I know the basic definition of the following smart types and how to use them. However I am not very sure on the places/circumstances
where :
std::auto_ptr should be preferred over std::shared_ptr.
std::shared_ptr should be preferred over std::auto_ptr.
std::auto_ptr : used to ensures that the object to which it points gets destroyed automatically when control leaves a block.
std::shared_ptr : wraps a reference-counted smart pointer around a dynamically allocated object.
auto_ptr should never be used because it is deprecated as of C++111.
Use
std::shared_ptr if ownership is to be shared
std::unique_ptr if there should only be a unique view of the object, i.e. only one owner
auto_ptr can also not be used in standard containers as it is not copyable.
1: D.10 auto_ptr: "The class template auto_ptr is deprecated. [ Note: The class template unique_ptr (20.7.1) provides a better solution. —end note"
In the case there is only one owner, use lightweight std::unique_ptr. For more complicated scenarios use std::shared_ptr.
There is no reason to use std::auto_ptr: new smart pointers shared_ptr, unique_ptr and weak_ptr contain all required functionality. unique_ptr class supersedes auto_ptr
You use an auto_ptr (or unique_ptr in C++11) when one distinguished pointer instance has full ownership of the pointee. That is, if you can always look at the code and point with your finger at one instance of std::auto_ptr that owns the object the pointer points at, you have a good use case fo auto_ptr.
If things are not so clear, you use a shared_ptr. If in doubt and in a single-threaded environment, use a shared_ptr.
Related
How many instance does binding creates internally for converters.
<Image x:Uid="DisplayedImageUrl" Style="{StaticResource ImageStyle}"
Source="{Binding DisplayedImageURL, Converter={StaticResource ImageLogoConverter}}" />
How many instance does of ImageLogoConverter will be there?
Is it good idea to use converter in ViewModel, if not then what is the best way to access converted value of ViewModel property.
Is it good idea to use converter in ViewModel?
No. Why would you use a converter in a view model where you can return the converted value directly? Converters are used in the view, typically to convert a non-view friendly value that the view model returns.
If not then what is the best way to access converted value of ViewModel property?
You can simpy return an already converted value from the view model, i.e. instead of binding to a Uri property, you may bind directly to an ImageSource property.
This is the recommnded approach if you for example intend to display a lot of elements in a ItemsControl. Then you probably don't want to invoke a converter for each visible element for performance reasons.
I suppose you created the converter as a resource like this:
The number of instances now depends on the scope where the converter resource is declared. If you create it in <Page.Resources>, one instance will be created to be used by the page. If you create it in App.xaml in <Application.Resources> it will be an application-wide instance. Of course, you can even use a narrower scope - create it as a resource of a single control in your XAML tree for example - in any case, a single instance is created when instance of the parent is created.
The situation gets a bit more interesting if you embed it in a ItemTemplate of a list control. Thanks to virtualization, the system will not actually create one instance for each item. Instead, it will create only so many instances as fit on the screen and they get reused when the user scrolls.
Some MVVM developers don't like value converters, but others use them extensively. It really is a matter of preference. In cas you expect the underlying data to change often, it is advisable to keep the code in the converter as performant as possible as it runs on the UI thread.
I'm looking for a way of condensing some of my AS3 code to avoid almost duplicate commands.
The issue is that I have multiple variables with almost the same name e.g. frenchLanguage, englishLanguage, germanLanguage, spanishLanguage
My Controller class contains public static variables (these are accessed across multiple classes) and I need a way to be able to call a few of these variables dynamically. If the variables are in the class you are calling them from you can do this to access them dynamically:
this["spanish"+"Language"]
In AS3 it's not possible to write something like:
Controller.this["spanish"+"Language"]
Is there any way to achieve this? Although everything is working I want to be able to keep my code as minimal as possible.
It is possible to access public static properties of a class this way (assuming the class name is Controller as in your example:
Controller['propertyName']
I'm not sure how this helps to have "minimal code", but this would be a different topic/question, which might need some more details on what you want to achive.
Having said that, I like the approach DodgerThud suggests in the comments of grouping similar values in a (dynamic) Object or Dictonary and give it a proper name.
Keep in mind, that if the string you pass in as the key to the class or dynamic object is created from (textual) user input you should have some checks for the validity of that data, otherwise your programm might crash or expose other fields to the user.
It would make sense to utilize a Dictionary object for a set of variables inherited: it provides a solid logic and it happens to work...
I do not think this is what you are trying to accomplish. I may be wrong.
Classes in AS3 are always wrapped within a package - this is true whether you have compiled from Flash, Flex, Air, or any other...
Don't let Adobe confuse you. This was only done in AS3 to use Java-Based conventions. Regardless, a loosely typed language is often misunderstood, unfortunately. So:
this["SuperObject"]["SubObject"]["ObjectsMethod"][ObjectsMethodsVariable"](args..);
... is technically reliable because the compiler avoids dot notation but at runtime it will collect a lot of unnecessary data to maintain those types of calls.
If efficiency becomes an issue..
Use:
package packages {
import flash.*.*:
class This implements ISpecialInterface {
// Data Objects and Function Model
// for This Class
}
package packages {
import...
class ISpecialInterface extends IEventDispatcher
I have a Moose::Role that contains a network client as an attribute:
package Widget;
use Moose::Role;
has 'network_thingy' => (
isa => Maybe[ThingyClient],
);
And of course, I have a couple concrete Moose classes which use this role:
package BlueWidget;
use Moose;
with 'Widget';
Now it comes to functional testing of the Widgets. We have the ability to create ThingyServer objects, and it would be much faster and overall excellent to directly use ThingyServer objects instead of spinning up a daemon and having a ThingyClient connect to it over the network. Since ThingyClient & ThingyServer conveniently have the exact same methods, this should be easily possible. But of course, Moose is demanding that I use a ThingyClient when the test eventually constructs a BlueWidget.
I did some research, and came across the Moose::Meta documentation. Seemed perfect! So here's the test code:
my $metarole = Moose::Meta::Role->initialize('Widget');
// first remove the old attribute
$metarole->remove_attribute('network_thingy');
I was going to add a new attribute, but I thought I'd check on the state of the role & class first. Now if I dump out the $metarole, it looks great. There's no network_thingy attribute anymore. But if I construct a BlueWidget class, or just peak inside the metaclass...
$metaclass = Moose::Meta::Class->initialize('BlueWidget');
diag Dumper ($metaclass);
... sure enough network_thingy is still there. This is not at all what I expected. How can I modify/remove/replace an attribute of the Widget role at runtime?
When a class consumes a role, attributes are copied from the role to the class. If you then change the attribute in the role, the copy in the class is unaffected.
So you would need to loop through the classes that have consumed the role, and change the attribute in each class. There's a consumers method in Moose::Meta::Role that could help you get a list of classes that have consumed the role, however it only covers classes that have directly consumed the role, and not, say, subclasses of those.
If the classes have been made immutable (__PACKAGE__->meta->make_immutable), you'll need to make them mutable again before you make modify the attribute.
Overall, it's probably a better idea to just alter the role module (i.e. edit the file); not attempt to tweak the attribute at run time. Maybe set isa to a duck_type type constraint?
Say I have a class that looks like the following:
internal class SomeClass
{
IDependency _someDependency;
...
internal string SomeFunctionality_MakesUseofIDependency()
{
...
}
}
And then I want to add functionality that is related but makes use of a different dependency to achieve its purpose. Perhaps something like the following:
internal class SomeClass
{
IDependency _someDependency;
IDependency2 _someDependency2;
...
internal string SomeFunctionality_MakesUseofIDependency()
{
...
}
internal string OtherFunctionality_MakesUseOfIDependency2()
{
...
}
}
When I write unit tests for this new functionality (or update the unit tests that I have for the existing functionality), I find myself creating a new instance of SomeClass (the SUT) whilst passing in null for the dependency that I don't need for the particular bit of functionality that I'm looking to test.
This seems like a bad smell to me but the very reason why I find myself going down this path is because I found myself creating new classes for each piece of new functionality that I was introducing. This seemed like a bad thing as well and so I started attempting to group similar functionality together.
My question: should all dependencies of a class be consumed by all its functionality i.e. if different bits of functionality use different dependencies, it is a clue that these should probably live in separate classes?
When every instance method touches every instance variable then the class is maximally cohesive. When no instance method shares an instance variable with any other, the class is minimally cohesive. While it is true that we like cohesion to be high, it's also true that the 80-20 rule applies. Getting that last little increase in cohesion may require a mamoth effort.
In general if you have methods that don't use some variables, it is a smell. But a small odor is not sufficient to completely refactor the class. It's something to be concerned about, and to keep an eye on, but I don't recommend immediate action.
Does SomeClass maintain an internal state, or is it just "assembling" various pieces of functionality? Can you rewrite it that way:
internal class SomeClass
{
...
internal string SomeFunctionality(IDependency _someDependency)
{
...
}
internal string OtherFunctionality(IDependency2 _someDependency2)
{
...
}
}
In this case, you may not break SRP if SomeFunctionality and OtherFunctionality are somehow (functionally) related which is not apparent using placeholders.
And you have the added value of being able to select the dependency to use from the client, not at creation/DI time. Maybe some tests defining use cases for those methods would help clarifying the situation: If you can write a meaningful test case where both methods are called on same object, then you don't break SRP.
As for the Facade pattern, I have seen it too many times gone wild to like it, you know, when you end up with a 50+ methods class... The question is: Why do you need it? For efficiency reasons à la old-timer EJB?
I usually group methods into classes if they use a shared piece of state that can be encapsulated in the class. Having dependencies that aren't used by all methods in a class can be a code smell but not a very strong one. I usually only split up methods from classes when the class gets too big, the class has too many dependencies or the methods don't have shared state.
My question: should all dependencies of a class be consumed by all its functionality i.e. if different bits of functionality use different dependencies, it is a clue that these should probably live in separate classes?
It is a hint, indicating that your class may be a little incoherent ("doing more than just one thing"), but like you say, if you take this too far, you end up with a new class for every piece of new functionality. So you would want to introduce facade objects to pull them together again (it seems that a facade object is exactly the opposite of this particular design rule).
You have to find a good balance that works for you (and the rest of your team).
Looks like overloading to me.
You're trying to do something and there's two ways to do it, one way or another. At the SomeClass level, I'd have one dependency to do the work, then have that single dependent class support the two (or more) ways to do the same thing, most likely with mutually exclusive input parameters.
In other words, I'd have the same code you have for SomeClass, but define it as SomeWork instead, and not include any other unrelated code.
HTH
A Facade is used when you want to hide complexity (like an interface to a legacy system) or you want to consolidate functionality while being backwards compatible from an interface perspective.
The key in your case is why you have the two different methods in the same class. Is the intent to have a class which groups together similar types of behavior even if it is implemented through unrelated code, as in aggregation. Or, are you attempting to support the same behavior but have alternative implementations depending on the specifics, which would be a hint for a inheritance/overloading type of solution.
The problem will be whether this class will continue to grow and in what direction. Two methods won't make a difference but if this repeats with more than 3, you will need to decide whether you want to declare it as a facade/adapter or that you need to create child classes for the variations.
Your suspicions are correct but the smell is just the wisp of smoke from a burning ember. You need to keep an eye on it in case it flares up and then you need to make a decision as how you want to quench the fire before it burns out of control.
What is the best way of adding a new object in the entity framework. The designer adds all these create methods, but to me it makes more sense to call new on an object. The generated CreateCustomer method e.g. could be called like this:
Customer c = context.CreateCustomer(System.Guid.NewGuid(), "Name"));
context.AddToCustomer(c);
where to me it would make more sense to do:
Customer c = new Customer {
Id = System.Guid.NewGuid(),
Name = "Name"
};
context.AddToCustomer(c);
The latter is much more explicit since the properties that are being set at construction are named. I assume that the designer adds the create methods on purpose. Why should I use those?
As Andrew says (up-voted), it's quite acceptable to use regular constructors. As for why the "Create" methods exist, I believe the intention is to make explicit which properties are required. If you use such methods, you can be assured that you have not forgotten to set any property which will throw an exception when you SaveChanges. However, the code generator for the Entity Framework doesn't quite get this right; it includes server-generated auto increment properties, as well. These are technically "required", but you don't need to specify them.
You can absolutely use the second, more natural way. I'm not even sure of why the first way exists at all.
I guess it has to do with many things. It looks like factory method to me, therefore allowing one point of extension. 2ndly having all this in your constructor is not really best practice, especially when doing a lot of stuff at initialisation. Yes, your question seems reasonable, i even agree with it, however, in terms of object design, it is more practical as they did it.
Regards,
Marius C. (c_marius#msn.com)