I'm parsing a XML-file into objects but I'm wondering why,
I would haven't choosed an Array Parser instead of an Object Parser?
Does it have more pro's than an Array parser or less contra's?
is it more flexible and expansible?
Kind regards
I think it all depends on the input data. If you application needs a lot of simple configuration files storing the state/setup of a single object, then there would be less overhead in handling the parser's output if you use ObjectParser.
But once you have a scenario when you need to store actual object collections (e.g., a list of independent GUI controls to be attached somewhere) and you read such collections often enough, then, if you still use ObjectParser you would have to invent a "collection" class and convert this list to the actual array.
Related
I would like to know what is the difference between the Visitor pattern and using a static method to execute code in separation.
Let's take a look at an example where I might call the Visitor pattern:
new AnalyticsVisitor.accept(myClass);
and this when called in from myClass for example, would move the work into a visitor to execute. It would even garbage collect faster if it's memory intensive.
Now lets take a look at using a simple method to achieve more or less the same thing:
new AnalyticsManager.execute(myClass);
Have I achieved the same thing?
I have code separation.
I can apply this to several data structures
I can add info to legacy code without changing it.
So why use the Visitor pattern instead of just a class (unless for double dispatch)?
This question is still a little confused. I suspect you haven't understood the goal of the Visitor pattern.
As discussed here the visitor pattern is useful when you have complex data structure (such as a parse tree) that is relatively stable (in terms of development), but you want to be able to keep adding new operations on all of its elements. This is clumsy with standard OO techniques.
The technology the visitor pattern is based on is double-dispatch, so when you say "Why use the Visitor pattern unless for double-dispatch?" you are effectively saying "Why use the visitor pattern?"
Your example code only includes the client, so it isn't clear what your new technique actually offers.
The supplied code appears to be backwards for a real visitor pattern. It should be:
my_datastructure.accept(analytics_visitor);
where analytics_visitor inherits from MyDataStructureVisitor, and supplies individual methods for each of the element types that the data structure can hold.
As for the achievements:
"Code separation" is a vague term. The visitor pattern allows the data structure to be defined without all the the operations (putative methods) to be defined. Instead, they can be defined separately - with a cost of poorer encapsulation.)
It isn't clear what it means to apply a visitor pattern to several data structures. Each visitor class is associated with one data structure.
The goal isn't to add 'info' to legacy code. It is to add operations to legacy code.
I working on a project in a microcontroller and I need to persist some settings. Pretend this is an iPod. I need to save various settings like CurrentSongPlaying, CurrentVolume, etc. so that when I turn on again I can restore those settings. The trouble I'm running into is that makes sense to store all my Non-Volatile Settings in a single struct that I can serialize/de-serialize from memory but I can't find a way to make that happen without the class doing the serialization/de-serialization from non-volatile memory including every class that contains a setting that will need to be saved for size/type information. Is there some sort of design pattern that will allow me to persist all these settings to memory without having to know about what I'm saving?
Looks like you just need an associative array. An associative array (or map) is a container that allows you to map different values to unique keys. It can have a fixed or dynamic size depending on the implementation. Coupled with a proper serialization mechanism, it allows you to save and restore its state without having to know its content in advance.
However, C does not provide this data structure out-of-the-box. Look at this question for a few implementations. The most common implementation is the hash table, also called a hash map.
OOP and classes are not easy to implement in C.
If using C is a must, I would write the struct to file.
Then I would read them and parse them during initialization upon reboot.
You can think of this as serializing your structs yourself.
This is something I have been struggling about for some time now. The thing is: I have many (20 or so) static arrays of values. I say static because that is how I'm actually storing them, as static arrays inside some domains. For example, if I have a list of known websites, I do:
class Website {
...
static websites = ["web1", "web2" ...]
}
But I do this just while developing, because I can easily change the arrays if needed, but what I'm going to do when the application is ready for deployment? In my project it is very probable that, at some point, these arrays of values change. I've been researching on that matter, one can store application properties inside an external .properties file, but it will be impossible to store an array, even futile, because if some array gets an additional value, the application can't recognize it until the name of the new property is added where needed.
Another approach is to store this information in the database, but for some reason it seems like a waste to add 20 or more tables that will have just two rows, an id and a name.
And the last option, as far as I know, would be an XML, but I'm not very experienced with those. It seems groovy has a way of creating and reading XML files relatively easy, but I don't know how difficult would be to modify an XML whose layout is predefined in the application.
Needless to say that storing them in the config.groovy is not an option since any change will require to recompile.
I haven't come across some "standard" (maybe a best practice?) way of dealing with these.
So the questions is: Where to store these arrays?
Use Enum for a fixed set of attributes. Do this, if you rely at some places in your code on some concrete values.
If you do not rely on the attributes within your code (which you obviously don't), use a String-type. In this case, if you need to provide a select box, just do a distinct-query on this property in your database.
Default: Use a domain class per dynamic set of attributes. Another table is OK.
For something as simple as arrays you should use groovy own type of property files. They allow you too define properties as proper groovy variables (not just strings) and obviously loading them would be done dinamically in a simple way by using ConfigSlurper. For an example on how to use this kind of file you can have a look at the following ConfigSlurper:
For defining properties:
my.property.array=[1,2,3,4]
For loading property files:
def config = new ConfigSlurper().parse(new File('myconfig.groovy').toURL())
assert [1,2,3,4] == config.my.property.array
Tip: When you want to access the property files you want to do it in a way that can work for any environment. To make paths environment-independent use the following path as the root path:
import org.codehaus.groovy.grails.commons.ApplicationHolder
def ctx = ApplicationHolder.application.mainContext.servletContext
def rootPath = ctx.contextPath
The bulk of the examples I can find for libxml2 are all about loading/parsing XML files. But I'm only interested in writing them; the code will never have to parse any files. There is an example using different writers, where it shows how to use the file, memory, DOM and tree models.
Looking through the code, I don't see any significant differences between them when it comes to writing. How does one decide which is better to use? (In other words, in what cases is one better than the others?)
The differences between the 4 functions you specify are minimal, it's all about where the contents go. As Alex mentioned, if memory is a concern, using xmlNewTextWriterFilename has the advantage of not needing to hold the result in memory.
The xmlWriter API, to which all the methods you mentioned belong, is one of the APIs offered. The other of note is the tree API. xmlWriter is more like calling write() to print to a file, and the tree is more like building nested structs in memory.
The tree-based versions can be good if your data is constructed in a non-linear fasion, going back and adding/changing things based on later information, etc. This would require some workarounds/caching with the streaming xmlWriter interface, as you can't change things once they've been output. The in-memory tree, however, can be fully tweaked until the instant it's serialized.
The tree API has the downside of the fact it has to keep the entire thing im memory; the rule of thumb is the memory requirements for a parsed tree is rougly 4x the size of serialized xml file.
My decision is usually dependent on whether I expect to create large documents. If not, I use the if the tree api, as the flexibility will be there if I want it. If I know efficiency will be a concern or I'll be working with large stuff, the streaming xmlWriter is the way to go.
tree API examples can be found here: http://xmlsoft.org/examples/index.html#Tree
If you're on a device with limited memory, you probably don't want to use DOM or memory-based approaches. In that case, you probably want to write out the file as you iterate through the data structure you want to write to XML.
I'm working on a basic editor application. It uses an array of varying size that I want to store to disk. This will eventually be in an AIR application, but for now it's just an AS3 project in Flex.
I want to store the array in a file. The application edits the data, so it doesn't need to be human readable. I want it to be in whatever format will be quickest to store and load back into the array when I need that data again.
Any recommendations?
Edit: It strikes me that importing/exporting in such a way that it can be immediately cast as an Array() would probably be the cheapest thing rather than some sort of iterating - if that's possible. Another obvious option is getting the data as a simple comma delineated string and using the String.split() function to get an array. Though again, the question is what would be cheapest - and I'm not quite convinced that's it.
I'll also add that it needs to be in some sort of permanent file, so a shared object - while possibly the fastest, isn't really a long term solution.
I think the fastest and easiest way is to use a shared object. It stores native objects, so there is no serialization / deserialization steps involved. Just assign the value and read it back.
Performance wise, probably the fastest route as well. If you are looking for a large dataset and are sure it's an AIR app, you can use AIR's db, but that will definitely take much more work.
First, take a look at this answer.
As for saving the contents of an Array, consider JSON using the export tools provided by Adobe.