Search Results

Search found 36488 results on 1460 pages for 'extension method'.

Page 2/1460 | < Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >

  • How can a Firefox extension inject a local css file into a webpage?

    - by Evgeny Shadchnev
    I'm writing a Firefox extension that needs to inject a css file into webpages. The css file is bundled with the extension, so I can access it using a chrome url chrome://extensionid/content/skin/style.css I'm trying to inject css like this when the page is loaded: var fileref = document.createElement("link"); fileref.setAttribute("rel", "stylesheet"); fileref.setAttribute("type", "text/css"); fileref.setAttribute("href", "chrome://extensionid/content/skin/style.css"); document.getElementsByTagName("head")[0].appendChild(fileref); However, the css isn't loaded and Firebug shows 'Filtered chrome url' message instead of the file content, when I inspect the link element I created. If I try to load this css file from an external server, everything's fine. Is there are way to load a css file bundled with the extension?

    Read the article

  • Method chaining and exceptions in C#

    - by devoured elysium
    If I have a method chain like the following: var abc = new ABC(); abc.method1() .method2() .methodThrowsException() .method3() ; assuming I've defined method1(), method2() and method3() as public ABC method1() { return this; } and methodThrowsException() as public ABC method3() { throw new ArgumentException(); } When running the code, is it possible to know which specific line of code has thrown the Exception, or will it just consider all the method chaining as just one line? I've done a simple test and it seems it considers them all as just one line but Method Chaining says Putting methods on separate lines also makes debugging easier as error messages and debugger control is usually on a line by line basis. Am I missing something, or does that just not apply to C#? Thanks

    Read the article

  • alias_attribute and creating and method with the original attribute name causes a loop

    - by Tiago
    Im trying to dynamically create a method chain in one attribute in my model. By now I have this function: def create_filtered_attribute(attribute_name) alias_attribute "#{attribute_name}_without_filter", attribute_name define_method "#{attribute_name}" do filter_words(self.send("#{attribute_name}_without_filter")) end end so I receive a string with the attribute name, alias it for '*_without_filter*' (alias_method or alias_method_chain fails here, because the attribute isnt there when the class is created), and I create a new method with the attribute name, where I filter its contents. But somehow, when I call *"#{attribute_name}_without_filter"* it calls my new method (i think because the alias_attribute some how), and the program goes into a stack loop. Can someone please enlighten me on this.

    Read the article

  • Cross-language Extension Method Calling

    - by Tom Hines
    Extension methods are a concise way of binding functions to particular types. In my last post, I showed how Extension methods can be created in the .NET 2.0 environment. In this post, I discuss calling the extensions from other languages. Most of the differences I find between the Dot Net languages are mainly syntax.  The declaration of Extensions is no exception.  There is, however, a distinct difference with the framework accepting excensions made with C++ that differs from C# and VB.  When calling the C++ extension from C#, the compiler will SOMETIMES say there is no definition for DoCPP with the error: 'string' does not contain a definition for 'DoCPP' and no extension method 'DoCPP' accepting a first argument of type 'string' could be found (are you missing a using directive or an assembly reference?) If I recompile, the error goes away. The strangest problem with calling the C++ extension from C# is that I first must make SOME type of reference to the class BEFORE using the extension or it will not be recognized at all.  So, if I first call the DoCPP() as a static method, the extension works fine later.  If I make a dummy instantiation of the class, it works.  If I have no forward reference of the class, I get the same error as before and recompiling does not fix it.  It seems as if this none of this is supposed to work across the languages. I have made a few work-arounds to get the examples to compile and run. Note the following examples: Extension in C# using System; namespace Extension_CS {    public static class CExtension_CS    {  //in C#, the "this" keyword is the key.       public static void DoCS(this string str)       {          Console.WriteLine("CS\t{0:G}\tCS", str);       }    } } Extension in C++ /****************************************************************************\  * Here is the C++ implementation.  It is the least elegant and most quirky,  * but it works. \****************************************************************************/ #pragma once using namespace System; using namespace System::Runtime::CompilerServices;     //<-Essential // Reference: System.Core.dll //<- Essential namespace Extension_CPP {        public ref class CExtension_CPP        {        public:               [Extension] // or [ExtensionAttribute] /* either works */               static void DoCPP(String^ str)               {                      Console::WriteLine("C++\t{0:G}\tC++", str);               }        }; } Extension in VB ' Here is the VB implementation.  This is not as elegant as the C#, but it's ' functional. Imports System.Runtime.CompilerServices ' Public Module modExtension_VB 'Extension methods can be defined only in modules.    <Extension()> _       Public Sub DoVB(ByVal str As String)       Console.WriteLine("VB" & Chr(9) & "{0:G}" & Chr(9) & "VB", str)    End Sub End Module   Calling program in C# /******************************************************************************\  * Main calling program  * Intellisense and VS2008 complain about the CPP implementation, but with a  * little duct-tape, it works just fine. \******************************************************************************/ using System; using Extension_CPP; using Extension_CS; using Extension_VB; // vitual namespace namespace TestExtensions {    public static class CTestExtensions    {       /**********************************************************************\        * For some reason, this needs a direct reference into the C++ version        * even though it does nothing than add a null reference.        * The constructor provides the fake usage to please the compiler.       \**********************************************************************/       private static CExtension_CPP x = null;   // <-DUCT_TAPE!       static CTestExtensions()       {          // Fake usage to stop compiler from complaining          if (null != x) {} // <-DUCT_TAPE       }       static void Main(string[] args)       {          string strData = "from C#";          strData.DoCPP();          strData.DoCS();          strData.DoVB();       }    } }   Calling program in VB  Imports Extension_CPP Imports Extension_CS Imports Extension_VB Imports System.Runtime.CompilerServices Module TestExtensions_VB    <Extension()> _       Public Sub DoCPP(ByVal str As String)       'Framework does not treat this as an extension, so use the static       CExtension_CPP.DoCPP(str)    End Sub    Sub Main()       Dim strData As String = "from VB"       strData.DoCS()       strData.DoVB()       strData.DoCPP() 'fake    End Sub End Module  Calling program in C++ // TestExtensions_CPP.cpp : main project file. #include "stdafx.h" using namespace System; using namespace Extension_CPP; using namespace Extension_CS; using namespace Extension_VB; void main(void) {        /*******************************************************\         * Extension methods are called like static methods         * when called from C++.  There may be a difference in         * syntax when calling the VB extension as VB Extensions         * are embedded in Modules instead of classes        \*******************************************************/     String^ strData = "from C++";     CExtension_CPP::DoCPP(strData);     CExtension_CS::DoCS(strData);     modExtension_VB::DoVB(strData); //since Extensions go in Modules }

    Read the article

  • Prefer extension methods for encapsulation and reusability?

    - by tzaman
    edit4: wikified, since this seems to have morphed more into a discussion than a specific question. In C++ programming, it's generally considered good practice to "prefer non-member non-friend functions" instead of instance methods. This has been recommended by Scott Meyers in this classic Dr. Dobbs article, and repeated by Herb Sutter and Andrei Alexandrescu in C++ Coding Standards (item 44); the general argument being that if a function can do its job solely by relying on the public interface exposed by the class, it actually increases encapsulation to have it be external. While this confuses the "packaging" of the class to some extent, the benefits are generally considered worth it. Now, ever since I've started programming in C#, I've had a feeling that here is the ultimate expression of the concept that they're trying to achieve with "non-member, non-friend functions that are part of a class interface". C# adds two crucial components to the mix - the first being interfaces, and the second extension methods: Interfaces allow a class to formally specify their public contract, the methods and properties that they're exposing to the world. Any other class can choose to implement the same interface and fulfill that same contract. Extension methods can be defined on an interface, providing any functionality that can be implemented via the interface to all implementers automatically. And best of all, because of the "instance syntax" sugar and IDE support, they can be called the same way as any other instance method, eliminating the cognitive overhead! So you get the encapsulation benefits of "non-member, non-friend" functions with the convenience of members. Seems like the best of both worlds to me; the .NET library itself providing a shining example in LINQ. However, everywhere I look I see people warning against extension method overuse; even the MSDN page itself states: In general, we recommend that you implement extension methods sparingly and only when you have to. (edit: Even in the current .NET library, I can see places where it would've been useful to have extensions instead of instance methods - for example, all of the utility functions of List<T> (Sort, BinarySearch, FindIndex, etc.) would be incredibly useful if they were lifted up to IList<T> - getting free bonus functionality like that adds a lot more benefit to implementing the interface.) So what's the verdict? Are extension methods the acme of encapsulation and code reuse, or am I just deluding myself? (edit2: In response to Tomas - while C# did start out with Java's (overly, imo) OO mentality, it seems to be embracing more multi-paradigm programming with every new release; the main thrust of this question is whether using extension methods to drive a style change (towards more generic / functional C#) is useful or worthwhile..) edit3: overridable extension methods The only real problem identified so far with this approach, is that you can't specialize extension methods if you need to. I've been thinking about the issue, and I think I've come up with a solution. Suppose I have an interface MyInterface, which I want to extend - I define my extension methods in a MyExtension static class, and pair it with another interface, call it MyExtensionOverrider. MyExtension methods are defined according to this pattern: public static int MyMethod(this MyInterface obj, int arg, bool attemptCast=true) { if (attemptCast && obj is MyExtensionOverrider) { return ((MyExtensionOverrider)obj).MyMethod(arg); } // regular implementation here } The override interface mirrors all of the methods defined in MyExtension, except without the this or attemptCast parameters: public interface MyExtensionOverrider { int MyMethod(int arg); string MyOtherMethod(); } Now, any class can implement the interface and get the default extension functionality: public class MyClass : MyInterface { ... } Anyone that wants to override it with specific implementations can additionally implement the override interface: public class MySpecializedClass : MyInterface, MyExtensionOverrider { public int MyMethod(int arg) { //specialized implementation for one method } public string MyOtherMethod() { // fallback to default for others MyExtension.MyOtherMethod(this, attemptCast: false); } } And there we go: extension methods provided on an interface, with the option of complete extensibility if needed. Fully general too, the interface itself doesn't need to know about the extension / override, and multiple extension / override pairs can be implemented without interfering with each other. I can see three problems with this approach - It's a little bit fragile - the extension methods and override interface have to be kept synchronized manually. It's a little bit ugly - implementing the override interface involves boilerplate for every function you don't want to specialize. It's a little bit slow - there's an extra bool comparison and cast attempt added to the mainline of every method. Still, all those notwithstanding, I think this is the best we can get until there's language support for interface functions. Thoughts?

    Read the article

  • How to install theme without using user-theme extension?

    - by Aventinus_
    I'm using Ubuntu 12.04 with Gnome Shell 3.4. Since day one I had some random crashes mainly after reloading or during search. After a lot of research I concluded that user-theme extension is to blame. Only when disabled Gnome Shell runs 100% smoothly. So my question is: Is there a way to install a theme without using user-theme extension? edit: Trying to install it via Gnome Tweak Tool without user-theme extension won't work because of [this][1].

    Read the article

  • ${extension} empty after catch-all alias in Postfix

    - by Paul Wagener
    I want a setup where an e-mailaddress like [email protected] redirects mail to the folder foo. I've already got dovecot configured and tested. It is called by postfix with this line in master.cf: dovecot unix - n n - - pipe flags=DRhu user=vmail:vmail argv=/usr/lib/dovecot/deliver -f ${sender} -d ${user}@${nexthop} -n -m ${extension} I expect ${extension} to expand to 'foo' but it is always empty. I've added recipient_delimiter = + to my main.cf. How can I get it to work? Update: I've got a catch-all alias that redirects @domain.com to [email protected]. It seems that the extension is empty because of this. So the question becomes: Can I have a catch-all so that [email protected] redirects to [email protected] without explicitly defining either the random or the ext part?

    Read the article

  • Can Eclipse generate method-chaining setters

    - by Chris R
    I'd like to generate method-chaining setters (setters that return the object being set), like so: public MyObject setField (Object value) { this.field = value; return this; } This makes it easier to do one-liner instantiations, which I find easier to read: myMethod (new MyObject ().setField (someValue).setOtherField (someOtherValue)); Can Eclipse's templates be modified to do this? I've changed the content to include return this; but the signature is not changed.

    Read the article

  • Override ActiveRecord#save, Method Alias? Trying to mixin functionality into save method...

    - by viatropos
    Here's the situation: I have a User model, and two modules for authentication: Oauth and Openid. Both of them override ActiveRecord#save, and have a fair share of implementation logic. Given that I can tell when the user is trying to login via Oauth vs. Openid, but that both of them have overridden save, how do "finally" override save such that I can conditionally call one of the modules' implementations of it? Here is the base structure of what I'm describing: module UsesOauth def self.included(base) base.class_eval do def save puts "Saving with Oauth!" end def save_with_oauth save end end end end module UsesOpenid def self.included(base) base.class_eval do def save puts "Saving with OpenID!" end def save_with_openid save end end end end module Sequencer def save if using_oauth? save_with_oauth elsif using_openid? save_with_openid else super end end end class User < ActiveRecord::Base include UsesOauth include UsesOpenid include Sequencer end I was thinking about using alias_method like so, but that got too complicated, because I might have 1 or 2 more similar modules. I also tried using those save_with_oauth methods (shown above), which almost works. The only thing that's missing is that I also need to call ActiveRecord::Base#save (the super method), so something like this: def save_with_oauth # do this and that super.save # the rest end But I'm not allowed to do that in ruby. Any ideas for a clever solution to this?

    Read the article

  • php extension COM_DOTNET.dll

    - by aXul
    I'm trying to add a PHP extension (PHP_COM_DOTNET)to my server, by writing the following in my php.ini [COM_DOT_NET] extension=php_com_dotnet.dll I downloaded the dll file and put it in my ext folder, but when restarting the server, I got the following errors cant find entry point zend_new_interned_string in php5ts.dll php startup: unable to load dynamic library php_com_dotnet.dll couldn't find especified process I'm using php 5.3.18 on a xampp-like package (vertrigoserv)

    Read the article

  • Firefox/Google Chrome extension to darken pages & reduce eye strain

    - by megafish
    Is there an extension or add-on like Stylish which lets you easily toggle back and forth between affected (Stylish) and standard (or untainted) view? I've tried changing colors in Firefox (Settings Content Colors) but there is no quick toggle between the states. Firefox or Google Chrome, whichever one has the extension. Doesn't matter since I'll switch to using that as my primary development browser.

    Read the article

  • Running shortcut from command prompt without the .lnk extension (Windows)

    - by Abbas
    I have created a folder (d:\shortcuts), created shortcuts for most applications in this folder and appended the folder path to the Path environment variable. Now all my applications are available from run and command window without messing around with Path. However, I now have to type the name of the shortcut as well as extension (e.g. vlc.lnk) to invoke it. Is there any way to do this without typing the extension?

    Read the article

  • evaluating cost/benefits of using extension methods in C# => 3.0

    - by BillW
    Hi, In what circumstances (usage scenarios) would you choose to write an extension rather than sub-classing an object ? < full disclosure : I am not an MS employee; I do not know Mitsu Furota personally; I do know the author of the open-source Componax library mentioned here, but I have no business dealings with him whatsoever; I am not creating, or planning to create any commercial product using extensions : in sum : this post is from pure intellectal curiousity related to my trying to (continually) become aware of "best practices" I find the idea of extension methods "cool," and obviously you can do "far-out" things with them as in the many examples you can in Mitsu Furota's (MS) blog postslink text. A personal friend wrote the open-source Componax librarylink text, and there's some remarkable facilities in there; but he is in complete command of his small company with total control over code guidelines, and every line of code "passes through his hands." While this is speculation on my part : I think/guess other issues might come into play in a medium-to-large software team situation re use of Extensions. Looking at MS's guidelines at link text, you find : In general, you will probably be calling extension methods far more often than implementing your own. ... In general, we recommend that you implement extension methods sparingly and only when you have to. Whenever possible, client code that must extend an existing type should do so by creating a new type derived from the existing type. For more information, see Inheritance (C# Programming Guide). ... When the compiler encounters a method invocation, it first looks for a match in the type's instance methods. If no match is found, it will search for any extension methods that are defined for the type, and bind to the first extension method that it finds. And at Ms's link text : Extension methods present no specific security vulnerabilities. They can never be used to impersonate existing methods on a type, because all name collisions are resolved in favor of the instance or static method defined by the type itself. Extension methods cannot access any private data in the extended class. Factors that seem obvious to me would include : I assume you would not write an extension unless you expected it be used very generally and very frequently. On the other hand : couldn't you say the same thing about sub-classing ? Knowing we can compile them into a seperate dll, and add the compiled dll, and reference it, and then use the extensions : is "cool," but does that "balance out" the cost inherent in the compiler first having to check to see if instance methods are defined as described above. Or the cost, in case of a "name clash," of using the Static invocation methods to make sure your extension is invoked rather than the instance definition ? How frequent use of Extensions would affect run-time performance or memory use : I have no idea. So, I'd appreciate your thoughts, or knowing about how/when you do, or don't do, use Extensions, compared to sub-classing. thanks, Bill

    Read the article

  • Extension Methods and Application Code

    - by Mystagogue
    I have seen plenty of online guidelines for authoring extension methods, usually along these lines: 1) Avoid authoring extension methods when practical - prefer other approaches first (e.g. regular static methods). 2) Don't author extension methods to extend code you own or currently develop. Instead, author them to extend 3rd party or BCL code. But I have the impression that a couple more guidelines are either implied or advisable. What does the community think of these two additional guidelines: A) Prefer to author extension methods to contain generic functionality rather than application-specific logic. (This seems to follow from guideline #2 above) B) An extension method should be sizeable enough to justify itself (preferably at least 5 lines of code in length). Item (B) is intended to discourage a develoer from writing dozens of extension methods (totalling X lines of code) to refactor or replace what originally was already about X lines of inline code. Perhaps item (B) is badly qualified, or even misinformed about how a one line extension method is actually powerful and justified. I'm curious to know. But if item (B) is somehow dismissed by the community, I must admist I'm still particularly interested in feedback on guideline (A).

    Read the article

  • Why does Java's invokevirtual need to resolve the called method's compile-time class?

    - by Chris
    Consider this simple Java class: class MyClass { public void bar(MyClass c) { c.foo(); } } I want to discuss what happens on the line c.foo(). At the bytecode level, the meat of c.foo() will be the invokevirtual opcode, and, according to the documentation for invokevirtual, more or less the following will happen: Look up the foo method defined in compile-time class MyClass. (This involves first resolving MyClass.) Do some checks, including: Verify that c is not an initialization method, and verify that calling MyClass.foo wouldn't violate any protected modifiers. Figure out which method to actually call. In particular, look up c's runtime type. If that type has foo(), call that method and return. If not, look up c's runtime type's superclass; if that type has foo, call that method and return. If not, look up c's runtime type's superclass's superclass; if that type has foo, call that method and return. Etc.. If no suitable method can be found, then error. Step #3 alone seems adequate for figuring out which method to call and verifying that said method has the correct argument/return types. So my question is why step #1 gets performed in the first place. Possible answers seem to be: You don't have enough information to perform step #3 until step #1 is complete. (This seems implausible at first glance, so please explain.) The linking or access modifier checks done in #1 and #2 are essential to prevent certain bad things from happening, and those checks must be performed based on the compile-time type, rather than the run-time type hierarchy. (Please explain.)

    Read the article

  • Naming Suggestions For A Function Providing Method Chaining In A Different Way

    - by sid3k
    I've coded an experimental function which makes passed objects chainable by using high order functions. It's name is "chain" for now, and here is a usage example; chain("Hello World") (print) // evaluates print function by passing "Hello World" object. (console.log,"Optional","Parameters") (returnfrom) // returns "Hello World" It looks lispy but behaves very different since it's coded in a C based language, I don't know if there is a name for this idiom and I couldn't any name more suitable than "chain". Any ideas, suggestions?

    Read the article

  • When creating a new text file, should I add a .txt extension to its name?

    - by Agmenor
    When I create a new document aimed at containing only plain text, I am not obliged by Ubuntu to add a .txt extension to its name. It works indeed very well: gedit opens it without problem, understanding very well that it is only text. The only two pro arguments I have found from now on for adding an extension are 1/ interoperability with Windows systems and 2/ avoiding confusion with folders having the same name. Nevertheless those two arguments do not convince me at all. As a consequence, should I keep the reflex of adding an extension to files or not?

    Read the article

  • How to create sockets in google chrome extension ?

    - by Xinus
    Hello, I created small hello world extension for google chrome http://code.google.com/chrome/extensions/getstarted.html. I need to use sockets in extension for peer to peer communication using UDP. Is there any firefox Jslib equivalent in google chrome or how we can use other languages in google chrome extension? I doubt its possible in google chrome, looking at its documentation. ? Are there any other ways to achieve p2p communication in extension? Thanks

    Read the article

  • Can extension methods be applied to interfaces?

    - by Greg
    Hi, Is it possible to apply an extension method to an interface? (C# question) That is for example to achieve the following: create an ITopology interface create an extension method for this interface (e.g. public static int CountNodes(this ITopology topologyIf) ) then when creating a class (e.g. MyGraph) which implements ITopology, then it would automatically have the Count Nodes extension. This way the classes implementing the interface would not have to have a set class name to align with what was defined in the extension method.

    Read the article

  • Firefox extension, need advice

    - by edc
    I've never built a ff extension before and before I start I want some feedback on my idea to make sure its possible. I want a firefox extension that allows me to supply a url with parameters in GET format, the extension would take the url, parse it, and submit the request as POST rather than GET. Is this possible? and could someone give me some advice on how to start designing an extension? or point me at a tutorial?

    Read the article

  • Message passing chrome extension

    - by Mayur Kataria
    I wants to create an extension where content script will send message to background page and then on browser action means clicking on extension icon will access that background page and get some data.I am using chrome Version 23.0.1271.64 m on windows8. I am getting following error. Port error: Could not establish connection. Receiving end does not exist. I tried to solve the same. but people are using sendRequest which is not supported by chrome20+. i also found solution mentioned for chrome 20+. But not working. Please help. Below is the file contents. manifest.json { "name": "Test Extension", "version": "1.0", "manifest_version": 2, "description": "A test extension.", "background": "background.html", "content_scripts": [ { "matches": ["<all_urls>"], "js": ["jquery.js","content.js"] } ], "permissions": ["tabs", "http://*/", "https://*/"], "browser_action": { "default_icon": "icon.png", "default_popup": "popup.html" } } background.html <html> <head> <script src="background.js"></script> </head> <body> <h1>Wy</h1> </body> </html> background.js chrome.extension.onMessage.addListener(function(request, sender, sendResponse) { // Chrome 20+ alert(request); console.log('received in listener'); sendResponse({farewell: "goodbye"}); }); content.js $(function(){ console.log('start-sending message'); chrome.extension.sendMessage({greeting: "hello"},function(response){alert(response);}); console.log('end-sending message'); }); popup.html <!doctype html> <html> <head> <title>Getting Started Extension's Popup</title> </style> <!-- JavaScript and HTML must be in separate files for security. --> <script src="jquery.js"></script> <script src="popup.js"></script> </head> <body> </body> </html> popup.js $(function(){ var str_html = "<tr><td width='60%'>S</td><td width='40%'>15</td></tr><tr><td width='60%'>M</td><td width='40%'>25</td></tr>"; $('#sizes_container').html(str_html); var bkg = chrome.extension.getBackgroundPage(); console.log(bkg); });

    Read the article

  • Extending an ABCS

    - by jamie.phelps
    All AIA Application Business Connector Services (ABCS) are extension enabled out of the box. The number and location of extension points in each ABCS is dependent upon whether the ABCS is a request-response or fire-and-forget service. Below is an example of a request-reply ABCS with 4 extension call-out points: Pre-transformationPost-transformation, Pre-invokePost-invoke, Pre-transformationPost-transformation, Pre-reply You can also see in the diagram that each XSL Transformation has it's own extension call-out. However for now we are only discussing the ABCS extension call-outs. To extend an ABCS, you'll first need to identify the specific extension points that are available in your ABCS and choose the one or more that you want to implement. You can an get an idea of the extension points available in your ABCS by looking into the AIAConfigurationProperties.xml file found under the AIA_HOME/config directory. Find the for your ABCS and look for properties similar to the following: false false false false Each extension point in the ABCS will have a corresponding configuration property to control whether or not the extension call-out is active at runtime. So these properties can give you some idea of what extension points are available in your ABCS. However, you'll probably also want to look into the ABCS BPEL code itself to confirm the exact location of the call-out.

    Read the article

  • Static method , Abstract method , Interface method comparision ?

    - by programmerist
    When i choose these methods? i can not decide which one i must prefer or when will i use one of them?which one give best performance? First Type Usage public abstract class _AccessorForSQL { public virtual bool Save(string sp, ListDictionary ld, CommandType cmdType); public virtual bool Update(); public virtual bool Delete(); public virtual DataSet Select(); } class GenAccessor : _AccessorForSQL { DataSet ds; DataTable dt; public override bool Save(string sp, ListDictionary ld, CommandType cmdType) { } public override bool Update() { return true; } public override bool Delete() { return true; } public override DataSet Select() { DataSet dst = new DataSet(); return dst; } Second Type Usage Also i can write it below codes: public class GenAccessor { public Static bool Save() { } public Static bool Update() { } public Static bool Delete() { } } Third Type Usage Also i can write it below codes: public interface IAccessorForSQL { bool Delete(); bool Save(string sp, ListDictionary ld, CommandType cmdType); DataSet Select(); bool Update(); } public class _AccessorForSQL : IAccessorForSQL { private DataSet ds; private DataTable dt; public virtual bool Save(string sp, ListDictionary ld, CommandType cmdType) { } } } I can use first one below usage: GenAccessor gen = New GenAccessor(); gen.Save(); I can use second one below usage: GenAccessor.Save(); Which one do you prefer? When will i use them? which time i need override method ? which time i need static method?

    Read the article

  • After installing Apache, PHP and MySQL I can't add extension to php.ini without Apache error

    - by Evgeni
    Hello! I have Windows XP OS. Installed Apache 2.2.14, then PHP 5.2.12 (tested with phpinfo.php - IT'S WORKS!) Then I installed MySQL 5.1. And now, when I add extension = php_mysql.dll to php.ini and restart server, Apache tells me that he can't start (small window with "The requested operation has failed"). Even if I add only extension = *smth*.dll --- the same thing. Apache just don't love my extensions. How to prove him, that they are cool and stuff? Thanks.

    Read the article

  • After installing Apache, PHP and MySQL I can't add extension to php.ini without Apache error

    - by Evgeni
    I have Windows XP OS. Installed Apache 2.2.14, then PHP 5.2.12 (tested with phpinfo.php - IT'S WORKS!) Then I installed MySQL 5.1. And now, when I add extension = php_mysql.dll to php.ini and restart server, Apache tells me that he can't start (small window with "The requested operation has failed"). Even if I add only extension = *smth*.dll --- the same thing. Apache just don't love my extensions. How to prove him, that they are cool and stuff? Thanks.

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >