Closed. This question needs details or clarity. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Add details and clarify the problem by editing this post.
Closed 7 years ago.
Improve this question
When creating a webserver in golang, is there any specific reason why JSON data would be represented as a MAP over a STRUCT or vice versa? ..or is this decision based purely on user preference ?
I think this discussion could go either way but the advantages of using structs vs maps are that structs give you an idea of how the schema should look like whereas a map leaves the schema open-ended.
If you use structs, developers who look at the code will have a clear idea of what parameters you're expecting for the API or how the response of the API may look like without digging further into implementation detail. On the other hand if the requests or responses were maps, they would have to look at the implementation detail to see what keys and values are being assigned. Hope this helps!
Related
Closed. This question needs details or clarity. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Add details and clarify the problem by editing this post.
Closed last year.
Improve this question
In OCaml, there is a construct called univ_map.t, which allows you to map from 'a Type_equal.Id.t values to 'as. Here is an example.
Is there a construct that would allow me to do something similar in Rust? I know in OCaml they are implemented with open variants, which I don't believe Rust has.
I'm not familiar with OCaml, but looking at the docs:
Univ_map: Universal/heterogeneous maps [...] useful for storing values of arbitrary type in a single map [...] built on top of Univ.
Univ: An extensible universal variant type. Every type id corresponds to one branch of the variant type.
The closest thing that Rust has that sounds like Univ is the Any trait, which is designed to represent any type (with exceptions). However, there is no standard type for storing a collection of Anys that is accessed by its TypeId. From looking how popular crates handle this, its usually a bespoke wrapper around HashMap<TypeId, Box<dyn Any>> or similar. I hope I've understood correctly.
Closed. This question needs details or clarity. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Add details and clarify the problem by editing this post.
Closed last year.
Improve this question
I wanted to embed an image to my binary and used the "include_bytes" macro. The GUI library I wanted to use only accepts [u32] for input and the said macro produces only [u8].
How do I convert a [u8] to a [u32]? I've seen some in the internet but the explanations are a bit too technical for me (I'm only self-taught). There were several options that I saw like bitwise and a method in "u32" from the standard library. Anyone can give an actual code on how to do it? Like study it from there in case I will need it for other files in the future. Thank you. I almost always just understand things via code coz I'm not aware of many technical terms, algos, etc.
using .map(Into::<u32>::into)
fn main() {
assert_eq!([0_u8, 1_u8].map(Into::<u32>::into), [0_u32, 1_u32]);
}
Closed. This question needs details or clarity. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Add details and clarify the problem by editing this post.
Closed 1 year ago.
Improve this question
I don't know what to search for about this kind of design. I will use it on my app for the empty state, but I'm getting trouble searching. hope you can help me guys. Thank you :)
Well the design type is "minimalist" or "modern" I'd say. If you are looking for a specific file format or something I think you'd be looking for SVGs (Scalable Vector Graphics).
From trial and error, the best search queries are along the lines of "Abstract Minimalist" or "Contemporary Art". Agreed, it is difficult to express to a computer what image you are trying to find.
Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 1 year ago.
Improve this question
While working on a Spring Boot project I got this doubt that what is better to use to Save Constant Values, application properties file or a Java Interface?
To get value from application.properties we have to declare variables in every file where for Java Interface, we will have only one declared variable referred everywhere.
Any other advantage one over other. Can anyone figure out in terms of memory efficiency?
The advantage of using application properties is you can change the value without changing code. If you think something is likely to change, or if it is different for different environments, then it would make sense to put it in the properties. You can define multiple profiles and have a properties file for each profile if needed.
If you are sure something isn’t going to change then define a constant. In that case you’re assigning a name to a value to improve the readability of the code.
This kind of thing seems unlikely to be significant enough for it to matter for performance. Performance improvement is about identifying and addressing the biggest bottleneck. This is going to be a long way down the list.
Using application properties file to save constant is preferred.
You can check this link for detailed explanation:
What is the best way to implement constants in Java?
Closed. This question needs details or clarity. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Add details and clarify the problem by editing this post.
Closed 8 years ago.
Improve this question
I am posting this on stackoverflow since I am quite confused with OWL right now.
So in OWL file, can I represent a sub-subclass concept?
For example, entities belong to a class called Wine and it inside this class, we have a sub-class called WineType and then Within the WineType, we have sub-subclass called enzyme_avability. Would this be possible in OWL as a nested class concept? (e.g. )
Please help me with this
Yes it is possible. I think what you are looking for is here
http://www.w3.org/TR/owl2-syntax/#Object_Property_Restrictions
So in sort you are representing a hierarchy structure which is completely supported by OWL.
You can write axioms like:
A subClassOf B
B subClassOf C
and so on, without limits on the number of levels you want to define. A reasoner will be able to answer queries like: is A subclass of C? by following the hierarchy.
Of course, more complex ways to arrange the hierarchy exist, e.g., the object property restrictions mentioned by Jinal.