Search Results

Search found 25050 results on 1002 pages for 'javascript oop'.

facebook twitter digg google delicious technorati stumbleupon myspace wordpress linkedin gmail igoogle windows live tumblr viadeo yahoo buzz yahoo mail yahoo bookmarks favorites email print

Page 294/1002 | < Previous Page | 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301  | Next Page >

  • How can i return dataset perfectly from sql?

    - by Phsika
    i try to write a winform application: i dislike below codes: DataTable dt = new DataTable(); dt.Load(dr); ds = new DataSet(); ds.Tables.Add(dt); Above part of codes looks unsufficient.How can i best loading dataset? public class LoadDataset { public DataSet GetAllData(string sp) { return LoadSQL(sp); } private DataSet LoadSQL(string sp) { SqlConnection con = new SqlConnection(ConfigurationSettings.AppSettings["ConnectionString"].ToString()); SqlCommand cmd = new SqlCommand(sp, con); DataSet ds; try { con.Open(); cmd.CommandType = CommandType.StoredProcedure; SqlDataReader dr = cmd.ExecuteReader(); DataTable dt = new DataTable(); dt.Load(dr); ds = new DataSet(); ds.Tables.Add(dt); return ds; } finally { con.Dispose(); cmd.Dispose(); } } }

    Read the article

  • When exactly does a method have side effects?

    - by Kim
    As I always understood it, any change to the programs state (or anything to do with IO) is a side effect. It does not matter, whether the change occurs in a global variable or in a private field of the object the method is called on. It follows that all methods which do not return anything either do nothing at all or have a side effect. My confusion comes from one of our university's instructors (who is still a student and thus not omniscient yet;) ) telling me setters don't have side effects.

    Read the article

  • GUI system architecture?

    - by topright
    I'm designing GUI (graphical user interface) system for a game engine (C++). Idea is to create a heirarchy of GUI controllers like Focusable, Hoverable, Dragable etc. Every GUI component can attach multiple controllers, they modify component's behaviour. I think it gives flexible system and protects from code duplication. Different instances of the same GUI class can have different complex behaviours (may be, even change it dynamically), so this approach looks practical. The other choice is to add focused, hovered, dragged etc. flags in the base GUI component class. It looks like overhead and not that flexible. Another solution is to use Decorator pattern and wrap objects with FocusDecorator, HoverDecorator etc. Maintaining such system looks a bit harder. Question: What are pitfalls in my solution? May be you have seen a better approaches in GUI systems? What are the best ways of implementing such flexible complex system?

    Read the article

  • Using pointers to adjust global objects in objective-c

    - by Rob
    Ok, so I am working with two sets of data that are extremely similar, and at the same time, these data sets are both global NSMutableArrays within the object. data_set_one = [[NSMutableArray alloc] init]; data_set_two = [[NSMutableArray alloc] init]; Two new NSMutableArrays are loaded, which need to be added to the old, existing data. These Arrays are also global. xml_dataset_one = [[NSMutableArray alloc] init]; xml_dataset_two = [[NSMutableArray alloc] init]; To reduce code duplication (and because these data sets are so similar) I wrote a void method within the class to handle the data combination process for both Arrays: -(void)constructData:(NSMutableArray *)data fromDownloadArray:(NSMutableArray *)down withMatchSelector:(NSString *)sel_str Now, I have a decent understanding of object oriented programming, so I was thinking that if I were to invoke the method with the global Arrays in the data like so... [self constructData:data_set_one fromDownloadArray:xml_dataset_one withMatchSelector:@"id"]; Then the global NSMutableArrays (data_set_one) would reflect the changes that happen to "array" within the method. Sadly, this is not the case, data_set_one doesn't reflect the changes (ex: new objects within the Array) outside of the method. Here is a code snippet of the problem // data_set_one is empty // xml_dataset_one has a few objects [constructData:(NSMutableArray *)data_set_one fromDownloadArray:(NSMutableArray *)xml_dataset_one withMatchSelector:(NSString *)@"id"]; // data_set_one should now be xml_dataset_one, but when echoed to screen, it appears to remain empty And here is the gist of the code for the method, any help is appreciated. -(void)constructData:(NSMutableArray *)data fromDownloadArray:(NSMutableArray *)down withMatchSelector:(NSString *)sel_str { if ([data count] == 0) { data = down; // set data equal to downloaded data } else if ([down count] == 0) { // download yields no results, do nothing } else { // combine the two arrays here } } This project is not ARC enabled. Thanks for the help guys! Rob

    Read the article

  • How to fetch populated associated models in CakePHP when calling read()

    - by Code Commander
    I have the following Models: class Site extends AppModel { public $name = "Site"; public $useTable = "site"; public $primaryKey = "id"; public $displayField = 'name'; public $hasMany = array('Item' => array('foreignKey' => 'siteId')); public function canView($userId, $isAdmin = false) { if($isAdmin) { return true; } return array_key_exists($this->id, $allowedSites); } } and class Item extends AppModel { public $name = "Item"; public $useTable = "item"; public $primaryKey = "id"; public $displayField = 'name'; public $belongsTo = array('Site' => array('foreignKey' => 'siteId')); public function canView($userId, $isAdmin = false) { // My problem appears to be the next line: return $this->Site->canView($userId, $isAdmin); } } In my controller I am doing something like this: $result = $this->Item->read(null, $this->request->id); // Verify permissions if(!$this->Item->canView($this->Session->read('userId'), $this->Session->read('isAdmin'))) { $this->httpCodes(403); die('Permission denied.'); } I notice that in Item->canView() $this->data['Site'] is populated with the column data from the site table. But it merely an array and not an object. On the other hand $this->Site is a Site object, but it has not been populated with the column data from the site table like $this->data. What is the proper way to have CakePHP get the associated model as the object and containing the data? Or am I going about this all wrong? Thanks!

    Read the article

  • Object-oriented GUI development in python

    - by ptabatt
    Hey guys, new programmer here. I have an assignment for class and I'm stuck... What I need to do is a create a GUI that gives someone a basic arithmetic problem in one box, asks the person to answer it, evaluates it, and tells you if you're right or wrong... Basically, what I have is this: [code] class Lesson(Frame): def init (self, parent=None): Frame.init(self, parent) self.pack() Lesson.make_widgets(self) def make_widgets(self): Label(self, text="").pack(side=TOP) ent = Entry(self) self.a = randrange(1,10) self.b = randrange(1,10) self.expr = choice(["+","-"]) ent.insert(END, str(self.a) + str(self.expr) + str(self.a)) [/code] I've broken this down into many little steps and basically, what I'm trying to do right now is insert a default random expression into the first entry widget. When I run this code, I just get a blank Label. Why is that? How can I put a something like "7+7" into the box? If you absolutely need background to the problem, it's question #3 on this link. http://reed.cs.depaul.edu/lperkovic/csc242/homeworks/Homework8.html -Thanks for all help in advance.

    Read the article

  • Hierarchy inheritance

    - by reito
    I had faced the problem. In my C++ hierarchy tree I have two branches for entities of difference nature, but same behavior - same interface. I created such hierarchy trees (first in image below). And now I want to work with Item or Base classes independetly of their nature (first or second). Then I create one abstract branch for this use. My mind build (second in image below). But it not working. Working scheme seems (third in image below). It's bad logic, I think... Do anybody have some ideas about such hierarchy inheritance? How make it more logical? More simple for understanding? Image Sorry for my english - russian internet didn't help:) Update: You ask me to be more explicit, and I will be. In my project (plugins for Adobe Framemaker) I need to work with dialogs and GUI controls. In some places I working with WinAPI controls, and some other places with FDK (internal Framemaker) controls, but I want to work throw same interface. I can't use one base class and inherite others from it, because all needed controls - is a hierarchy tree (not one class). So I have one hierarchy tree for WinAPI controls, one for FDK and one abstract tree to use anyone control. For example, there is an Edit control (WinEdit and FdkEdit realization), a Button control (WinButton and FdkButton realization) and base entity - Control (WinControl and FdkControl realization). For now I can link my classes in realization trees (Win and Fdk) with inheritence between each of them (WinControl is base class for WinButton and WinEdit; FdkControl is base class for FdkButton and FdkEdit). And I can link to abstract classes (Control is base class for WinControl and FdkControl; Edit is base class for WinEdit and FdkEdit; Button is base class for WinButton and FdkButton). But I can't link my abstract tree - compiler swears. In fact I have two hierarchy trees, that I want to inherite from another one. Update: I have done this quest! :) I used the virtual inheritence and get such scheme (http://img12.imageshack.us/img12/7782/99614779.png). Abstract tree has only absolute abstract methods. All inheritence in abstract tree are virtual. Link from realization tree to abstract are virtual. On image shown only one realization tree for simplicity. Thanks for help!

    Read the article

  • MustOverride Shared Methods in .Net

    - by Ben
    Hi I have a few class's that inherit from a base class. I want to enforce that all of these Class's implement a shared method foo(). I am not able to create the following on the base class Public MustOvveride Shared Sub foo() as this is not allowed. I also cant create an Interface that defines a Shared Sub Foo() and implement that in my derrived class's, as this also is not allowed. Does anyone know how i should implement this? p.s i realise my example is in VB and i have also tagged C#, the same problem applies to both languages and presumably the same fix would apply.

    Read the article

  • Loose Coupling of Components

    - by David
    I have created a class library (assembly) that provides messaging, email and sms. This class library defines an interface IMessenger which the classes EmailMessage and SmsMessage both implement. I see this is a general library that would be part of my infrastructure layer and would / can be used across any development. Now, in my application layer I have a class that requires to use a messaging component, I obviously want to use the messaging library that I have created. Additionally, I will be using an IoC container (Spring.net) to allow me to inject my implementation i.e. either email or sms. Therefore, I want to program against an interface in my application layer class, do I then need to reference my message class library from my application layer class? Is this tightly coupling my application layer class to my message class library? Should I be defining the interface - IMessenger in a seperate library? Or should I be doing something else?

    Read the article

  • Placement of a call to the parent method

    - by Alejandro
    I have a class that has a method. That class has a child class that overrides that method. The child's method has to call the parent's method. In all OO that I've seen or written calls to the parent's version of the same method were on the first line of the method. On a project that I am working on circumstances call for placing that method call at the end of a method. Should I be worried? Is that a code smell? Is this code inherently bad? class Parent { function work() { // stuff } } class Child { function work() { // do thing 1 // do thing 2 parent::work(); // is this a bad practice? // should I call the parent's work() method before // I do anything in this method? } }

    Read the article

  • How to make some functions of a class as private for third level of inheritance.

    - by Shantanu Gupta
    I have created a class say A which has some functions defined as protected. Now Class B inherits A and class C inherits B. Class A has private default constructor and protected parameterized constructor. I want Class B to be able to access all the protected functions defined in Class A but class C can have access on some of the functions only not all the functions and class C is inheriting class B. How can I restrict access to some of the functions of Class A from Class C ? Class A { private A(){} protected A(int ){} protected calc(){} protected allow(){} } Class B : A {} // calc() and allow() should be accessible here CLass C:B { // calc() should not be accessible here but allow() should be accessible here. }

    Read the article

  • Workaround for abstract attributes in Java

    - by deamon
    In Scala I would write an abstract class with an abstract attribute path: abstract class Base { val path: String } class Sub extends Base { override val path = "/demo/" } Java doesn't know abstract attributes and I wonder what would be the best way to work around this limitation. My ideas: a) constructor parameter abstract class Base { protected String path; protected Base(String path) { this.path = path; } } class Sub extends Base { public Sub() { super("/demo/"); } } b) abstract method abstract class Base { // could be an interface too abstract String getPath(); } class Sub extends Base { public String getPath() { return "/demo/"; } } Which one do you like better? Other ideas? I tend to use the constructor since the path value should not be computed at runtime.

    Read the article

  • How to get associated URLRequest from Event.COMPLETE fired by URLLoader

    - by matt lohkamp
    So let's say we want to load some XML - var xmlURL:String = 'content.xml'; var xmlURLRequest:URLRequest = new URLRequest(xmlURL); var xmlURLLoader:URLLoader = new URLLoader(xmlURLRequest); xmlURLLoader.addEventListener(Event.COMPLETE, function(e:Event):void{ trace('loaded',xmlURL); trace(XML(e.target.data)); }); If we need to know the source URL for that particular XML doc, we've got that variable to tell us, right? Now let's imagine that the xmlURL variable isn't around to help us - maybe we want to load 3 XML docs, named in sequence, and we want to use throwaway variables inside of a for-loop: for(var i:uint = 3; i > 0; i--){ var xmlURLLoader:URLLoader = new URLLoader(new URLRequest('content'+i+'.xml')); xmlURLLoader.addEventListener(Event.COMPLETE, function(e:Event):void{ trace(e.target.src); // I wish this worked... trace(XML(e.target.data)); }); } Suddenly it's not so easy, right? I hate that you can't just say e.target.src or whatever - is there a good way to associate URLLoaders with the URL they loaded data from? Am I missing something? It feels unintuitive to me.

    Read the article

  • In PHP, is it possible to create an instance of an class without calling class's constructor ?

    - by Rachel
    By any means, is it possible to create an instance of an php class without calling its constructor ? I have Class A and while creating an instance of it am passing file and in constructor of Class A am opening the file. Now in Class A, there is function which I need to call but am not required to pass file and so there is not need to use constructor functionality of opening file as am not passing file. So my question is, Is it possible by any means to create an instance of an PHP class without calling its constructor ?

    Read the article

  • PHP 'instanceof' failing with class constant

    - by Nathan Loding
    I'm working on a framework that I'm trying to type as strongly as I possibly can. (I'm working within PHP and taking some of the ideas that I like from C# and trying to utilize them within this framework.) I'm creating a Collection class that is a collection of domain entities/objects. It's kinda modeled after the List<T> object in .Net. I've run into an obstacle that is preventing me from typing this class. If I have a UserCollection, it should only allow User objects into it. If I have a PostCollection, it should only allow Post objects. All Collections in this framework need to have certain basic functions, such as add, remove, iterate. I created an interface, but found that I couldn't do the following: interface ICollection { public function add($obj) } class PostCollection implements ICollection { public function add(Post $obj) {} } This broke it's compliance with the interface. But I can't have the interface strongly typed because then all Collections are of the same type. So I attempted the following: interface ICollection { public function add($obj) } abstract class Collection implements ICollection { const type = 'null'; } class PostCollection { const type = 'Post'; public function add($obj) { if(!($obj instanceof self::type)) { throw new UhOhException(); } } } When I attempt to run this code, I get syntax error, unexpected T_STRING, expecting T_VARIABLE or '$' on the instanceof statement. A little research into the issue and it looks like the root of the cause is that $obj instanceof self is valid to test against the class. It appears that PHP doesn't process the entire self::type constant statement in the expression. Adding parentheses around the self::type variable threw an error regarding an unexpected '('. An obvious workaround is to not make the type variable a constant. The expression $obj instanceof $this->type works just fine (if $type is declared as a variable, of course). I'm hoping that there's a way to avoid that, as I'd like to define the value as a constant to avoid any possible change in the variable later. Any thoughts on how I can achieve this, or have I take PHP to it's limit in this regard? Is there a way of "escaping" or encapsulating self::this so that PHP won't die when processing it?

    Read the article

  • A better UPDATE method in LINQ to SQL

    - by Refracted Paladin
    The below is a typical, for me, Update method in L2S. I am still fairly new to a lot of this(L2S & business app development) but this just FEELs wrong. Like there MUST be a smarter way of doing this. Unfortunately, I am having trouble visualizing it and am hoping someone can provide an example or point me in the right direction. To take a stab in the dark, would I have a Person Object that has all these fields as Properties? Then what, though? Is that redundant since L2S already mapped my Person Table to a Class? Is this just 'how it goes', that you eventually end up passing 30 parameters(or MORE) to an UPDATE statement at some point? For reference, this is a business app using C#, WinForms, .Net 3.5, and L2S over SQL 2005 Standard. Here is a typical Update Call for me. This is in a file(BLLConnect.cs) with other CRUD methods. Connect is the name of the DB that holds tblPerson When a user clicks save() this is what is eventually called with all of these fields having, potentially, been updated-- public static void UpdatePerson(int personID, string userID, string titleID, string firstName, string middleName, string lastName, string suffixID, string ssn, char gender, DateTime? birthDate, DateTime? deathDate, string driversLicenseNumber, string driversLicenseStateID, string primaryRaceID, string secondaryRaceID, bool hispanicOrigin, bool citizenFlag, bool veteranFlag, short ? residencyCountyID, short? responsibilityCountyID, string emailAddress, string maritalStatusID) { using (var context = ConnectDataContext.Create()) { var personToUpdate = (from person in context.tblPersons where person.PersonID == personID select person).Single(); personToUpdate.TitleID = titleID; personToUpdate.FirstName = firstName; personToUpdate.MiddleName = middleName; personToUpdate.LastName = lastName; personToUpdate.SuffixID = suffixID; personToUpdate.SSN = ssn; personToUpdate.Gender = gender; personToUpdate.BirthDate = birthDate; personToUpdate.DeathDate = deathDate; personToUpdate.DriversLicenseNumber = driversLicenseNumber; personToUpdate.DriversLicenseStateID = driversLicenseStateID; personToUpdate.PrimaryRaceID = primaryRaceID; personToUpdate.SecondaryRaceID = secondaryRaceID; personToUpdate.HispanicOriginFlag = hispanicOrigin; personToUpdate.CitizenFlag = citizenFlag; personToUpdate.VeteranFlag = veteranFlag; personToUpdate.ResidencyCountyID = residencyCountyID; personToUpdate.ResponsibilityCountyID = responsibilityCountyID; personToUpdate.EmailAddress = emailAddress; personToUpdate.MaritalStatusID = maritalStatusID; personToUpdate.UpdateUserID = userID; personToUpdate.UpdateDateTime = DateTime.Now; context.SubmitChanges(); } }

    Read the article

  • Explicit method tables in C# instead of OO - good? bad?

    - by FunctorSalad
    Hi! I hope the title doesn't sound too subjective; I absolutely do not mean to start a debate on OO in general. I'd merely like to discuss the basic pros and cons for different ways of solving the following sort of problem. Let's take this minimal example: you want to express an abstract datatype T with functions that may take T as input, output, or both: f1 : Takes a T, returns an int f2 : Takes a string, returns a T f3 : Takes a T and a double, returns another T I'd like to avoid downcasting and any other dynamic typing. I'd also like to avoid mutation whenever possible. 1: Abstract-class-based attempt abstract class T { abstract int f1(); // We can't have abstract constructors, so the best we can do, as I see it, is: abstract void f2(string s); // The convention would be that you'd replace calls to the original f2 by invocation of the nullary constructor of the implementing type, followed by invocation of f2. f2 would need to have side-effects to be of any use. // f3 is a problem too: abstract T f3(double d); // This doesn't express that the return value is of the *same* type as the object whose method is invoked; it just expresses that the return value is *some* T. } 2: Parametric polymorphism and an auxilliary class (all implementing classes of TImpl will be singleton classes): abstract class TImpl<T> { abstract int f1(T t); abstract T f2(string s); abstract T f3(T t, double d); } We no longer express that some concrete type actually implements our original spec -- an implementation is simply a type Foo for which we happen to have an instance of TImpl. This doesn't seem to be a problem: If you want a function that works on arbitrary implementations, you just do something like: // Say we want to return a Bar given an arbitrary implementation of our abstract type Bar bar<T>(TImpl<T> ti, T t); At this point, one might as well skip inheritance and singletons altogether and use a 3 First-class function table class /* or struct, even */ TDictT<T> { readonly Func<T,int> f1; readonly Func<string,T> f2; readonly Func<T,double,T> f3; TDict( ... ) { this.f1 = f1; this.f2 = f2; this.f3 = f3; } } Bar bar<T>(TDict<T> td; T t); Though I don't see much practical difference between #2 and #3. Example Implementation class MyT { /* raw data structure goes here; this class needn't have any methods */ } // It doesn't matter where we put the following; could be a static method of MyT, or some static class collecting dictionaries static readonly TDict<MyT> MyTDict = new TDict<MyT>( (t) => /* body of f1 goes here */ , // f2 (s) => /* body of f2 goes here */, // f3 (t,d) => /* body of f3 goes here */ ); Thoughts? #3 is unidiomatic, but it seems rather safe and clean. One question is whether there are any performance concerns with it. I don't usually need dynamic dispatch, and I'd prefer if these function bodies get statically inlined in places where the concrete implementing type is known statically. Is #2 better in that regard?

    Read the article

  • How do I know which Object I clicked?

    - by Nick
    Here's the deal: I'm working on a personal portfolio in AS3 and I've run into a problem which I can't seem to find a logical answer to. I want everything (well, most of it) to be editable with an XML file, including my menu. My menu is just a Sprite with some text on it and a Tweener-tween, no big deal. But, I forgot to think of a way how I can determine which menu-item I have clicked. This is in my Main.as private function xmlLoaded(e:Event):void { xml = e.target.xml; menu = new Menu(xml); menu.x = 0; menu.y = stage.stageHeight / 2 - menu.height / 2; addChild(menu); } In Menu.as public function Menu(xml:XML) { for each (var eachMenuItem:XML in xml.menu.item) { menuItem = new MenuItem(eachMenuItem); menuItem.y += yPos; addChild(menuItem); yPos += menuItem.height + 3; } } and in my MenuItem.as, everything works - I have a fancy tween when I hover over it, but when I click a menu-item, I want something to appear ofcourse. How do I know which one I clicked? I've tried with pushing everything in an array, but that didn't work out well (or maybe I'm doing it wrong). Also tried a global counter, but that's not working either because the value will always be amount of items in my XML file. Also tried e.currentTarget in my click-function, but when I trace that, all of them are "Object Sprite".. I need something so I can give each a unique "name"? Thanks in advance!

    Read the article

  • systematizing error codes for a web app in php?

    - by user151841
    I'm working on a class-based php web app. I have some places where objects are interacting, and I have certain situations where I'm using error codes to communicate to the end user -- typically when form values are missing or invalid. These are situations where exceptions are unwarranted ( and I'm not sure I could avoid the situations with exceptions anyways). In one object, I have some 20 code numbers, each of which correspond to a user-facing message, and a admin/developer-facing message, so both parties know what's going on. Now that I've worked over the code several times, I find that it's difficult to quickly figure out what code numbers in the series I've already used, so I accidentally create conflicting code numbers. For instance, I just did that today with 12, 13, 14 and 15. How can I better organize this so I don't create conflicting error codes? Should I create one singleton class, errorCodes, that has a master list of all error codes for all classes, systematizing them across the whole web app? Or should each object have its own set of error codes, when appropriate, and I just keep a list in the commentary of the object, to use and update that as I go along?

    Read the article

  • Python: Why Does a Method Behave Differently with an Added Parameter?

    - by SteveStifler
    I have a method in a Pygame Sprite subclass, defined as such: def walk(self): """move across screen""" displacement = self.rect.move((self.move, 0)) if self.rect.left < self.area.left or self.rect.right > self.area.right: self.move = -self.move displacement = self.rect.move((self.move, 0)) self.rect = displacement I modified it, adding a parameter speed_x, and now the program is broken. def walk(self, speed_x): """move across screen""" displacement = self.rect.move((speed_x, 0)) if self.rect.left < self.area.left or self.rect.right > self.area.right: speed_x = -speed_x displacement = self.rect.move((speed_x, 0)) self.rect = displacement Before I called the method like this: def update(self): self.walk() Now I do: def update(self): self.walk(self.move) Why doesn't this work?

    Read the article

facebook twitter digg google delicious technorati stumbleupon myspace wordpress linkedin gmail igoogle windows live tumblr viadeo yahoo buzz yahoo mail yahoo bookmarks favorites email print

< Previous Page | 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301  | Next Page >