Is it a good idea to put declaration of protocols for delegates in a private category interface?
I have a View Controller or a View that implements delegate and dataSource methods of UITableView.
Passing an object between different handlers or a Superclass that contains most of the logic
I’m going to try to make this as concise and concrete as possible, but apologies since I can think of multiple ways to make it work. This question might also relate to handling production workflows or manufacturing, but I have no experience in these areas.
Should a complex unifying class be doing computation?
I have a large application in Java filled with independent classes which are unified in a PlayerCharacter class. The class is intended to hold a character’s data for a game called the Burning Wheel, and as a result, is unusually complex. The data in the class needs to have computations controlled by the UI, but needs to do so in particular ways for each of the objects in the class.
Is it good to have an interface plenty of methods which belong to different concepts, just to preserve the Liskov’s Principle?
I’m currently studying a course based on Software Design and I had a discussion in class with my professor and some classmates about a problem represented by the next scenario:
Which could be a good design pattern for complex numeric calculations between three or more different data models?
The source code I’m working on at the moment performs numeric calculations between a bunch of different properties belonging to different data models. All the calculations are coded in a big method with a lot of If statements than make it very complex, difficult to change and it contains some bugs.
Which could be a good design pattern for complex numeric calculations between three or more different data models?
The source code I’m working on at the moment performs numeric calculations between a bunch of different properties belonging to different data models. All the calculations are coded in a big method with a lot of If statements than make it very complex, difficult to change and it contains some bugs.
Is this a Single Responsibility Principle violation?
I’m designing an OO graph library and at the moment I’m trying to figure out the design for a GraphEdge class. I’ve added setters and getters for it’s nodes, direction and weight. This seemes perfectly reasonable.
Is this a Single Responsibility Principle violation?
I’m designing an OO graph library and at the moment I’m trying to figure out the design for a GraphEdge class. I’ve added setters and getters for it’s nodes, direction and weight. This seemes perfectly reasonable.
Is this a Single Responsibility Principle violation?
I’m designing an OO graph library and at the moment I’m trying to figure out the design for a GraphEdge class. I’ve added setters and getters for it’s nodes, direction and weight. This seemes perfectly reasonable.
Is this a Single Responsibility Principle violation?
I’m designing an OO graph library and at the moment I’m trying to figure out the design for a GraphEdge class. I’ve added setters and getters for it’s nodes, direction and weight. This seemes perfectly reasonable.