How to organise OO code [duplicate]
This question already has answers here: using static methods and classes (4 answers) Closed 11 years ago. If you have a method that doesn’t need access to any non public fields, properties or methods where should you put the method ? should it just be a normal method in the class, a static method that […]
How to organise OO code [duplicate]
This question already has answers here: using static methods and classes (4 answers) Closed 11 years ago. If you have a method that doesn’t need access to any non public fields, properties or methods where should you put the method ? should it just be a normal method in the class, a static method that […]
How to organise OO code [duplicate]
This question already has answers here: using static methods and classes (4 answers) Closed 11 years ago. If you have a method that doesn’t need access to any non public fields, properties or methods where should you put the method ? should it just be a normal method in the class, a static method that […]
How to organise OO code [duplicate]
This question already has answers here: using static methods and classes (4 answers) Closed 11 years ago. If you have a method that doesn’t need access to any non public fields, properties or methods where should you put the method ? should it just be a normal method in the class, a static method that […]
Loose Coupling in Object Oriented Design
I am trying to learn GRASP and I found this explained (here on page 3) about Low Coupling and I was very surprised when I found this:
Loose Coupling in Object Oriented Design
I am trying to learn GRASP and I found this explained (here on page 3) about Low Coupling and I was very surprised when I found this:
Component design: getting cohesion right
I currently have a set of components named DataValues, ValueParsers, ValueFormatters and ValueValidators. The first one defines an abstract base class DataValue and contains a whole load of implementations. The 3 other components each define in interface similar to their name (minus the “s”), and also contain a bunch of implementations of those. These 3 depend on DataValues. There are no further dependencies.
Component design: getting cohesion right
I currently have a set of components named DataValues, ValueParsers, ValueFormatters and ValueValidators. The first one defines an abstract base class DataValue and contains a whole load of implementations. The 3 other components each define in interface similar to their name (minus the “s”), and also contain a bunch of implementations of those. These 3 depend on DataValues. There are no further dependencies.
Component design: getting cohesion right
I currently have a set of components named DataValues, ValueParsers, ValueFormatters and ValueValidators. The first one defines an abstract base class DataValue and contains a whole load of implementations. The 3 other components each define in interface similar to their name (minus the “s”), and also contain a bunch of implementations of those. These 3 depend on DataValues. There are no further dependencies.
Component design: getting cohesion right
I currently have a set of components named DataValues, ValueParsers, ValueFormatters and ValueValidators. The first one defines an abstract base class DataValue and contains a whole load of implementations. The 3 other components each define in interface similar to their name (minus the “s”), and also contain a bunch of implementations of those. These 3 depend on DataValues. There are no further dependencies.