Alright so I've been continuing to learn about classes and oop languages. And am a bit confused.
If I was to have a separate class for player stats. And in that class I have some private ints and then some functions to change them publicly.
Say I want to change and get those ints From my main class. I make an object and assign them to local variables then I can call the local variables in my main script. Then update the variable in the stat class.
It seems a little silly that I have to make a local variable as well as a separate variable in a different class.
To me it would make sense to just be able to call the separate class in a new object whenever I wanted to access the variables in the stat class but I can't...
Let me know if this isn't clear as I can try to expand more.
Thanks
Ben
You do not have to make new variables in the "main" class ....
you can just use the getters and setters through the object that you created.
Also copying variables from player stats to main class is not a good idea because now you have to maintain two copies of same data, at least until you are in scope of main class. If not handled correctly it can also cause data inconsistencies.
Assuming you are using Java, you can do this.
public class PlayerStats{
private int var1=20;
public void setVar1(int var1){
this.var1=var1
}
public int getVar1(){
return var1
}
}
public class mainClass{
PlayerStats pStats = new PlayerStats();
pStats.getVar1();
pStats.setVar1(14);
System.out.println(pStats.getVar1());
}
Thanks for that answer definately cleared things up however, in the object created in mainClass if I create the object in one function how do I use it in another function in the same class?
Depends on how and if the two functions are connected and how central that object is to your class.
If the object is very central to class :
That is, you are using it almost in all the function, your class revolves around playing with that object, then you can create it at class level something along these lines
public class mainClass{
PlayerStats pStats = new PlayerStats();
public void function1() {
pStats.setVar1(14);
System.out.println(pStats.getVar1());
}
public void function2(int x) {
pStats.setVar1(x);
System.out.println(pStats.getVar1());
}
}
If two functions are not connected :
Just make a new object inside the function scope, if possible.
This is better than creating an object at class level, because the object becomes eligible for garbage collection after the function is finished executing. Whereas, the object created at class level stays in the memory as long as the object (instance of main class) is in the memory.
If two functions are connected, i.e you are calling one function from inside the second function :
you can just pass the object as an argument, something along these lines
public class mainClass{
public void function1() {
PlayerStats pStats = new PlayerStats();
pStats.setVar1(14);
function2(pStats)
}
public void function2(PlayerStats x) {
System.out.println(pStats.getVar1());
}
}
Also google dependency injection, it is an important concept, try to use it as often as possible. It produces good decoupled and testable design
There is so much more to say, people have written books on this topic, OO Design is an art in itself.
Related
Instead of writing a code like
FindObjectOfType<GameManager>().gameOver()
I would like to type just
gm.gameOver()
Is there a way to do that in Unity?
Maybe using some kind of alias, or some kind of namespace or something else. I am after making my code clean, so using GameManger gm = FindObjectOfType() in every file that uses a the GameManager is not what I am looking for.
In general I have to discourage this question. This is very questionable and I would actually not recommend this kind of shortening aliases for types and especially not for a complete method call ... bad enough when it is done with variables and fields by a lot of people.
Always use proper variable and field names thus that by reading the code you already know what you are dealing with!
how about storing it in a variable (or class field) at the beginning or whenever needed (but as early as possible)
// You could also reference it already in the Inspector
// and skip the FindObjectOfType call entirely
[SerializeField] private _GameManager gm;
private void Awake()
{
if(!gm) gm = FindObjectOfType<_GameManager>();
}
and then later use
gm.gameOver();
where needed.
In general you should do this only once because FindObjectOfType is a very performance intense call.
This has to be done of course for each class wanting to use the _GameManager instance ...
However this would mostly be the preferred way to go.
Alternatively you could also (ab)use a Singleton pattern ... it is controversial and a lot of people hate it kind of ... but actually in the end FindObjectOfType on the design side does kind of the same thing and is even worse in performance ...
public class _GameManager : MonoBehaviour
{
// Backing field where the instance reference will actually be stored
private static _GameManager instance;
// A public read-only property for either returning the existing reference
// finding it in the scene
// or creating one if not existing at all
public static _GameManager Instance
{
get
{
// if the reference exists already simply return it
if(instance) return instance;
// otherwise find it in the scene
instance = FindObjectOfType<_GameManager>();
// if found return it now
if(instance) return instance;
// otherwise a lazy creation of the object if not existing in scene
instance = new GameObject("_GameManager").AddComponent<_GameManager>();
return instance;
}
}
private void Awake()
{
instance = this;
}
}
so you can at least reduce it to
_GameManager.Instance.gameOver();
the only alias you can create now would be using a using statement at the top of the file like e.g.
using gm = _GameManager;
then you can use
gm.Instance.gameOver();
it probably won't get much shorter then this.
But as said this is very questionable and doesn't bring any real benefit, it only makes your code worse to read/maintain! What if later in time you also have a GridManager and a GroupMaster? Then calling something gm is only confusing ;)
Btw you shouldn't start types with a _ .. rather call it e.g. MyGameManager or use a different namespace if you wanted to avoid name conflicts with an existing type
So, I have bound the CombatController to an object called "godObject". In the Start() method, I call init() functions on other classes. I did this so I can control the order in which objects are initialized since, for example, the character controller relies on the grid controller being initialized.
Quick diagram:
-------------------- calls
| CombatController | ----------> CameraController.init();
-------------------- |
| ---> GridController.init();
|
| ---> CharacterController.init();
So, now I have a slight problem. I have multiple properties that I need in every controller. At the moment, I have bound everything to the combat controller itself. That means that, in every controller, I have to get an instance of the CombatController via GameObject.Find("godObject).GetComponent<CombatController>(). To be honest, I don't think this is good design.
My idea now was to create a BaseCombatController that extends MonoBehavior, and then have all other classes like GridController, CharacterController etc. extend the BaseCombatController. It might look like this:
public class BaseCombatController : MonoBehaviour
{
public GameObject activePlayer;
public void setActivePlayer(GameObject player) {
this.activePlayer = player;
}
... more stuff to come ...
}
This way, I could access activePlayer everywhere without the need to create a new instance of the CombatController. However, I'm not sure if this doesn't have possible side effects.
So, lots of text for a simple question, is that safe to do?
I use inheritance in Unity all the time. The trick, like you have in the question, is to allow your base class to inherit from monobehavior. For Example:
public class Base Item : Monobehavior
{
public string ItemName;
public int Price;
public virtual void PickUp(){//pickup logic}
//Additional functions. Update etc. Make them virtual.
}
This class sets up what an item should do. Then in a derived class you can change and extend this behavior.
public class Coin : BaseItem
{
//properties set in the inspector
public override void PickUp(){//override pickup logic}
}
I have used this design pattern a lot over the past year, and am currently using it in a retail product. I would say go for it! Unity seems to favor components over inheritance, but you could easily use them in conjunction with each other.
Hope this helps!
As far as I can see this should be safe. If you look into Unity intern or even Microsoft scripts they all extend/inhert (from) each other.
Another thing you could try would be the use of interfaces, here is the Unity Documentation to them: https://unity3d.com/learn/tutorials/topics/scripting/interfaces if you want to check it out.
You are right that GameObject.Find is pure code smell.
You can do it via the inheritance tree (as discussed earlier) or even better via interfaces (as mentioned by Assasin Bot), or (I am surprised no one mentioned it earlier) via static fields (aka the Singleton pattern).
One thing to add from experience - having to have Inits() called in a specific order is a yellow flag for your design - I've been there myself and found myself drowned by init order management.
As a general advice: Unity gives you two usefull callbacks - Awake() and Start(). If you find yourself needing Init() you are probably not using those two as they were designed.
All the Awakes() are guaranteed (for acvie objects) to run before first Start(), so do all the internal object initialisation in Awake(), and binding to external objects on Start(). If you find yourself needing finer control - you should probably simplify the design a bit.
As a rule of thumb: all objects should have their internal state (getcomponents<>, list inits etc) in order by the end of Awake(), but they shold not make any calls depending on other objects being ready before Start(). Splitting it this way usually helps a lot
I would like to know what are drawbacks of a stateless class (if any)?
Has anyone seen a real-world application where some use case mandated the creation of a stateless class (No hello world please )?
I think a stateless class means a class without any fields.
Here's a real world example:
Writing plugins for Microsoft Dynamics CRM.
In that doc you'll see a note that says: "The plug-in's Execute method should be written to be stateless".
And basically what it means to be a stateless class is that there should be no global variables (except for a few special cases, which I won't get into unless asked).
The reason why this is mandated by CRM upon plugin developers is because CRM tries to improve performance by caching and re-using instances of plugin classes.
The way CRM executes its plugins is something roughly like this:
Main thread:
YourCustomPlugin yourCustomPluginCached = new YourCustomPlugin();
then later:
Thread1:
yourCustomPluginCached.Execute(context1);
and Thread2:
yourCustomPluginCached.Execute(context2);
What some developers do wrong is they will create a global variable to store the Context, which they set as the first line in the Execute() method. That way they don't have to pass it between all their methods. But this is actually a huge mistake.
Because if they do that, and in the scenario above, if the execution in thread2 begins before the execution from thread1 finishes. That would mean that context1 in thread1 would be overwritten with context2. And now that plugin will have some unexpected result. In 99% of cases, even when developed incorrectly this way, there are no problems, or no noticeable problems. But in 1% of cases, it will cause something to go wrong, and that something will be incredibly difficult for the dev to figure out what went wrong, and will probably never occur when they are testing/debugging. So it will probably go unfixed for a long time.
I never heard "stateless class", but I think you mean immutable objects (very useful notion!).
Or maybe a class which doesn't have any fields, so usually it looks like just bunch of pure functions.
If by stateless class you mean a class of immutable objects, then the drawback is that mutating operations need to copy an object instead of changing it in-place. That might be expensive.
I use these things quite often, pretty much whenever an object's behavior is determined by some input that can be processed all at once. A recent example is a statistical language model that I implemented: the model parameters were determined entirely in the constructor based on training input, and then the model could be queried for probability estimates on unseen text, but not modified. Immutability wasn't strictly mandated, but modifying the object didn't make sense, since there was no need to add data later on (in which case much of the computation had to be redone anyway).
I too am not sure what you mean by that term, but I assume it to mean a class with no fields, as the state of an object is actually the content of its fields.
Now, usually you'd use this kind of class as a collection of related functions - say, a certain Utils class. The common way to use this kind of class is by making its method static, so you don't actually have to create an instance of the class.
The only reason I can think of to actually create such a stateless object is if you'd like the actual functionality to be determined at run-time. So, if you have a UtilsBase class which offers a bunch of virtual methods and a UtilsDerived which overrides some of the methods, you can pass whoever needs to use the utils a reference to UtilsBase, and create the actual utils object at run-time, according to the specific needs.
A bit late, but here is my share.
I am sure the poster meant a stateless object. Please, people don't make it so dramatic.
Let's get to business. Some commenters asked about static. When static is used in a class, which should be used sparingly, all those members holding the static keyword now belong to the class and not anymore to the object. They are part of the class.
For example:
Declaring a Person class with a static property called Name does not make sense
public class Person
{
public **static** string Name { get; set; }
}
by the way another word for static is "Shared" which is used in VB.NET.
If we once set the name on the Person, then that name is shared everywhere because it does not belong to the object, but to the class itself. In real world you would not call all people "Jhon", or all your customers "Customer1". Each one will have a different name, surname, phone, address, etc. The moment we set these properties, this object becomes stateful, instead of stateless. It has a name, an address, etc. The properties of an object defined in a class make it stateful.
Here Name property belongs to the class, not part of the object:
Person.Name="Fili" //You would not call every person Fili in your application.
Let's redeclare the Person class by removing the static keyword:
public class Person
{
public string Name { get; set; }
}
In the example below, the object is stateful. It has a state, it has been given a name, "Jhon", which can be changed later. A person can change his name to Jimmy, for example. Once that is done, then the state of that object has changed from Jhon to Jimmy.
//From
Person person1 = new Person {
Name = "Jhon";
}
//to
person1.Name = "Jimmy"
The object 'person1' still is the same object, but its state has changed. It is not the same anymore. It has a different name.
So, person1 had a state until a cetain point in time, but then its state was changed. Now, it is in a different state.
Now, creating a new person is something new which has nothing to do with the person1. Person2 has its own state.
Person person2 = new Person {
Name = "Imir";
}
Using the static class: Person.Name="Fili" it has a state, but it belongs to the class and it is shared everywhere.
So, a stateless object will be one that has nothing to be changed, doesn't hold a value. Will you create a person without a Name? Would you create a customer object which does not exist? No, of course not. The moment you name a person or a customer, they have a state. They exists and can change their state.
Take the example of a Airplane. When you delcare it you add a Status property for example.
public class Airplane {
public string Status {get;set;}
}
var plane1 = new Airplane{ Status="Flying"};
So, the question arises: what is the state (status) of the plane at this moment?
One would reply: it is "flying". If you change the state to "taxing", then its state is "taxing", or it is "stationary", etc.
In stateless class, all field members should be readonly type. Although c# don't have any such features which will check statelessness at compile time like:
public readonly class MyReadonlyClass
{
public readonly double X {get;set;}
public readonly double Y {get;set;}
public readonly double Z {get;set;}
public MyReadonlyClass(double x_,double y_,double z_)
{
X=x_;Y=y_;Z=z_;
}
}
public readonly static class MyStaticReadonlyClass
{
public readonly static double X {get;set;}
public readonly static double Y {get;set;}
public readonly static double Z {get;set;}
static MyStaticReadonlyClass(double x_,double y_,double z_)
{
X=x_;Y=y_;Z=z_;
}
}
Stateless is something which should not preserve its state or in other words we can say that every time we use the any functionality or member of that class then previously used/set variables should not affect the next use of that class/functionality.
Consider the following code snippet (Ignore the standards)-
class Maths {
int radius;
public void setRadius(int r) {
this.radius = r;
}
public float getCircleArea() {
return (float) (3.14 * radius * radius);
}
}
public class Geometry {
public static void main(String[] args) {
Maths m = new Maths();
m.setRadius(14);
System.out.println(m.getCircleArea());
}
}
if some other running thread changes the value of radius in class Maths then getCircleArea() would give us different results because the state of the variable 'radius' can be change as it is a global variable. This problem occurs mainly in web application where we use bean containers. Most of the beans are Singleton and only has one copy. If we use global variables then there is a possibility that value of a global variable will change.
To make a stateless class try to use local variable so that the scope of the variable will be limited.
Example of the above getCircleArea() will be.
public float getCircleArea(int radius) {
return (float) (3.14 * radius * radius);
}
I saw multiple examples in MSDN that uses to declare the internal fields at the end of the class. What is the point?
I find this a little embarrassing, because each time Visual Studio adds a method it adds it to the end of the class, so there is need every time to move it...
class A
{
public A(){}
// Methods, Properties, etc ...
private string name;
}
class A
{
private string name;
public A(){}
// Methods, Properties, etc ...
}
In C++, it makes sense to put the public interface of the class at the top, so that any user of the class can open up your header file and quickly see what's available. By implication, protected and private members are put at the bottom.
In C# and Java, where interface and implementation are completely intertwined, people would probably not open your class's source code to see what's available. Instead they would rely on code completion or generated documentation. In that case, the ordering of the class members is irrelevant.
If it's obvious the variable has been declared, and the code is by way of an example, then arguably this gets you to the bit being demonstrated quicker - that's all I can think of.
Add-ins like ReSharper will allow you to standardise and automatically apply this layout at the touch of a key combination, by the way, if it is what you want.
Many programmers strive for self-documenting code that helps clients to understand it. In C++ class declaration, they would go from most important (i.e. what is probably most frequently inspected) to least important:
class Class {
public:
// First what interest all clients.
static Class FromFoobar(float foobar); // Named constructors in client code
// often document best
Class(); // "Unnamed" constructors.
/* public methods */
protected:
// This is only of interest to those who specialize
// your class.
private:
// Of interest to your class.
};
Building on that, if you use Qt, the following ordering might be interesting:
class SomeQtClass : public QObject {
public:
signals: // what clients can couple on
public slots: // what clients can couple to
protected:
protected slots:
};
Then the same down for protected and private slots. There is no specific reason why I prefer signals over slots; maybe because signals are always public, but I guess the ordering of them would depend on the situation, anyhow, I keep it consistent.
Another bit I like is to use the access-specifiers to visually seperate behaviour from data (following the importance ordering, behaviour first, data last, because behaviour is the top-interest for the class implementor):
class Class {
private:
void foobar() ;
private:
float frob_;
int glob_;
};
Keeping the last rule helps to prevent visual scattering of class components (we all know how some legacy classes look like over time, when variables and functions are mixed up, not?).
I don't think there is any valid reason for this. If you run Code Analysis on a class declared like this you'll get an error as private fields should be declared on top of classes (and below constants).
This is pretty basic, but sort of a generic issue so I want to hear what people's thoughts are. I have a situation where I need to take an existing MSI file and update it with a few standard modifications and spit out a new MSI file (duplication of old file with changes).
I started writing this with a few public methods and a basic input path for the original MSI. The thing is, for this to work properly, a strict path of calls has to be followed from the caller:
var custom = CustomPackage(sourcemsipath);
custom.Duplicate(targetmsipath);
custom.Upgrade();
custom.Save();
custom.WriteSmsXmlFile(targetxmlpath);
Would it be better to put all the conversion logic as part of the constructor instead of making them available as public methods? (in order to avoid having the caller have to know what the "proper order" is):
var custom = CustomPackage(sourcemsipath, targetmsipath); // saves converted msi
custom.WriteSmsXmlFile(targetxmlpath); // saves optional xml for sms
The constructor would then directly duplicate the MSI file, upgrade it and save it to the target location. The "WriteSmsXmlFile is still a public method since it is not always required.
Personally I don't like to have the constructor actually "do stuff" - I prefer to be able to call public methods, but it seems wrong to assume that the caller should know the proper order of calls?
An alternative would be to duplicate the file first, and then pass the duplicated file to the constructor - but it seems better to have the class do this on its own.
Maybe I got it all backwards and need two classes instead: SourcePackage, TargetPackage and pass the SourcePackage into the constructor of the TargetPackage?
I'd go with your first thought: put all of the conversion logic into one place. No reason to expose that sequence to users.
Incidentally, I agree with you about not putting actions into a constructor. I'd probably not do this in the constructor, and instead do it in a separate converter method, but that's personal taste.
It may be just me, but the thought of a constructor doing all these things makes me shiver. But why not provide a static method, which does all this:
public class CustomPackage
{
private CustomPackage(String sourcePath)
{
...
}
public static CustomPackage Create(String sourcePath, String targetPath)
{
var custom = CustomPackage(sourcePath);
custom.Duplicate(targetPath);
custom.Upgrade();
custom.Save();
return custom;
}
}
The actual advantage of this method is, that you won't have to give out an instance of CustomPackage unless the conversion process actually succeeded (safe of the optional parts).
Edit In C#, this factory method can even be used (by using delegates) as a "true" factory according to the Factory Pattern:
public interface ICustomizedPackage
{
...
}
public class CustomPackage: ICustomizedPackage
{
...
}
public class Consumer
{
public delegate ICustomizedPackage Factory(String,String);
private Factory factory;
public Consumer(Factory factory)
{
this.factory = factory;
}
private ICustomizedPackage CreatePackage()
{
return factory.Invoke(..., ...);
}
...
}
and later:
new Consumer(CustomPackage.Create);
You're right to think that the constructor shouldn't do any more work than to simply initialize the object.
Sounds to me like what you need is a Convert(targetmsipath) function that wraps the calls to Duplicate, Upgrade and Save, thereby removing the need for the caller to know the correct order of operations, while at the same time keeping the logic out of the constructor.
You can also overload it to include a targetxmlpath parameter that, when supplied, also calls the WriteSmsXmlFile function. That way all the related operations are called from the same function on the caller's side and the order of operations is always correct.
In such situations I typicaly use the following design:
var task = new Task(src, dst); // required params goes to constructor
task.Progress = ProgressHandler; // optional params setup
task.Run();
I think there are service-oriented ways and object-oritented ways.
The service-oriented way would be to create series of filters that passes along an immutable data transfer object (entity).
var service1 = new Msi1Service();
var msi1 = service1.ReadFromFile(sourceMsiPath);
var service2 = new MsiCustomService();
var msi2 = service2.Convert(msi1);
service2.WriteToFile(msi2, targetMsiPath);
service2.WriteSmsXmlFile(msi2, targetXmlPath);
The object-oriented ways can use decorator pattern.
var decoratedMsi = new CustomMsiDecorator(new MsiFile(sourceMsiPath));
decoratedMsi.WriteToFile(targetMsiPath);
decoratedMsi.WriteSmsXmlFile(targetXmlPath);