Can Object pool design pattern cause memory shortage?

When I am using the Object pool design pattern, and allowing the pool to grow, by creating new objects when they are required but not available in the pool, and placing them in the pool after they have been used, can it eventually cause memory shortage, or some kind of an out of memory exception/error?

It looks very reasonable that after some time it will happen, because the pool grows, and the object within it don’t get deleted.

Go to Source
Author: Daniel

What are the pros and cons of using a reference/pointer vs an ID

I’m writing in C++, but this problem applies to any language without GC and even to languages with a GC as well.

I have a structure in memory in which I create/add objects. The structure takes ownership of those objects. I should never need to use an object after it’s removed from the structure.

When I first implemented this data structure, it seemed natural to use an ID/key/name/handle for the objects stored in it. I’m using it like this:

id1 = structure.addObj(new Square());
id2 = structure.addObj(new Square());
id3 = structure.addObj(new Circle());

obj3 = structure.getObj(id3);
obj3.addFriend( id1 );
obj3.addFriend( id2 );

idMax = structure.findObjWithMostFriends();
objMax = structure.getObj(idMax);

After using it for a while, I’m thinking that it would be better to forget about the IDs and always use references to the objects instead. This way I wouldn’t need to pass a reference to the structure around every time.

I’m thinking about refactoring everything to only use references but I’m afraid of regretting it. I’d like to know more about what are the pros and cons of using IDs to decide whether I should proceed.

Memory details:

The objects are allocated on the heap and their address never changes.

The structure deallocates those objects when they’re removed (they could be released to the caller instead, but I don’t need this at the moment).

I’m not supposed to ever use objects that don’t belong to the structure. If my program is correct, I should never end up with a dangling ID or pointer. But it could happen if the program has bugs.

What are your experiences switching from IDs to references for similar problems? Which solution should I use?

Go to Source
Author: Helloer

Pattern name for “Platform independant class with Hooks + sub class implementing platform specific”?

I am developing an android app to process jpg exif meta data in a workflow.

The Workflow class is implemented platform independant (i.e. code runs on android and on j2se).

The Workflow contains and calls protected virtual methods that do nothing for android specific .functions (i.e save changes to android media database)


// platform independant
public class Workflow {
    public void processPhoto(...) {
    protected void saveChangesToMediaDatabase(...) {    
        // to nothing in platform independant version

I also have a android platform specific sub class that implements the platform specific code


// android platform dependant
public class AndroidWorkflow extends Workflow {
    protected void saveChangesToMediaDatabase(...) {    
        ... do something with android media database

I can use Workflow.processPhoto(...) in non-android j2se apps and in automated unit or integration tests
and i can use AndroidWorkflow.processPhoto(...) in my android app

My question: Is this an established pattern and is there a name for this pattern?
My current pattern name “Platform independant class with Hooks” and “Platform specific Hook implementation”.

I hope to find a better (??established??) name for this pattern.


One established pattern to have platformindependat code is by using a Facade pattern.

Example: I use a FileFacade with a j2se implementation based on and AndroidFileFacade which is based on android specific DocumentFile.

Although the goal of platform independance is the same the way how this is achieved is different.

Go to Source
Author: k3b

Trying to figure out running multiple queries with single endpoint based on the input parameters

I am trying to create a system, which has multiple queries for different kinds of reports. My plan is to queries in the database tag them report A, report B. Obvisouly SQL query will have some placeholders to pass paramterers.

I am trying reduce my coding work. So that i’ll keep adding queries in the database without touching the code.

i have explored diffrent django tool, but i haven’y found any suitable tool.

Any guidence will be apperictaed.

Go to Source
Author: wizard

Decoupling and Command Pattern

I am working on some project to learn how to make bigger and better software (multiplayer game) and I found a problem about having in my code a design pattern Command Pattern and anti-pattern God Object. Often I do end up win the latter one and I know that Fascades are okay, but my understanding of something being right and wrong in OOP is very blurry.

I’ve implemented the Command Pattern. Shortly, my command:

public interface IGameCommand : ICommand
    bool Execute(Game game);

And an executor

public interface IExecutor<TState, TCommand>
    void Execute(TCommand command);

Let’s say that I have a command that does a lot: modifies some data, plays sound etc.

So, in my case, this should look like this:

public class MagicSpell: IGameCommand
    int x; int y; int damage; string soundClipName; string effectName;
    bool Execute(Game game)

As you can see, this forces my Game class to become a God object… or doesn’t it? Since my Game class contains specialized classes that do their thing I am fulfilling the Single responsibility principle. I have some bad experience with ending up with a God Object, but is my solution viable and acceptable with OOP?

Or maybe is something wrong with my Command Pattern implementation and Execute(Game game)?

Maybe making some specialized commands would help?

Go to Source
Author: Clockworker