Search Results

Search found 4034 results on 162 pages for 'ioc container'.

Page 2/162 | < Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >

• Injecting Dependencies into Domain Model classes with Nhibernate (ASP.NET MVC + IOC)

  - by Sunday Ironfoot

  I'm building an ASP.NET MVC application that uses a DDD (Domain Driven Design) approach with database access handled by NHibernate. I have domain model class (Administrator) that I want to inject a dependency into via an IOC Container such as Castle Windsor, something like this: public class Administrator { public virtual int Id { get; set; } //.. snip ..// public virtual string HashedPassword { get; protected set; } public void SetPassword(string plainTextPassword) { IHashingService hasher = IocContainer.Resolve<IHashingService>(); this.HashedPassword = hasher.Hash(plainTextPassword); } } I basically want to inject IHashingService for the SetPassword method without calling the IOC Container directly (because this is suppose to be an IOC Anti-pattern). But I'm not sure how to go about doing it. My Administrator object either gets instantiated via new Administrator(); or it gets loaded via NHibernate, so how would I inject the IHashingService into the Administrator class? On second thoughts, am I going about this the right way? I was hoping to avoid having my codebase littered with... currentAdmin.Password = HashUtils.Hash(password, Algorithm.Sha512); ...and instead get the domain model itself to take care of hashing and neatly encapsulate it away. I can envisage another developer accidently choosing the wrong algorithm and having some passwords as Sha512, and some as MD5, some with one salt, and some with a different salt etc. etc. Instead if developers are writing... currentAdmin.SetPassword(password); ...then that would hide those details away and take care of those problems listed above would it not?

  Read the article

• Redirect 'host-based' requests to a port (inside a docker container)

  - by Disco

  I'm trying to achieve this fun project of having multiple 'postfix/dovecot' instances inside a docker container. I'm searching for 'something' that would redirect any incoming request on port 25 (any maybe later 143, 993) to the right container on a different port. Here's the idea : +-------+ +----------+ (internet)----(port 25) |mainbox| ---- (port 52032) |container1| (postfix) +-------+ | +----------+ \ (port 52033) +----------+ |container2| (postfix) +----------+ So the idea is to 'redirect' requests coming to port 25 and based on 'hostname' to forward to the right port (internally); ideally, it would be great to manage this 'mapping' with a database/textfile Any ideas ? Directions ?

  Read the article

• Lightcore IoC is returning the same instance when it should give a new one

  - by Anthony

  I have the following code using the lightcore IoC container. But it fails with "NUnit.Framework.AssertionException: Contained objects are equal" which indicates that the objects that should be transient, are not. Is this a bug in lightcore, or am I doing it wrong? [Test] public void JellybeanDispenserHasNewInstanceEachTimeWithDefault() { var builder = new ContainerBuilder(); builder.Register<IJellybeanDispenser, VanillaJellybeanDispenser>(); builder.Register<SweetVendingMachine>().ControlledBy<TransientLifecycle>(); builder.Register<SweetShop>(); builder.DefaultControlledBy<TransientLifecycle>(); IContainer container = builder.Build(); SweetShop sweetShop = container.Resolve<SweetShop>(); SweetShop sweetShop2 = container.Resolve<SweetShop>(); Assert.IsFalse(ReferenceEquals(sweetShop, sweetShop2), "Root objects are equal"); Assert.IsFalse(ReferenceEquals(sweetShop.SweetVendingMachine, sweetShop2.SweetVendingMachine), "Contained objects are equal"); Assert.IsFalse(ReferenceEquals(sweetShop.SweetVendingMachine.JellybeanDispenser, sweetShop2.SweetVendingMachine.JellybeanDispenser), "services are equal"); } PS: I would tag this question with "lightcore", but suddenly my reputation isn't good enough to make a new tag. Huh.

  Read the article

• How do I correctly use Unity to pass a ConnectionString to my repository classes?

  - by GenericTypeTea

  I've literally just started using the Unity Application Blocks Dependency Injection library from Microsoft, and I've come unstuck. This is my IoC class that'll handle the instantiation of my concrete classes to their interface types (so I don't have to keep called Resolve on the IoC container each time I want a repository in my controller): public class IoC { public static void Intialise(UnityConfigurationSection section, string connectionString) { _connectionString = connectionString; _container = new UnityContainer(); section.Configure(_container); } private static IUnityContainer _container; private static string _connectionString; public static IMovementRepository MovementRepository { get { return _container.Resolve<IMovementRepository>(); } } } So, the idea is that from my Controller, I can just do the following: _repository = IoC.MovementRepository; I am currently getting the error: Exception is: InvalidOperationException - The type String cannot be constructed. You must configure the container to supply this value. Now, I'm assuming this is because my mapped concrete implementation requires a single string parameter for its constructor. The concrete class is as follows: public sealed class MovementRepository : Repository, IMovementRepository { public MovementRepository(string connectionString) : base(connectionString) { } } Which inherits from: public abstract class Repository { public Repository(string connectionString) { _connectionString = connectionString; } public virtual string ConnectionString { get { return _connectionString; } } private readonly string _connectionString; } Now, am I doing this the correct way? Should I not have a constructor in my concrete implementation of a loosely coupled type? I.e. should I remove the constructor and just make the ConnectionString property a Get/Set so I can do the following: public static IMovementRepository MovementRepository { get { return _container.Resolve<IMovementRepository>( new ParameterOverrides { { "ConnectionString", _connectionString } }.OnType<IMovementRepository>() ); } } So, I basically wish to know how to get my connection string to my concrete type in the correct way that matches the IoC rules and keeps my Controller and concrete repositories loosely coupled so I can easily change the DataSource at a later date.

  Read the article

• JADE (Java) - Changing Agent Container

  - by Chad S

  Is there a way to reassign agents to a different container or will I have to create a new container and then create all new instances of the agents within the new container? I have done a lot of searching and can't seem to find anything on container reassignment. Thanks in advance for any info!

  Read the article

• When to use an IOC container?

  - by nivlam

  I'm trying to understand when I should use a container versus manually injecting dependencies. If I have an application that uses a 1-2 interfaces and only has 1-2 concrete implementations for each interface, I would lean towards just handling that myself. If I have a small application that uses 2-3 interfaces and each interface has 2-3 concrete implementations, should I use a full-blown container? Would something something simple like this suffice? Basically I'm trying to understand when it's appropriate to manually handle these dependencies, when (or if) I should use something simple like the above, and when to use an IOC container like Ninject, Windsor, etc....

  Read the article

• DDD and IOC Containers

  - by MegaByte

  Hi Im fairly new with DDD and Im trying to use IOC in order to loosen up my tightly coupled layers :) My C# web application consists of a UI, domain and persistence layer. My persistence layer references my domain layer and contains my concrete repository implementations and nhibernate mappings. Currently my UI references my domain layer. My question : How do I use an IOC container to inject my concrete classes, in my persistence layer, into my domain layer? Does this meen that my UI should also reference my persistence layer?

  Read the article

• Autowiring collections with IoC

  - by Marcus

  Hi, Anyone know if there exists any IoC container that can handle this: Given: ISomeInterfce<T> where T : Entity Impl1 : ISomeInterfce<Entity1> Impl2 : ISomeInterfce<Entity1> Impl3 : ISomeInterfce<Entity2> Impl4 : ISomeInterfce<Entity2> I want to be able to auto wire my system and be able to resolve like this IoC.ResolveAll(typeof(ISomeInterfce<Entity1>)) and get a collection back of all implementations of ISomeInterfce<Entity1>

  Read the article

• Changing a Container while using Visitor

  - by Florian

  Hi everyone, I implemented the Visitor pattern in C++ using a STL-like iterator for storing the Visitor's current position in the container. Now I would like to change the container while I iterate over it, and I'm especially interested in deleting items from the container, even the one I'm currently visiting. Now obviously this will invalidate the Visitors internal iterator, because it was pointing to exactly this item. Currently, I store a list of all iterators in the container and update them, as soon as anything is added to or removed from the list. So in a way this is similar to the Observer pattern applied to the iterator (as Observer) and the list (as Observable). Alternatively I considered having the visitor() methods return some hint to the Visitor about what happend to the current item and how to proceed iterating, but that doesn't sound like such a good idea either, because the visit() implementation shouldn't really care about finding the next item. So, my question is: What's the best way to keep a visitor working, even when items are added to the container or removed from it. Regards, Florian

  Read the article

• IOC Container Handling State Params in Non-Default Constructor

  - by Mystagogue

  For the purpose of this discussion, there are two kinds of parameters an object constructor might take: state dependency or service dependency. Supplying a service dependency with an IOC container is easy: DI takes over. But in contrast, state dependencies are usually only known to the client. That is, the object requestor. It turns out that having a client supply the state params through an IOC Container is quite painful. I will show several different ways to do this, all of which have big problems, and ask the community if there is another option I'm missing. Let's begin: Before I added an IOC container to my project code, I started with a class like this: class Foobar { //parameters are state dependencies, not service dependencies public Foobar(string alpha, int omega){...}; //...other stuff } I decide to add a Logger service depdendency to the Foobar class, which perhaps I'll provide through DI: class Foobar { public Foobar(string alpha, int omega, ILogger log){...}; //...other stuff } But then I'm also told I need to make class Foobar itself "swappable." That is, I'm required to service-locate a Foobar instance. I add a new interface into the mix: class Foobar : IFoobar { public Foobar(string alpha, int omega, ILogger log){...}; //...other stuff } When I make the service locator call, it will DI the ILogger service dependency for me. Unfortunately the same is not true of the state dependencies Alpha and Omega. Some containers offer a syntax to address this: //Unity 2.0 pseudo-ish code: myContainer.Resolve<IFoobar>( new parameterOverride[] { {"alpha", "one"}, {"omega",2} } ); I like the feature, but I don't like that it is untyped and not evident to the developer what parameters must be passed (via intellisense, etc). So I look at another solution: //This is a "boiler plate" heavy approach! class Foobar : IFoobar { public Foobar (string alpha, int omega){...}; //...stuff } class FoobarFactory : IFoobarFactory { public IFoobar IFoobarFactory.Create(string alpha, int omega){ return new Foobar(alpha, omega); } } //fetch it... myContainer.Resolve<IFoobarFactory>().Create("one", 2); The above solves the type-safety and intellisense problem, but it (1) forced class Foobar to fetch an ILogger through a service locator rather than DI and (2) it requires me to make a bunch of boiler-plate (XXXFactory, IXXXFactory) for all varieties of Foobar implementations I might use. Should I decide to go with a pure service locator approach, it may not be a problem. But I still can't stand all the boiler-plate needed to make this work. So then I try this: //code named "concrete creator" class Foobar : IFoobar { public Foobar(string alpha, int omega, ILogger log){...}; static IFoobar Create(string alpha, int omega){ //unity 2.0 pseudo-ish code. Assume a common //service locator, or singleton holds the container... return Container.Resolve<IFoobar>( new parameterOverride[] {{"alpha", alpha},{"omega", omega} } ); } //Get my instance: Foobar.Create("alpha",2); I actually don't mind that I'm using the concrete "Foobar" class to create an IFoobar. It represents a base concept that I don't expect to change in my code. I also don't mind the lack of type-safety in the static "Create", because it is now encapsulated. My intellisense is working too! Any concrete instance made this way will ignore the supplied state params if they don't apply (a Unity 2.0 behavior). Perhaps a different concrete implementation "FooFoobar" might have a formal arg name mismatch, but I'm still pretty happy with it. But the big problem with this approach is that it only works effectively with Unity 2.0 (a mismatched parameter in Structure Map will throw an exception). So it is good only if I stay with Unity. The problem is, I'm beginning to like Structure Map a lot more. So now I go onto yet another option: class Foobar : IFoobar, IFoobarInit { public Foobar(ILogger log){...}; public IFoobar IFoobarInit.Initialize(string alpha, int omega){ this.alpha = alpha; this.omega = omega; return this; } } //now create it... IFoobar foo = myContainer.resolve<IFoobarInit>().Initialize("one", 2) Now with this I've got a somewhat nice compromise with the other approaches: (1) My arguments are type-safe / intellisense aware (2) I have a choice of fetching the ILogger via DI (shown above) or service locator, (3) there is no need to make one or more seperate concrete FoobarFactory classes (contrast with the verbose "boiler-plate" example code earlier), and (4) it reasonably upholds the principle "make interfaces easy to use correctly, and hard to use incorrectly." At least it arguably is no worse than the alternatives previously discussed. One acceptance barrier yet remains: I also want to apply "design by contract." Every sample I presented was intentionally favoring constructor injection (for state dependencies) because I want to preserve "invariant" support as most commonly practiced. Namely, the invariant is established when the constructor completes. In the sample above, the invarient is not established when object construction completes. As long as I'm doing home-grown "design by contract" I could just tell developers not to test the invariant until the Initialize(...) method is called. But more to the point, when .net 4.0 comes out I want to use its "code contract" support for design by contract. From what I read, it will not be compatible with this last approach. Curses! Of course it also occurs to me that my entire philosophy is off. Perhaps I'd be told that conjuring a Foobar : IFoobar via a service locator implies that it is a service - and services only have other service dependencies, they don't have state dependencies (such as the Alpha and Omega of these examples). I'm open to listening to such philosophical matters as well, but I'd also like to know what semi-authorative reference to read that would steer me down that thought path. So now I turn it to the community. What approach should I consider that I havn't yet? Must I really believe I've exhausted my options?

  Read the article

• Problem Registering a Generic Repository with Windsor IoC

  - by Robin

  I’m fairly new to IoC and perhaps my understanding of generics and inheritance is not strong enough for what I’m trying to do. You might find this to be a mess. I have a generic Repository base class: public class Repository<TEntity> where TEntity : class, IEntity { private Table<TEntity> EntityTable; private string _connectionString; private string _userName; public string UserName { get { return _userName; } set { _userName = value; } } public Repository() {} public Repository(string connectionString) { _connectionString = connectionString; EntityTable = (new DataContext(connectionString)).GetTable<TEntity>(); } public Repository(string connectionString, string userName) { _connectionString = connectionString; _userName = userName; EntityTable = (new DataContext(connectionString)).GetTable<TEntity>(); } // Data access methods ... ... } and a SqlClientRepository that inherits Repository: public class SqlClientRepository : Repository<Client> { private Table<Client> ClientTable; private string _connectionString; private string _userName; public SqlClientRepository() {} public SqlClientRepository(string connectionString) : base(connectionString) { _connectionString = connectionString; ClientTable = (new DataContext(connectionString)).GetTable<Client>(); } public SqlClientRepository(string connectionString, string userName) : base(connectionString, userName) { _connectionString = connectionString; _userName = userName; ClientTable = (new DataContext(connectionString)).GetTable<Client>(); } // data access methods unique to Client repository ... } The Repository class provides some generics methods like Save, Delete, etc, that I want all my repository derived classes to share. The TEntity parameter is constrained to the IEntity interface: public interface IEntity { int Id { get; set; } NameValueCollection GetSaveRuleViolations(); NameValueCollection GetDeleteRuleViolations(); } This allows the Repository class to reference these methods within its Save and Delete methods. Unit tests work fine on mock SqlClientRepository instances as well as live unit tests on the real database. However, in the MVC context: public class ClientController : Controller { private SqlClientRepository _clientRepository; public ClientController(SqlClientRepository clientRepository) { this._clientRepository = clientRepository; } public ClientController() { } // ViewResult methods ... ... } ... _clientRepository is always null. I’m using Windor Castle as an IoC container. Here is the configuration: <component id="ClientRepository" service="DomainModel.Concrete.Repository`1[[DomainModel.Entities.Client, DomainModel]], DomainModel" type="DomainModel.Concrete.SqlClientRepository, DomainModel" lifestyle="PerWebRequest"> <parameters> <connectionString>#{myConnStr}</connectionString> </parameters> </component> I’ve tried many variations in the Windsor configuration file. I suspect it’s more of a design flaw in the above code. As I'm looking over my code, it occurs to me that when registering components with an IoC container, perhaps service must always be an interface. Could this be it? Does anybody have a suggestion? Thanks in advance.

  Read the article

• The IOC "child" container / Service Locator

  - by Mystagogue

  DISCLAIMER: I know there is debate between DI and service locator patterns. I have a question that is intended to avoid the debate. This question is for the service locator fans, who happen to think like Fowler "DI...is hard to understand...on the whole I prefer to avoid it unless I need it." For the purposes of my question, I must avoid DI (reasons intentionally not given), so I'm not trying to spark a debate unrelated to my question. QUESTION: The only issue I might see with keeping my IOC container in a singleton (remember my disclaimer above), is with the use of child containers. Presumably the child containers would not themselves be singletons. At first I thought that poses a real problem. But as I thought about it, I began to think that is precisely the behavior I want (the child containers are not singletons, and can be Disposed() at will). Then my thoughts went further into a philosophical realm. Because I'm a service locator fan, I'm wondering just how necessary the notion of a child container is in the first place. In a small set of cases where I've seen the usefulness, it has either been to satisfy DI (which I'm mostly avoiding anyway), or the issue was solvable without recourse to the IOC container. My thoughts were partly inspired by the IServiceLocator interface which doesn't even bother to list a "GetChildContainer" method. So my question is just that: if you are a service locator fan, have you found that child containers are usually moot? Otherwise, when have they been essential? extra credit: If there are other philosophical issues with service locator in a singleton (aside from those posed by DI advocates), what are they?

  Read the article

• Using IOC in a remoting scenario

  - by Christoph

  I'm struggling with getting IOC to work in a remoting scenario. I have my application server set up to publish Services (SingleCall) which are configured via XML. This works just like this as we all know: RemotingConfiguration.Configure(ConfigFile, true); lets say my service looks like that (pseudocode) public class TourService : ITourService { IRepository _repository; public TourService() { _repository = new SqlServerRepository(); } } But what I rather would like to have sure looks like this: public class TourService : ITourService { IRepository _repository; public TourService(IRepository repository) { _repository = repository; } } On the client side we do something like that (pseudocode again): (ITourService)Activator.GetObject(ITourService, tcp://server/uri); This prompts the server to create a new instance of my TourService class... However this doesn't seem to work out well because the .NET Remoting Infrastructure want's to know the type it should publish but I would rather like to point it to the way how it could retrieve the object it should publish. In other words, route it through the IOC process pipe of - let's say windsor castle - for example. Currently I'm a bit lost on that task...

  Read the article

• IoC, Containers, and NServiceBus confusion

  - by andy

  Hey guys, here's my setup Castle Windsor is my container NServiceBus is itself using it's own container internally, Spring by default I'm implementing the PubSub config. Ok, if I have my Bus.Publish happening within my IWantToRunAtStartup class, then everything is fine. As a test for example on Run() we can start a timer and it'll go into a Service style loop. However, what if I want to abstract NServiceBus from my app, and have my app go: new CustomPulisherClass().Notify(ISomeMessage msg); In this situation, how do I implement CustomPublisherClass. My confusion is coming from the fact that NServiceBus is already running as a Service, it's already been "Started". How to I get at the correct instance of the Bus object? cheers andy

  Read the article

• What's the simplest IOC container for C#?

  - by Greg

  What's the simplest IOC container for C#? Is simple to learn and get productive with for a small app. In my case a winforms app which I want to abstract the data layer for later potential migration to a web-service for the data layer.

  Read the article

• What is IoC (Inversion of Control)?

  - by user278741

  Can any one explain IoC in a simple way? I have tried googling it but not getting any idea about it... and its benifits

  Read the article

• IoC / Dependency Injection - please explain code versus XML

  - by steve.macdonald

  I understand basically how IoC frameworks work, however one thing I don't quite get is how code-based config is supposed to work. With XML I understand how you could add a new assembly to a deployed application, then change the config in XML to include it. If the application is already deployed (i.e., compiled in some form) then how can code changes be made without recompiling? Or is that what people do, just change config in code and recompile?

  Read the article

• IOC container working with asp.net mvc 2.0

  - by Diego

  Is there any IOC container that already implements a controller factory compatible with asp.net mvc 2.0 ....if so i'll move my projects to 2.0 to test... Anyone know a good reference about it?

  Read the article

• NHibernate + Sql Compact + IoC - Connection Managment

  - by Michael

  When working with NHibernate and Sql Compact in a Windows Form application I am wondering what is the best practice for managing connections. With SQL CE I have read that you should keep your connection open vs closing it as one would typically do with standard SQL. If that is the case and your using a IoC, would you make your repositories lifetime be singletons so they exist forever or dispose of them after you perform a "Unit of Work". Also is there a way to determine the number of connections open to Sql CE?

  Read the article

• IoC and DI framework for .Net applications

  - by Lijo

  Hi Can you please explain how the following three are different in their intent? 1) Policy Injection Application Block 2) Structure Map IoC Managed 3) Managed Extensibility Framework In terms of the common tasks they do, which is simpler/aligned with generics and C# 3.0 ? Thanks Lijo

  Read the article

• What IoC Containers Support Silverlight?

  - by Matt Casto

  I'm looking for a list of IoC Containers that support Silverlight. I know that Unity and Ninject work with Silverlight, but I haven't found any information that suggests that other well known containers, like StructureMap, Castle Windsor or Autofac, support Silverlight. Has anyone used these, or other, containers or compared them with the Silverlight platform in mind?

  Read the article

• IoC.Resolve vs Constructor Injection

  - by Omu

  I heard a lot of people saying that it is a bad practice to use IoC.Resolve(), but I never heard a good reason why (if it's all about testing than you can just mock the container, and you're done). now the advantages of using Resolve instead of Constructor Injection is that you don't need to create classes that have 5 parameters in the constructor, and whenever you are going to create a instance of that class you're not gonna need to provide it with anything

  Read the article

• vertical accordion from horizontal

  - by Sify Juhy

  //# jQuery - Horizontal Accordion //# Version 2.00.00 Alpha 1 //# //# portalZINE(R) - New Media Network //# http://www.portalzine.de //# //# Alexander Graef //# [email protected] //# //# Copyright 2007-2009 (function($) { $.hrzAccordion = { setOnEvent: function(i, container, finalWidth, settings){ $("#"+container+"Handle"+i).bind(settings.eventTrigger,function() { var status = $('[rel='+container+'ContainerSelected]').data('status'); if(status ==1 && settings.eventWaitForAnim === true){ return false; } if( $("#"+container+"Handle"+i).attr("rel") != container+"HandleSelected"){ settings.eventAction; $('[id*='+container+'Handle]').attr("rel",""); $('[id*='+container+'Handle]').attr("class",settings.handleClass); $("#"+container+"Handle"+i).addClass(settings.handleClassSelected); $("."+settings.contentWrapper).css({width: finalWidth+"px" }); switch(settings.closeOpenAnimation) { case 1: if($('[rel='+container+'ContainerSelected]').get(0) ){ $('[rel='+container+'ContainerSelected]').data('status',1); //current_width = $('[rel='+container+'ContainerSelected]').width(); $('[rel='+container+'ContainerSelected]').animate({width: "0px",opacity:"0"}, { queue:true, duration:settings.closeSpeed ,easing:settings.closeEaseAction,complete: function(){ $('[rel='+container+'ContainerSelected]').data('status',0); } ,step: function(now){ width = $(this).width(); //new_width = finalWidth- (finalWidth * (width/current_width)); new_width = finalWidth - width; $('#'+container+'Content'+i).width(Math.ceil(new_width)).css("opacity","1"); }}); }else{ $('[rel='+container+'ContainerSelected]').data('status',1); $('#'+container+'Content'+i).animate({width: finalWidth,opacity:"1"}, { queue:false, duration:settings.closeSpeed ,easing:settings.closeEaseAction,complete: function(){ $('[rel='+container+'ContainerSelected]').data('status',0); }}); } break; case 2: $('[id*='+container+'Content]').css({width: "0px"}); $('#'+container+'Content'+i).animate({width: finalWidth+"px",opacity:"1"}, { queue:false, duration:settings.openSpeed ,easing:settings.openEaseAction, complete: settings.completeAction }); break; } $('[id*='+container+'Content]').attr("rel",""); $("#"+container+"Handle"+i).attr("rel",container+"HandleSelected"); $("#"+container+"Content"+i).attr("rel",container+"ContainerSelected"); } }); } }; $.fn.extend({ hrzAccordionLoop: function(options) { return this.each(function(a){ var container = $(this).attr("id") || $(this).attr("class"); var elementCount = $('#'+container+' > li, .'+container+' > li').size(); var settings = $(this).data('settings'); variable_holder="interval"+container ; var i =0; var loopStatus = "start"; variable_holder = window.setInterval(function(){ $("#"+container+"Handle"+i).trigger(settings.eventTrigger); if(loopStatus =="start"){ i = i + 1; }else{ i = i-1; } if(i==elementCount && loopStatus == "start"){ loopStatus = "end"; i=elementCount-1; } if(i==0 && loopStatus == "end"){ loopStatus = "start"; i=0; } },settings.cycleInterval); }); }, hrzAccordion: function(options) { this.settings = { eventTrigger : "click", containerClass : "container", listItemClass : "listItem", contentContainerClass : "contentContainer", contentWrapper : "contentWrapper", contentInnerWrapper : "contentInnerWrapper", handleClass : "handle", handleClassOver : "handleOver", handleClassSelected : "handleSelected", handlePosition : "right", handlePositionArray : "", // left,left,right,right,right closeEaseAction : "swing", closeSpeed : 500, openEaseAction : "swing", openSpeed : 500, openOnLoad : 2, hashPrefix : "tab", eventAction : function(){ //add your own extra clickAction function here }, completeAction : function(){ //add your own onComplete function here }, closeOpenAnimation : 1,// 1 - open and close at the same time / 2- close all and than open next cycle : false, // not integrated yet, will allow to cycle through tabs by interval cycleInterval : 10000, fixedWidth : "", eventWaitForAnim : true }; if(options){ $.extend(this.settings, options); } var settings = this.settings; return this.each(function(a){ var container = $(this).attr("id") || $(this).attr("class"); $(this).data('settings', settings); $(this).wrap("<div class='"+settings.containerClass+"'></div>"); var elementCount = $('#'+container+' > li, .'+container+' > li').size(); var containerWidth = $("."+settings.containerClass).width(); var handleWidth = $("."+settings.handleClass).css("width"); handleWidth = handleWidth.replace(/px/,""); var finalWidth; var handle; if(settings.fixedWidth){ finalWidth = settings.fixedWidth; }else{ finalWidth = containerWidth-(elementCount*handleWidth)-handleWidth; } $('#'+container+' > li, .'+container+' > li').each(function(i) { $(this).attr('id', container+"ListItem"+i); $(this).attr('class',settings.listItemClass); $(this).html("<div class='"+settings.contentContainerClass+"' id='"+container+"Content"+i+"'>" +"<div class=\""+settings.contentWrapper+"\">" +"<div class=\""+settings.contentInnerWrapper+"\">" +$(this).html() +"</div></div></div>"); if($("div",this).hasClass(settings.handleClass)){ var html = $("div."+settings.handleClass,this).attr("id",""+container+"Handle"+i+"").html(); $("div."+settings.handleClass,this).remove(); handle = "<div class=\""+settings.handleClass+"\" id='"+container+"Handle"+i+"'>"+html+"</div>"; }else{ handle = "<div class=\""+settings.handleClass+"\" id='"+container+"Handle"+i+"'></div>"; } if(settings.handlePositionArray){ splitthis = settings.handlePositionArray.split(","); settings.handlePosition = splitthis[i]; } switch(settings.handlePosition ){ case "left": $(this).prepend( handle ); break; case "right": $(this).append( handle ); break; case "top": $("."+container+"Top").append( handle ); break; case "bottom": $("."+container+"Bottom").append( handle ); break; } $("#"+container+"Handle"+i).bind("mouseover", function(){ $("#"+container+"Handle"+i).addClass(settings.handleClassOver); }); $("#"+container+"Handle"+i).bind("mouseout", function(){ if( $("#"+container+"Handle"+i).attr("rel") != "selected"){ $("#"+container+"Handle"+i).removeClass(settings.handleClassOver); } }); $.hrzAccordion.setOnEvent(i, container, finalWidth, settings); if(i == elementCount-1){ $('#'+container+",."+container).show(); } if(settings.openOnLoad !== false && i == elementCount-1){ var location_hash = location.hash; location_hash = location_hash.replace("#", ""); if(location_hash.search(settings.hashPrefix) != '-1' ){ var tab = 1; location_hash = location_hash.replace(settings.hashPrefix, ""); } if(location_hash && tab ==1){ $("#"+container+"Handle"+(location_hash)).attr("rel",container+"HandleSelected"); $("#"+container+"Content"+(location_hash)).attr("rel",container+"ContainerSelected"); $("#"+container+"Handle"+(location_hash-1)).trigger(settings.eventTrigger); }else{ $("#"+container+"Handle"+(settings.openOnLoad)).attr("rel",container+"HandleSelected"); $("#"+container+"Content"+(settings.openOnLoad)).attr("rel",container+"ContainerSelected"); $("#"+container+"Handle"+(settings.openOnLoad-1)).trigger(settings.eventTrigger); } } }); if(settings.cycle === true){ $(this).hrzAccordionLoop(); } }); } }); })(jQuery); **Given is the code used for the accordion...please check out this Accordion Link. in the link there are four examples of accordions. i want the last accordion i.e example 4 to be vertical ...kindly help me.

  Read the article

• How to get child container reference in View Model

  - by niels-verkaart

  Hello, I´m trying to share a Data Service (Entity Manager) wrapped in a Repository from a ViewModel (called 'AVM') in Module A to a ViewModel (called 'BVM') in Module B, and I can't get this working. We use PRISM/Unity 2.0 This is my scenario: A user may open multiple Customer screens (composite view as mini shell) each with another customer (unit of work). We realize this using child containers. Each child container resolves it's own repository with its own Entity manager (the repository is a singleton within the child container). This is done in module A. The main shell has a main region manager, and each Customer screen with its childcontainer creates a scoped region. In each customer screen there is a View 'AV' (connected to ViewModel 'AVM') with a SubRegion (tab control) registered as 'SubRegion'. We create this with a 'Screen Factory' In Module B we have a Customer Orders in View 'BV' and ViewModel 'BVM'. In the constructor of Module B we get the main container by injection. In the initialize method we resolve the (main) region manager and register View 'BV' with it. In the constructor of View 'BV' a ViewModel 'BVM' is injected/created. Now this works, but the ViewModel 'BVM' cannot get the child container. It only get the main container. Is this doable, or do I have to do this another way? Thanks, Niels

  Read the article

• Moving inserted container element if possible

  - by doublep

  I'm trying to achieve the following optimization in my container library: when inserting an lvalue-referenced element, copy it to internal storage; but when inserting rvalue-referenced element, move it if supported. The optimization is supposed to be useful e.g. if contained element type is something like std::vector, where moving if possible would give substantial speedup. However, so far I was unable to devise any working scheme for this. My container is quite complicated, so I can't just duplicate insert() code several times: it is large. I want to keep all "real" code in some inner helper, say do_insert() (may be templated) and various insert()-like functions would just call that with different arguments. My best bet code for this (a prototype, of course, without doing anything real): #include <iostream> #include <utility> struct element { element () { }; element (element&&) { std::cerr << "moving\n"; } }; struct container { void insert (const element& value) { do_insert (value); } void insert (element&& value) { do_insert (std::move (value)); } private: template <typename Arg> void do_insert (Arg arg) { element x (arg); } }; int main () { { // Shouldn't move. container c; element x; c.insert (x); } { // Should move. container c; c.insert (element ()); } } However, this doesn't work at least with GCC 4.4 and 4.5: it never prints "moving" on stderr. Or is what I want impossible to achieve and that's why emplace()-like functions exist in the first place?

  Read the article

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