static-members

So far I've been using Session to pass some variables from one page to another. For instance user role. When a user logs in to the web application the role id of the user is kept in Session and that role is checked at different parts of the application. I've recently started thinking why not use static members instead. I can store the same information in a static field and easily access it anywhere in my application (well anywhere the namespace in which that static field resides is included.) I know that using Session variables comes handy sometimes, such that: Any kind of data can be stored

I am a little confused with this matter. I am designing an ORM class that tries to behave very similarly to ActiveRecord in ruby on rails, but that's beside the point. What I'm trying to say is that my class makes extensive use of static attribute inheritance, specially for database and table handling. My question is, should I use self:: at all? DarkThrone You have to ask yourself: "Am I targeting the problem with the adequated approach?" self:: and static:: do two different things. For instance self:: or __CLASS__ are references to the current class, so defined in certain scope it will NOT

In PHP 5, what is the difference between using const and static ? When is each appropriate? And what role does public , protected and private play - if any? Matt Huggins In the context of a class, static variables are on the class scope (not the object) scope, but unlike a const, their values can be changed. class ClassName { static $my_var = 10; /* defaults to public unless otherwise specified */ const MY_CONST = 5; } echo ClassName::$my_var; // returns 10 echo ClassName::MY_CONST; // returns 5 ClassName::$my_var = 20; // now equals 20 ClassName::MY_CONST = 20; // error! won't work. Public,

if i have a standard ASP.NET application, is there any difference between making an object static as opposed to putting the object instance in the Application state? from my understanding, both objects exist ONCE for the app domain. Secondly, what happens if you have a static object in a referenced dll, for an ASP.NET site. It's also part of the app domain, so it will always exist once? From: http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;Q312607 ASP.NET includes application state primarily for compatibility with classic ASP so that it is easier to migrate existing applications to ASP

This question already has an answer here: Java: where do static fields live within the memory? 5 answers Say you have a class, class Foo { public static bar; } When you say: new Foo(); I can imagine that in memory, a space is reserved for this object. ...and when you say again: new Foo(); ...well now you have another space available for the object. However, where exactly does the static field live? What I am really trying to learn is: How do the references to the objects reference the same field of the objects they reference? While the exact details of the type system are implementation

In C++11 and C++14, why do I need constexpr in the following snippet: class Foo { static constexpr double X = 0.75; }; whereas this one produces a compiler error: class Foo { static const double X = 0.75; }; and (more surprisingly) this compiles without errors? class Foo { static const double X; }; const double Foo::X = 0.75; In C++03 we were only allowed to provide an in class initializer for static member variables of const integral of enumeration types, in C++11 we could initialize a static member of literal type in class using constexpr. This restriction was kept in C++11 for const