I rather like the "Extract Interface..." refactoring function when working on a class, but it only allows you to extract to a new interface. I was wondering if there was a similar option that allowed the user to copy a method(s) to an interface(s) that the current class already implements.
It's something that would save me a lot of time but despite thinking I may have done something like that before, I can't find any reference to such a function. Does anyone know if it even exists?
This refactoring is called "pull up method." You can move a method to a superclass, or add its declaration to any of the interfaces a class implements.
Related
I'm building a game in Unity which has some buyable skills in it. The bought skills are going to be stored in an external save file. Then being converted to a class called PlayerData. I want to make this class can be accessable from other scripts without typing the same class again in that script.
Is there a way to make like a global class? That can be accessed from other scripts?
I'm not sure exactly what you mean by
without typing the same class again in that script.
But if you mean you can't access the class in other scripts, maybe you defined the class in another class?
Or do you mean you can't access methods/variables directly without stating "of which instance of the class", in that case, you can use static class:
https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/dotnet/csharp/programming-guide/classes-and-structs/static-classes-and-static-class-members
We have an Eclipse IDE application on 3.x that uses various newWizards to allow the user to create different files. Although these files differ slightly contentwise, the structure of the wizards is quite similar.
Thus, a sound object-oriented approach would be to instantiate different wizards from the same class and initialize them with different data.
Problem:
To decide what wizard needs which data we need a way to distinguish the different already instantiated wizards (e.g during the call to the init method of the wizard).
Is there any way to do so? It would e.g. help if somebody knows a way to get the wizard's id defined in the extension point from within the instantiated wizard.
If your wizard implements IExecutableExtension, it will be passed the configuration element that represents the extension for which it is created.
You can also use extension factories in that you specify a type that implements IExecutableExtensionFactory.
The interface allows you to control how the instances provided to extension-points (wizards in your case) are created.
Extension example:
<extension point="org.eclipse.ui.wizards">
<newWizard
name="..."
class="com.example.WizardFactory">
</newWizard>
Note that the extension factory may also implement IExecutableExtension to gain access to extension attributes before creating the extension's executable class.
I have copied the Forms from the /libs/foundation/components/form to /apps/mywebsite/components/form, I made some changes to the copied form files but still the default form is getting called.
Could you let me know or provide some documentation for the forms.
Thanks in advance
The problem is that you moved things to:
/apps/mywebsite/components/form
Instead, you need to copy them to:
/apps/foundation/components/form
apps overrides libs ONLY if the path is otherwise the same
so:
/apps/something/something/somethingelse
will override:
/libs/something/something/somethingelse
if ANY part of that path is different, that overlay won't work.
In addition, if something calls a component/resource/whatever under /libs using the fully qualified name (e.g. actually including /libs/ at the beginning) then it will still use that. But this is rare.
Let me know if you have more issues.
BTW, you can change this search approach (apps before libs) in the resource resolver settings in OSGI. It comes this way by default but can be changed.
If you didn't want to overrride but extend the foundation forms, you need to make sure that you copied everything or have the inheritance to foundation right. Most important is the cq:editConfig/cq:formParameters, where you need to have sling:resourceSuperType="foundation/components/form/defaults/field". If you use a cq:template instead, you need to set the supertype parameter there.
Then you would have to use your components on the page instead of the foundation ones.
I just created a new target for the Lite version of my app. The Lite app only uses part of a base class that I have in the main app, ie it won't need to use an option that requires it to import 4 or 5 files.
My question is, from a design perspective, what is the best way to handle this so that my Lite version can only use the part of the class that it needs? Obviously, one solution is I just import those 4 unnecessary files into Lite build phase, and just use the whole class (even the parts it doesn't need). This seems inefficient though. I know I can do an ifndef to block those files from being imported if the Lite version is running, but how do I block out the code in the class from also not being picked up by the compiler?
Would a better way just be to have my Lite version create a subclass of the Base class that only uses the options it needs? But then I believe, would I still need to import those unnecessary files?
Just a bit confused about this, first time I've ever created another target that utilizes code from the main target. Any help appreciate thanks.
Put the common/lite functionality in a super class. Heavy functionality in the sub-class.
As another answer points out, you can handle this by putting the lite functionality in a subclass and the full functionality in a superclass.
Another option is to use a single class, and add the full functionality in an Objective-C category. Essentially, you can define methods in the category to supplement – or replace – methods in the base implementation.
Unlike a subclass, however, methods defined in a category can't invoke super to get the base class's functionality. super still refers to the base class's superclass, whether that's NSObject, UIDocument, or what have you – not the implementation without the category.
The advantage is that you only have one class name, so the code which instantiates your class (or classes) doesn't need to use something like #ifdef to switch classes and #includes depending on whether you're building the lite or full version.
I'm learning GWT and have started to get the hang of it. I'm at the point where my code is getting to be a spaghetti mess so I'm going back and factoring reasonable bits of it out as Composites. The first problem I ran into was that my tool support failed to give the new Composite class an initWidget() method. It did include a default constructor.
For the time being, I've simply filled in my overridden initWidget() method with a call to super(initWidget(w)) My project compiles and runs as expected, though I feel as though I must be missing something.
What should I keep in mind when overriding init and what if anything do i need to place in the constructor. Is there anything else that I need to know or does it just boil down to regular old Java after this?
Clarification - It has occurred to me that there are probably different answers to this question depending on whether you intend to release said Composite classes as part of a library or simply part of your stand-alone app. I in particular have no intention at this time of developing externally useful components (mainly because I'm so green in this particular technology.)
Thanks!
I'm not sure if I understand what you are trying to do. But for all the Composite's I've written I've never overridden the initWidget method. Because Composite itself doesn't need to be initialized with a constructor, i.e. no need to call super() my constructors of widgets extending composite look something like:
public mywidget() {
SomePanel p = new SomePanel();
....
initWidget(p);
}
As a best practice, imo, only the widget extending Composite should call it's 'own' initWidget.
"GWT Conference: Best Practices for Building Libraries" gives a couple of tips. You should also look at the source of GWT and at the source of one of the libraries for GWT (like gwt-ext)
[EDIT] I just saw another option: suco. From the description:
A micro library that helps to maintain your GWT client code clean and modular.