Object1's Property has Object1
Is this bad practice?
Object1 is an instantiated version of Object.
Object1 has a property called "Example2" which is also an object. The Example2 object has an Object and that object is Object1.
E.g.
Example2 example = new Example2(this);
Where this is stored as an Object variable.
I'm sorry if I'm not explaining myself. This has made it really hard to google.
Thanks!
java oop object
edited Nov 23 '18 at 7:42
LuCio
2,7441823
asked Nov 23 '18 at 7:39
Russell BloxwichRussell Bloxwich
31
add a comment |
Is this bad practice?
Object1 is an instantiated version of Object.
Object1 has a property called "Example2" which is also an object. The Example2 object has an Object and that object is Object1.
E.g.
Example2 example = new Example2(this);
Where this is stored as an Object variable.
I'm sorry if I'm not explaining myself. This has made it really hard to google.
Thanks!
java oop object
edited Nov 23 '18 at 7:42
LuCio
2,7441823
asked Nov 23 '18 at 7:39
Russell BloxwichRussell Bloxwich
31
1
Please provide a complete code sample. In general - as always - "it depends".
– daniu
Nov 23 '18 at 7:41
No, this is quite common. A sub-component holding the reference of the main component isn't bad practice. Sometimes in MVC, sub-controllers do hold the reference of the main/parent controller.
– Jai
Nov 23 '18 at 7:42
@daniu I would love to provide a code sample, but I'm currently planning and as such don't have any.
– Russell Bloxwich
Nov 23 '18 at 7:43
You can provide a UML class diagram here as well
– deHaar
Nov 23 '18 at 7:52
"I'm sorry if I'm not explaining myself. This has made it really hard to google." - It is also making it impossible to produce a meaningful answer. If you can't explain yourself clearly, or provide an example, how are we supposed to know what you are asking?
– Stephen C
Nov 23 '18 at 7:52
add a comment |
Is this bad practice?
Object1 is an instantiated version of Object.
Object1 has a property called "Example2" which is also an object. The Example2 object has an Object and that object is Object1.
E.g.
Example2 example = new Example2(this);
Where this is stored as an Object variable.
I'm sorry if I'm not explaining myself. This has made it really hard to google.
Thanks!
java oop object
edited Nov 23 '18 at 7:42
LuCio
2,7441823
asked Nov 23 '18 at 7:39
Russell BloxwichRussell Bloxwich
31
Is this bad practice?
Object1 is an instantiated version of Object.
Object1 has a property called "Example2" which is also an object. The Example2 object has an Object and that object is Object1.
E.g.
Example2 example = new Example2(this);
Where this is stored as an Object variable.
I'm sorry if I'm not explaining myself. This has made it really hard to google.
Thanks!
java oop object
java oop object
edited Nov 23 '18 at 7:42
LuCio
2,7441823
asked Nov 23 '18 at 7:39
Russell BloxwichRussell Bloxwich
31
edited Nov 23 '18 at 7:42
LuCio
2,7441823
asked Nov 23 '18 at 7:39
Russell BloxwichRussell Bloxwich
31
edited Nov 23 '18 at 7:42
LuCio
2,7441823
edited Nov 23 '18 at 7:42
LuCio
2,7441823
edited Nov 23 '18 at 7:42
LuCio
2,7441823
2,7441823
asked Nov 23 '18 at 7:39
Russell BloxwichRussell Bloxwich
31
asked Nov 23 '18 at 7:39
Russell BloxwichRussell Bloxwich
31
asked Nov 23 '18 at 7:39
Russell BloxwichRussell Bloxwich
31
31
1
Please provide a complete code sample. In general - as always - "it depends".
– daniu
Nov 23 '18 at 7:41
No, this is quite common. A sub-component holding the reference of the main component isn't bad practice. Sometimes in MVC, sub-controllers do hold the reference of the main/parent controller.
– Jai
Nov 23 '18 at 7:42
@daniu I would love to provide a code sample, but I'm currently planning and as such don't have any.
– Russell Bloxwich
Nov 23 '18 at 7:43
You can provide a UML class diagram here as well
– deHaar
Nov 23 '18 at 7:52
"I'm sorry if I'm not explaining myself. This has made it really hard to google." - It is also making it impossible to produce a meaningful answer. If you can't explain yourself clearly, or provide an example, how are we supposed to know what you are asking?
– Stephen C
Nov 23 '18 at 7:52
add a comment |
1
Please provide a complete code sample. In general - as always - "it depends".
– daniu
Nov 23 '18 at 7:41
No, this is quite common. A sub-component holding the reference of the main component isn't bad practice. Sometimes in MVC, sub-controllers do hold the reference of the main/parent controller.
– Jai
Nov 23 '18 at 7:42
@daniu I would love to provide a code sample, but I'm currently planning and as such don't have any.
– Russell Bloxwich
Nov 23 '18 at 7:43
You can provide a UML class diagram here as well
– deHaar
Nov 23 '18 at 7:52
"I'm sorry if I'm not explaining myself. This has made it really hard to google." - It is also making it impossible to produce a meaningful answer. If you can't explain yourself clearly, or provide an example, how are we supposed to know what you are asking?
– Stephen C
Nov 23 '18 at 7:52
1
1
Please provide a complete code sample. In general - as always - "it depends".
– daniu
Nov 23 '18 at 7:41
Please provide a complete code sample. In general - as always - "it depends".
– daniu
Nov 23 '18 at 7:41
No, this is quite common. A sub-component holding the reference of the main component isn't bad practice. Sometimes in MVC, sub-controllers do hold the reference of the main/parent controller.
– Jai
Nov 23 '18 at 7:42
No, this is quite common. A sub-component holding the reference of the main component isn't bad practice. Sometimes in MVC, sub-controllers do hold the reference of the main/parent controller.
– Jai
Nov 23 '18 at 7:42
@daniu I would love to provide a code sample, but I'm currently planning and as such don't have any.
– Russell Bloxwich
Nov 23 '18 at 7:43
@daniu I would love to provide a code sample, but I'm currently planning and as such don't have any.
– Russell Bloxwich
Nov 23 '18 at 7:43
You can provide a UML class diagram here as well
– deHaar
Nov 23 '18 at 7:52
You can provide a UML class diagram here as well
– deHaar
Nov 23 '18 at 7:52
"I'm sorry if I'm not explaining myself. This has made it really hard to google." - It is also making it impossible to produce a meaningful answer. If you can't explain yourself clearly, or provide an example, how are we supposed to know what you are asking?
– Stephen C
Nov 23 '18 at 7:52
"I'm sorry if I'm not explaining myself. This has made it really hard to google." - It is also making it impossible to produce a meaningful answer. If you can't explain yourself clearly, or provide an example, how are we supposed to know what you are asking?
– Stephen C
Nov 23 '18 at 7:52
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
It's not bad practice in general, but I would consider it a code smell worth looking into. My reasoning for this is that it sounds like it might break separation of concerns: your Example class clearly needs something from the class referred to by this, eg
class MyService {
private Controller controller;
public MyService() {
controller = new MyController(this);
}
}
A controller having a reference to a service is common, but the other way around much less so.
I'm sure there are valid examples, but I'd say a cyclic reference is not usually a good sign.
answered Nov 23 '18 at 7:57
daniudaniu
7,30021635
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function () {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function () {
StackExchange.snippets.init();
});
});
}, "code-snippets");
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "1"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f53442471%2fobject1s-property-has-object1%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
It's not bad practice in general, but I would consider it a code smell worth looking into. My reasoning for this is that it sounds like it might break separation of concerns: your Example class clearly needs something from the class referred to by this, eg
class MyService {
private Controller controller;
public MyService() {
controller = new MyController(this);
}
}
A controller having a reference to a service is common, but the other way around much less so.
I'm sure there are valid examples, but I'd say a cyclic reference is not usually a good sign.
answered Nov 23 '18 at 7:57
daniudaniu
7,30021635
add a comment |
It's not bad practice in general, but I would consider it a code smell worth looking into. My reasoning for this is that it sounds like it might break separation of concerns: your Example class clearly needs something from the class referred to by this, eg
class MyService {
private Controller controller;
public MyService() {
controller = new MyController(this);
}
}
A controller having a reference to a service is common, but the other way around much less so.
I'm sure there are valid examples, but I'd say a cyclic reference is not usually a good sign.
answered Nov 23 '18 at 7:57
daniudaniu
7,30021635
add a comment |
It's not bad practice in general, but I would consider it a code smell worth looking into. My reasoning for this is that it sounds like it might break separation of concerns: your Example class clearly needs something from the class referred to by this, eg
class MyService {
private Controller controller;
public MyService() {
controller = new MyController(this);
}
}
A controller having a reference to a service is common, but the other way around much less so.
I'm sure there are valid examples, but I'd say a cyclic reference is not usually a good sign.
answered Nov 23 '18 at 7:57
daniudaniu
7,30021635
It's not bad practice in general, but I would consider it a code smell worth looking into. My reasoning for this is that it sounds like it might break separation of concerns: your Example class clearly needs something from the class referred to by this, eg
class MyService {
private Controller controller;
public MyService() {
controller = new MyController(this);
}
}
A controller having a reference to a service is common, but the other way around much less so.
I'm sure there are valid examples, but I'd say a cyclic reference is not usually a good sign.
answered Nov 23 '18 at 7:57
daniudaniu
7,30021635
answered Nov 23 '18 at 7:57
daniudaniu
7,30021635
answered Nov 23 '18 at 7:57
daniudaniu
7,30021635
answered Nov 23 '18 at 7:57
daniudaniu
7,30021635
7,30021635
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Stack Overflow!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.
Please pay close attention to the following guidance:
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f53442471%2fobject1s-property-has-object1%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
1
Please provide a complete code sample. In general - as always - "it depends".
– daniu
Nov 23 '18 at 7:41
No, this is quite common. A sub-component holding the reference of the main component isn't bad practice. Sometimes in MVC, sub-controllers do hold the reference of the main/parent controller.
– Jai
Nov 23 '18 at 7:42
@daniu I would love to provide a code sample, but I'm currently planning and as such don't have any.
– Russell Bloxwich
Nov 23 '18 at 7:43
You can provide a UML class diagram here as well
– deHaar
Nov 23 '18 at 7:52
"I'm sorry if I'm not explaining myself. This has made it really hard to google." - It is also making it impossible to produce a meaningful answer. If you can't explain yourself clearly, or provide an example, how are we supposed to know what you are asking?
– Stephen C
Nov 23 '18 at 7:52