-by-Step Guide, the author said:
One way in which Scala is more
object-oriented than Java is that
classes in Scala cannot have static
members. Instead, Scala has singleton
objects.
Why is a singleton object more object-oriented? What's the good of not using static members, but singleton objects?
Trying for the "big picture"; most of this has been covered in other answers, but there doesn't seem to be a single comprehensive reply that puts it all together and joins the dots. So here goes...
Static methods on a class are not methods on an object, this means that:
Static members can't be inherited from a parent class/trait
Static members can't be used to implement an interface
The static members of a class can't be passed as an argument to some function
(and because of the above points...)
Static members can't be overridden
Static members can't be polymorphic
The whole point of objects is that they can inherit from parent objects, implement interfaces, and be passed as arguments - static members have none of these properties, so they aren't truly object-oriented, they're little more than a namespace.
Singleton objects, on the other hand, are fully-fledged members of the object community.
Another very useful property of singletons is that they can easily be changed at some later point in time to not be singletons, this is a particularly painful refactoring if you start from static methods.
Imagine you designed a program for printing addresses and represented interactions with the printer via static methods on some class, then later you want to be able to add a second printer and allow the user to chose which one they'll use... It wouldn't be a fun experience!
Singleton objects behave like classes in that they can extend/implement other types.
Can't do that in Java with just static classes -- it's pretty sugar over the Java singleton pattern with a getInstance that allows (at least) nicer namespaces/stable identifiers and hides the distinction.
Hint: it's called object-oriented programming.
Seriously.
Maybe I am missing something fundamentally important, but I don't see what the fuss is all about: objects are more object-oriented than non-objects because they are objects. Does that really need an explanation?
Note: Although it sure sounds that way, I am really not trying to sound smug here. I have looked at all the other answers and I found them terribly confusing. To me, it's kind of obvious that objects and methods are more object-oriented than namespaces and procedures (which is what static "methods" really are) by the very definition of "object-oriented".
An alternative to having singleton objects would be to make classes themselves objects, as e.g. Ruby, Python, Smalltalk, Newspeak do.
For static members, there is no object. The class really just is a namespace.
In a singleton, there is always at least one object.
In all honesty, it's splitting hairs.
It's more object oriented in the sense that given a Scala class, every method call is a method call on that object. In Java, the static methods don't interact with the object state.
In fact, given an object a of a class A with the static method m(), it's considered bad practice to call a.m(). Instead it's recommended to call A.m() (I believe Eclipse will give you a warning). Java static methods can't be overridden, they can just be hidden by another method:
class A {
public static void m() {
System.out.println("m from A");
}
}
public class B extends A {
public static void m() {
System.out.println("m from B");
}
public static void main(String[] args) {
A a = new B();
a.m();
}
}
What will a.m() print?
In Scala, you would stick the static methods in companion objects A and B and the intent would be clearer as you would refer explicitly to the companion A or B.
Adding the same example in Scala:
class A
object A {
def m() = println("m from A")
}
class B extends A
object B {
def m() = println("m from B")
def main(args: Array[String]) {
val a = new B
A.m() // cannot call a.m()
}
}
There is some difference that may be important in some scenarios. In Java you
can't override static method so if you had class with static methods you would not be able to customize and override part of its behavior. If you used singleton object, you could just plug singleton created from subclass.
It's a marketing thing, really. Consider two examples:
class foo
static const int bar = 42;
end class
class superfoo
Integer bar = ConstInteger.new(42);
end class
Now, what are the observable differences here?
in a well-behaved language, the additional storage created is the same.
Foo.bar and Superfoo.bar have exactly the same signatures, access, and so on.
Superfoo.bar may be allocated differently but that's an implementation detail
It reminds me of the religious wars 20 years ago over whether C++ or Java were "really" Object Oriented, since after all both exposed primitive types that aren't "really" objects -- so, for example you can't inherit from int but can from Integer.
I would like to pass an interface to a method signature which takes Object as its parameter, so I wonder about this question
public Stream GetViewStream(string viewName, object model, ControllerContext context)
instead of object I shall like to pass an interface Imodel, without modifying the signature. Is there a base class for interfaces?
Also in the new mvc2 is there a way to avoid controllercontext altogether?
I'd only answer the first question - Why there's no common base interface for all interfaces ?
First of all, there's no common pre-defined base interface for all interfaces, unlike the System.Object case. Explaining this can get very interesting.
Let us assume, you could have a common interface for all interfaces in the system. That means, all interfaces will need to force their implementations to provide implementation-details for that common base interface. In general, interface are used to give specific special behaviors to their concrete implementation classes. Obviously you only want to define an interface when you only know what to do and don't know HOW to do that. So, if you let there be a common base interface for all interface and force the implementations to expect them to provide details of how to do it - why would you want to do it ? What common task each class should do that varies from one another ?
Lets look at the other side of the coin, why we have System.object as base class of any .Net type - It is simple it gives you some methods that have COMMON implementation for any .Net type and for those methods that it might vary from type-to-type they have made it virtual ex: .ToString()
There's possibly no assumption of any
system-wide interface method which is
virtual/abstract to all its
implementations.
One common practice of using Interface is say, defining a particular behavior to any type. Like I'd have an interface IFlyable which will give Fly() to all types that implement IFlyable. This way I can play with any Flyable object regardless of its inheritance hierarchy coming into picture. I can write a method like this..
public void FlyTheObject(IFlyable flyingObject)
{
flyginObject.Fly();
}
It does not demand anything from the object but the implementation of the Fly() method.
EDIT
Additionally, All interfaces will resolve to Object because interfaces cannot be instantiated. The object is always of a concrete class that can be instantiated. This class may or may not implement your interface but as we know, any .Net type is ultimately based to System.Object, so you will be able to take the instance into an object type regardless of the fact if it implements a particular interface or not.
No, there is no base class for interfaces. Nor there is base interface for interfaces.
As for your second question (and partly first one) - what are actually you trying to do?
There is no base class for interfaces, but you can pass any interface variable e.g:
private IEnumerable<int> myInterfaceVariable = new List<int>();
to your method because by definition anything that is stored in that variable must be an instance of a class that inherits from the interface - therefore it must be an object.
The following compiles fine:
public class InterfaceAsObject
{
private IEnumerable<int> myInterfaceVariable = new List<int>();
private void CallDoSomething()
{
DoSomething(myInterfaceVariable);
}
private void DoSomething(object input)
{
}
}
Re 1, there is no base interface, but if I understand you correctly, you can achieve what I think you want by just passing your object that implements IModel via the model parameter and cast (and check!) the parameter to IModel. I use 'as' and check for null.
If you don't need total flexibility, a better way of doing this is to define the interface that the model parameter must support. If the specific objects support derived interfaces (e.g. IDerivedModel : IModel) this will work too.
Look up a text-book on polymorphism.