Say I wanted to store objects statically inside their own class. Like this:
public class Foo
{
private static int instance_id = 0;
public static List<Foo> instances = new List<Foo>();
public Foo()
{
instances[instance_id++] = this;
}
}
Why?
I don't need to create unique array structures outside the class (one will do).
I want to map each object to a unique id according to their time of birth.
I will only have one thread with the class in use. Foo will only exist as one set in the program.
I did searching, but could find no mention of this data structure. Is this bad practice? If so, why? Thank you.
{please note, this question is not specific to any language}
There are a couple of potential problems I can see with this setup.
First, since you only have a single array of objects, if you need to update the code so that you have lots of different groups of objects in different contexts, you'll need to do a significant rewrite so that each object ends up getting associated with a different context. Depending on your setup this may not be a problem, but I suspect that in the long term this decision may come back to haunt you.
Second, this approach assumes that you never need to dispose of any objects. Imagine that you want to update your code so that you do a number of different simulations and aggregate the results. If you do this, then you'll end up having your giant array storing pointers to objects you're not using. This means that you'll (1) have a memory leak and (2) have to update all your looping code to skip over objects you no longer care about.
Third, this approach makes it the responsibility of the class, rather than the client, to keep track of all the instances. In some sense, if the purpose of what you're doing is to make it easier for clients to have access to a global list of all the objects that exist, you may want to consider just putting a different list somewhere else that's globally accessible so that the objects themselves aren't the ones responsible for keeping track of themselves.
I would recommend using one of a number of alternate approaches:
Just have the client do this. If the client needs to keep track of all the instances, just have them always create the array they need and populate it. That way, if multiple clients need different arrays, they can do so. You also avoid the memory leak issues if you do this properly.
Have each object take, as part of its constructor, a context in which to be constructed. For example, if all of these objects are nodes in a quadtree, have them take a pointer to the quadtree in which they'll live as a constructor parameter, then have the quadtree object store the list of the nodes in it. After all, it seems like it's really the quadtree's responsibility to keep track of everything.
Keep doing what you're doing, but using something with weak references. For example, you might consider using some variation on a WeakHashMap so that you do store everything, but if the objects are no longer needed, you at least don't have a memory leak.
Related
I have two arrays:
struct Data {
all_objects: Vec<Rc<dyn Drawable>>;
selected_objects: Vec<Rc<dyn Drawable>>;
}
selected_objects is guarenteed to be a subset of all_objects. I want to be able to somehow be able to add or remove mutable references to selected objects.
I can add the objects easily enough to selected_objects:
Rc::get_mut(selected_object).unwrap().select(true);
self.selected_objects.push(selected_object.clone());
However, if I later try:
for obj in self.selected_objects.iter_mut() {
Rc::get_mut(obj).unwrap().select(false);
}
This gives a runtime error, which matches the documentation for get_mut: "Returns None otherwise, because it is not safe to mutate a shared value."
However, I really want to be able to access and call arbitrary methods on both arrays, so I can efficiently perform operations on the selection, while also being able to still perform operations for all objects.
It seems Rc does not support this, it seems RefMut is missing a Clone() that alows me to put it into multiple arrays, plus not actually supporting dyn types. Box is also missing a Clone(). So my question is, how do you store writable pointers in multiple arrays? Is there another type of smart pointer for this purpose? Do I need to nest them? Is there some other data structure more suitable? Is there a way to give up the writable reference?
Ok, it took me a bit of trial and error, but I have a ugly solution:
struct Data {
all_objects: Vec<Rc<RefCell<dyn Drawable>>>;
selected_objects: Vec<Rc<RefCell<dyn Drawable>>>;
}
The Rc allows you to store multiple references to an object. RefCell makes these references mutable. Now the only thing I have to do is call .borrow() every time I use a object.
While this seems to work and be reasonably versitle, I'm still open for cleaner solutions.
I was reading an article about array vs list, and the author says that an array is worse than a list, because (among other things) an array is a list of variables, but to me a list is also a list of variables. I mean, I can still do list[3] = new Item().
Actually, I have always somehow saw a List<T> like a wrapper for an array that allows me to use it easily without caring about handling its structure.
What are the internal differences between a T[] and a List<T> in terms of heap/stack memory usage?
Since an array is a static structure, after the initialization, it allocates the memory that you've demanded.
int arr[5];
For example here there are 5 int objects created in memory. But when you use lists, according to its implementation, it gives you first an array with predefined capacity. And while you are adding your elements, if you exceed the capacity then it scales up. In some implementations it just doubles its size, or in some implementations it enlarges itself when the granted capacity is half full.
The author's point about a "list of variables" wasn't about memory. It's that an array contains your internal variables, and returning it allows them to be reassigned by the caller. It comes down to this:
Only pass out an array if it is wrapped up by a read-only object.
If you pass out an internal List<T>, you have the same problem, but here's the key:
We have an extensibility model for lists because lists are classes. We
have no ability to make an “immutable array”. Arrays are what they are
and they’re never going to change.
And, at the time the article was written, the IReadOnlyList interface didn't exist yet (.NET 4.5), though he probably would have mentioned it if it had. I believe he was advocating implementing an IList<T> that would simply throw an exception if you tried to use the setter. Of course, if the user doesn't need the ability to access elements by index, you don't need a list interface at all -- you can just wrap it in a ReadOnlyCollection<T> and return it as an IEnumerable<T>.
My project has classes which, unavoidably, contain hundreds upon hundreds of variables that I'm always having to keep straight. For example, I'm always having to keep track of specific kinds of variables for a recurring set of "items" that occur inside of a class, where placing those variables between multiple classes would cause a lot of confusion.
How do I better sort my variables to keep from going crazy, especially when it comes time to save my data?
Am I missing something? Actionscript is an Object Oriented language, so you might have hundreds of variables, but unless you've somehow treated it like a grab bag and dumped it all in one place, everything should be to hand. Without knowing what all you're keeping track of, it's hard to give concrete advice, but here's an example from a current project I'm working on, which is a platform for building pre-employment assessments.
The basic unit is a Question. A Question has a stem, text that can go in the status bar, a collection of answers, and a collection of measures of things we're tracking about what the user does in that particular type of questions.
The measures are, again, their own type of object, and come in two "flavors": one that is used to track a time limit and one that isn't. The measure has a name (so we know where to write back to the database) and a value (which tells us what). Timed ones also have a property for the time limit.
When we need to time the question, we hand that measure to yet another object that counts the time down and a separate object that displays the time (if appropriate for the situation). The answers, known as distractors, have a label and a value that they can impart to the appropriate measure based on the user selection. For example, if a user selects "d", its value, "4" is transferred to the measure that stores the user's selection.
Once the user submits his answer, we loop through all the measures for the question and send those to the database. If those were not treated as a collection (in this case, a Vector), we'd have to know exactly what specific measures are being stored for each question and each question would have a very different structure that we'd have to dig through. So if looping through collections is your issue, I think you should revisit that idea. It saves a lot of code and is FAR more efficient than "var1", "var2", "var3."
If the part you think is unweildy is the type checking you have to do because literally anything could be in there, then Vector could be a good solution for you as long as you're using at least Flash Player 10.
So, in summary:
When you have a lot of related properties, write a Class that keeps all of those related bits and pieces together (like my Question).
When objects have 0-n "things" that are all of the same or very similar, use a collection of some sort, such as an Array or Vector, to allow you to iterate through them as a group and perform the same operation on each (for example, each Question is part of a larger grouping that allows each question to be presented in turn, and each question has a collection of distractors and another of measures.
These two concepts, used together, should help keep your information tidy and organized.
While I'm certain there are numerous ways of keeping arrays straight, I have found a method that works well for me. Best of all, it collapses large amounts of information into a handful of arrays that I can parse to an XML file or other storage method. I call this method my "indexed array system".
There are actually multiple ways to do this: creating a handful of 1-dimensional arrays, or creating 2-dimensional (or higher) array(s). Both work equally well, so choose the one that works best for your code. I'm only going to show the 1-dimensional method here. Those of you who are familiar with arrays can probably figure out how to rewrite this to use higher dimensional arrays.
I use Actionscript 3, but this approach should work with almost any programming or scripting language.
In this example, I'm trying to keep various "properties" of different "activities" straight. In this case, we'll say these properties are Level, High Score, and Play Count. We'll call the activities Pinball, Word Search, Maze, and Memory.
This method involves creating multiple arrays, one for each property, and creating constants that hold the integer "key" used for each activity.
We'll start by creating the constants, as integers. Constants work for this, because we never change them after compile. The value we put into each constant is the index the corresponding data will always be stored at in the arrays.
const pinball:int = 0;
const wordsearch:int = 1;
const maze:int = 2;
const memory:int = 3;
Now, we create the arrays. Remember, arrays start counting from zero. Since we want to be able to modify the values, this should be a regular variable.
Note, I am constructing the array to be the specific length we need, with the default value for the desired data type in each slot. I've used all integers here, but you can use just about any data type you need.
var highscore:Array = [0, 0, 0, 0];
var level:Array = [0, 0, 0, 0];
var playcount:Array = [0, 0, 0, 0];
So, we have a consistent "address" for each property, and we only had to create four constants, and three arrays, instead of 12 variables.
Now we need to create the functions to read and write to the arrays using this system. This is where the real beauty of the system comes in. Be sure this function is written in public scope if you want to read/write the arrays from outside this class.
To create the function that gets data from the arrays, we need two arguments: the name of the activity and the name of the property. We also want to set up this function to return a value of any type.
GOTCHA WARNING: In Actionscript 3, this won't work in static classes or functions, as it relies on the "this" keyword.
public function fetchData(act:String, prop:String):*
{
var r:*;
r = this[prop][this[act]];
return r;
}
That queer bit of code, r = this[prop][this[act]], simply uses the provided strings "act" and "prop" as the names of the constant and array, and sets the resulting value to r. Thus, if you feed the function the parameters ("maze", "highscore"), that code will essentially act like r = highscore[2] (remember, this[act] returns the integer value assigned to it.)
The writing method works essentially the same way, except we need one additional argument, the data to be written. This argument needs to be able to accept any
GOTCHA WARNING: One significant drawback to this system with strict typing languages is that you must remember the data type for the array you're writing to. The compiler cannot catch these type errors, so your program will simply throw a fatal error if it tries to write the wrong value type.
One clever way around this is to create different functions for different data types, so passing the wrong data type in an argument will trigger a compile-time error.
public function writeData(act:String, prop:String, val:*):void
{
this[prop][this[act]] = val;
}
Now, we just have one additional problem. What happens if we pass an activity or property name that doesn't exist? To protect against this, we just need one more function.
This function will validate a provided constant or variable key by attempting to access it, and catching the resulting fatal error, returning false instead. If the key is valid, it will return true.
function validateName(ID:String):Boolean
{
var checkthis:*
var r:Boolean = true;
try
{
checkthis = this[ID];
}
catch (error:ReferenceError)
{
r = false;
}
return r;
}
Now, we just need to adjust our other two functions to take advantage of this. We'll wrap the function's code inside an if statement.
If one of the keys is invalid, the function will do nothing - it will fail silently. To get around this, just put a trace (a.k.a. print) statement or a non-fatal error in the else construct.
public function fetchData(act:String, prop:String):*
{
var r:*;
if(validateName(act) && validateName(prop))
{
r = this[prop][this[act]];
return r;
}
}
public function writeData(act:String, prop:String, val:*):void
{
if(validateName(act) && validateName(prop))
{
this[prop][this[act]] = val;
}
}
Now, to use these functions, you simply need to use one line of code each. For the example, we'll say we have a text object in the GUI that shows the high score, called txtHighScore. I've omitted the necessary typecasting for the sake of the example.
//Get the high score.
txtHighScore.text = fetchData("maze", "highscore");
//Write the new high score.
writeData("maze", "highscore", txtHighScore.text);
I hope ya'll will find this tutorial useful in sorting and managing your variables.
(Afternote: You can probably do something similar with dictionaries or databases, but I prefer the flexibility with this method.)
I have problem with concept and implementation of encapsulation.
Can someone explain it to me?
Encapsulation is a moderately easy concept once you realise it (probably) comes from the same base word as capsule.
It's simply a containment of information.
Encapsulation means that a class publishes only what is needed for others to use it, and no more. This is called information hiding and it means classes can totally change their internals without having an effect on any of their users.
In other words, a dictionary class can begin life as a simple array and progress to a binary tree of words then even maybe to some database access functions, all without changing the interface to it.
In an object oriented world, objects hold both their data and the methods used to manipulate data and that is the pinnacle of encapsulation. One way this is done is to make sure each object knows which functions to call to manipulate its data, and ensure the correct ones are called.
As an example, here's a class for maintaining integer lists in my mythical, but strangely Python-like and therefore hopefully easy to understand, language:
class intlist:
private int val[10] # Slots for storing numbers.
private bool used[10] # Whether slot is used or not.
public constructor:
# Mark all slots unused.
for i in 0..9:
used[i] = false
public function add(int v) throws out-of-memory:
# Check each slot.
for i in 0..9:
# If unused, store value, mark used, return.
if not used[i]:
used[i] = true
val[i] = v
return
# No free slots, so throw exception.
throw out-of-memory
public function del(int v) throws bad-value:
# Check each slot.
for i in 0..9:
# If slot used and contains value.
if used[i] and val[i] == v:
# Mark unused and return.
used[i] = false
return
# Value not found in any used slot, throw exception.
throw bad-value
public function has(int v):
# Check each slot.
for i in 0..9:
# If slot used and contains value.
if used[i] and val[i] == v:
return true
# Value not found in any used slot.
return false
Now the only information published here are the constructor and three functions for adding, deleting, and checking for values (including what exceptions can be thrown).
Callers need know nothing about the internal data structures being used (val and used), or the properties of the functions beyond their "signatures" (the content of the "function" lines).
Because everything else is encapsulated, it can changed it at will without breaking the code that uses it.
I could, for example, do any of the following:
make the arrays longer;
store the data sorted, or in a binary tree instead of an array to make it faster.
change the used array into a count array (initialised to zero) so that many occurrences of a single number use just the one slot, increasing the quantity of numbers that can be stored where there are duplicates.
store the numbers in a database, located on a ZX-80 retro-computer located in outback Australia, and powered by methane produced from kangaroo droppings (though you may notice a latency change).
Basically, as long as the published API doesn't change, we am free to do whatever we want. In fact, we can also add things to the API without breaking other code, I just can't delete or change anything that users already rely on.
You should note that encapsulation isn't something new with object orientation. It's been around for ages, even in C by ensuring that information is hidden within a module (usually a source file or group thereof with private headers).
In fact, the stdio.h FILE* stuff is a good example of this. You don't care what's actually behind the pointer since all the functions which use it know how to do their stuff.
link text
I always explain it to people is think of yourself as an object. Other people can see your height, they can see if your smiling, but your inner thoughts, maybe the reason while your smiling, only you know.
Encapsulation is more than just defining accessor and mutator methods for a class. It is broader concept of object-oriented programming that consists in minimizing the interdependence between classes and it is typically implemented through information hiding.
The beauty of encapsulation is the power of changing things without affecting its users.
In a object-oriented programming language like Java, you achieve encapsulation by hiding details using the accessibility modifiers (public, protected, private, plus no modifier which implies package private). With these levels of accessibility you control the level of encapsulation, the less restrictive the level, the more expensive change is when it happens and the more coupled the class is with other dependent classes (i.e. user classes, subclasses).
Therefore, the goal is not to hide the data itself, but the implementation details on how this data is manipulated.
The idea is to provide a public interface through which you gain access to this data. You can later change the internal representation of the data without compromising the public interface of the class. On the contrary, by exposing the data itself, you compromise encapsulation, and therefore, the capacity of changing the way you manipulate the data without affecting its users. You create a dependency with the data itself, and not with the public interface of the class. You would be creating a perfect cocktail for trouble when "change" finally finds you.
There are several reasons why you might want to encapsulate access to your fields. Joshua Bloch in his book Effective Java, in Item 14: Minimize the accessibility of classes and members, mentions several compelling reasons, which I quote here:
You can limit the values that can be stored in a field (i.e. gender must be F or M).
You can take actions when the field is modified (trigger event, validate, etc).
You can provide thread safety by synchronizing the method.
You can switch to a new data representation (i.e. calculated fields, different data type)
However, encapsulation is more than hiding fields. In Java you can hide entire classes, by this, hiding the implementation details of an entire API. Think, for example, in the method Arrays.asList(). It returns a List implementation, but you do no care which implementation, as long as it satisfies the List interface, right?. The implementation can be changed in the future without affecting the users of the method.
The Beauty of Encapsulation
Now, in my opinion, to really understand encapsulation, one must first understand abstraction.
Think, for example, in the level of abstraction in the concept of a car. A car is complex in its internal implementation. They have several subsystem, like a transmission system, a break system, a fuel system, etc.
However, we have simplified its abstraction, and we interact with all cars in the world through the public interface of their abstraction. We know that all cars have a steering wheel through which we control direction, they have a pedal that when you press it you accelerate the car and control speed, and another one that when you press it you make it stop, and you have a gear stick that let you control if you go forward or backwards. These features constitute the public interface of the car abstraction. In the morning you can drive a sedan and then get out of it and drive an SUV in the afternoon as if it was the same thing.
However, few of us know the details of how all these features are implemented under the hood. Think of the time when cars did not have a hydraulics directional system. One day, the car manufactures invented it, and they decide it to put it in cars from there on. Still, this did not change the way in which users where interacting with them. At most, users experienced an improvement in the use of the directional system. A change like this was possible because the internal implementation of a car is encapsulated. Changes can be safely done without affecting its public interface.
Now, think that car manufactures decided to put the fuel cap below the car, and not in one of its sides. You go and buy one of these new cars, and when you run out of gas you go to the gas station, and you do not find the fuel cap. Suddenly you realize is below the car, but you cannot reach it with the gas pump hose. Now, we have broken the public interface contract, and therefore, the entire world breaks, it falls apart because things are not working the way it was expected. A change like this would cost millions. We would need to change all gas pumps in the world. When we break encapsulation we have to pay a price.
So, as you can see, the goal of encapsulation is to minimize interdependence and facilitate change. You maximize encapsulation by minimizing the exposure of implementation details. The state of a class should only be accessed through its public interface.
I really recommend you to read a paper by Alan Snyder called Encapsulation and Inheritance in Object-Oriented programming Languages. This link points to the original paper on ACM, but I am pretty sure you will be able to find a PDF copy through Google.
Encapsulation - wrapping of data in single unit. also we can say hiding the information of essential details.
example
You have a mobile phone.... there it some interface which helps u to interact with cell phone and u can uses the services of mobile phone. But the actually working in cell phone is hide. u don't know how it works internally.
hide/bind something : eg: a capsule (which we consume when v r ill)hide/bind some powder form in itself,, means that capsule encapsulate the powder contained it.
Binding of data and behavior i.e functionality of an object in a secured and controlled manner.
or the best example of encapsulation is a CLASS because a class hides class variables/functions from outside d class..
Encapsulation:
Wrapping up data member and method together into a single unit (i.e. Class) is called Encapsulation.
Eg: we can consider a capsule. Encapsulation means hiding the internal details of an object, i.e. how an object does something. Here capsule is a single Unit contain many things. But we cant see what is there in side capsule.
This is the technique used to protect information about an object from other objects. Like variable we can set as private and property as Public. When we access the property then we validate and set it.
We can go through some other examples. Our Laptop. We can use Laptop but what operations are happening inside that we are not knowing. But we can use that. Same like mobile, TV etc.
We can conclude that a group of related properties, methods, and other members are treated as a single unit or object.An encapsulated object is often called an abstract data type.
There are several other ways that an encapsulation can be used, as an example we can take the usage of an interface. The interface can be used to hide the information of an implemented class.
//Declare as Private
private string _LegName;
// Property Set as public
public string LegName
{
get
{
return _LegName;
}
set
{
_LegName=value;
}
public class LegMain
{
public static int Main(string[] args)
{
Leg L= new Leg();
d.LegName="Right Leg";
Console.WriteLine("The Legis :{0}",d.LegName);return 0;
}
}
Note: Encapsulation provides a way to protect data from accidental corruption.
Thank you
Encapsulation means hiding the data. In other words a class only exposes those properties or information which is authorized to be seen. Consider the below exapmle where a certain property called ConfidentialMessage is accesible only to the Admin role. This property is made private and is returned through another method which checks the role of an user and return the message only for admin.
public class Message
{
public Message()
{
ConfidentialMessage = "I am Nemo";
}
private string ConfidentialMessage { get; set; }
public string GetMessage(string name)
{
string message = string.Empty;
if (name == "Admin")
{
message = this.ConfidentialMessage;
}
return message;
}
}
Putting definition of encapsulate
enclose in a capsule, from en- "make, put in" + capsule + -ate .
now capsule meaning is box, case
In real life example if you put things on desk open then it is accessible to anyone but if you put in case then it is accessible with the key of case to open.
Same way in class if you create a variable then it accessible whenever you create object of that class.But if you create function to access the variable then you have created case and function is key to access the variable.
So in programming language we are creating wrapper of the data by using getter and setter and making it private variable.
Encapsulation is a capsule, consider it to be a class enclosing or hiding fields, properties and functions.
Please check below url encapsulation is simplified with simple programming example.
http://itsforlavanya.blogspot.com/2020/08/encapsulation.html?m=1
I have created an array in the implementation of my class loginController. Now I want to use this array (with its objects) in another class of my project. What is the right way to import it?
You really need to specify the language.
In general, if the array is a member variable in one class, it's considered bad form to directly use it from another class. This violates the "encapsulation" idea that is quite the thing in object-oriented programming.
The preferred thing to do is often to add methods, called "getters" and "setters", to the class owning the array, or make it available by some other more structural means, which depend on the exact semantics and usage of the array. It might, for instance, not be required that outside users even know that it is an array.
There is no right way given this information. What is located in the array, only integers or strings/objects etc. Do you store objects of pointers to objects?
Passing the array is the sameway as passing any other object to a function
The general answer would be: declare it as public
It is not very good thing to do but as a beginner, you can start with that.