Search Results

Search found 33640 results on 1346 pages for 'java generics'.

Page 411/1346 | < Previous Page | 407 408 409 410 411 412 413 414 415 416 417 418  | Next Page >

  • Approaches for generic, compile-time safe lazy-load methods

    - by Aaronaught
    Suppose I have created a wrapper class like the following: public class Foo : IFoo { private readonly IFoo innerFoo; public Foo(IFoo innerFoo) { this.innerFoo = innerFoo; } public int? Bar { get; set; } public int? Baz { get; set; } } The idea here is that the innerFoo might wrap data-access methods or something similarly expensive, and I only want its GetBar and GetBaz methods to be invoked once. So I want to create another wrapper around it, which will save the values obtained on the first run. It's simple enough to do this, of course: int IFoo.GetBar() { if ((Bar == null) && (innerFoo != null)) Bar = innerFoo.GetBar(); return Bar ?? 0; } int IFoo.GetBaz() { if ((Baz == null) && (innerFoo != null)) Baz = innerFoo.GetBaz(); return Baz ?? 0; } But it gets pretty repetitive if I'm doing this with 10 different properties and 30 different wrappers. So I figured, hey, let's make this generic: T LazyLoad<T>(ref T prop, Func<IFoo, T> loader) { if ((prop == null) && (innerFoo != null)) prop = loader(innerFoo); return prop; } Which almost gets me where I want, but not quite, because you can't ref an auto-property (or any property at all). In other words, I can't write this: int IFoo.GetBar() { return LazyLoad(ref Bar, f => f.GetBar()); // <--- Won't compile } Instead, I'd have to change Bar to have an explicit backing field and write explicit getters and setters. Which is fine, except for the fact that I end up writing even more redundant code than I was writing in the first place. Then I considered the possibility of using expression trees: T LazyLoad<T>(Expression<Func<T>> propExpr, Func<IFoo, T> loader) { var memberExpression = propExpr.Body as MemberExpression; if (memberExpression != null) { // Use Reflection to inspect/set the property } } This plays nice with refactoring - it'll work great if I do this: return LazyLoad(f => f.Bar, f => f.GetBar()); But it's not actually safe, because someone less clever (i.e. myself in 3 days from now when I inevitably forget how this is implemented internally) could decide to write this instead: return LazyLoad(f => 3, f => f.GetBar()); Which is either going to crash or result in unexpected/undefined behaviour, depending on how defensively I write the LazyLoad method. So I don't really like this approach either, because it leads to the possibility of runtime errors which would have been prevented in the first attempt. It also relies on Reflection, which feels a little dirty here, even though this code is admittedly not performance-sensitive. Now I could also decide to go all-out and use DynamicProxy to do method interception and not have to write any code, and in fact I already do this in some applications. But this code is residing in a core library which many other assemblies depend on, and it seems horribly wrong to be introducing this kind of complexity at such a low level. Separating the interceptor-based implementation from the IFoo interface by putting it into its own assembly doesn't really help; the fact is that this very class is still going to be used all over the place, must be used, so this isn't one of those problems that could be trivially solved with a little DI magic. The last option I've already thought of would be to have a method like: T LazyLoad<T>(Func<T> getter, Action<T> setter, Func<IFoo, T> loader) { ... } This option is very "meh" as well - it avoids Reflection but is still error-prone, and it doesn't really reduce the repetition that much. It's almost as bad as having to write explicit getters and setters for each property. Maybe I'm just being incredibly nit-picky, but this application is still in its early stages, and it's going to grow substantially over time, and I really want to keep the code squeaky-clean. Bottom line: I'm at an impasse, looking for other ideas. Question: Is there any way to clean up the lazy-loading code at the top, such that the implementation will: Guarantee compile-time safety, like the ref version; Actually reduce the amount of code repetition, like the Expression version; and Not take on any significant additional dependencies? In other words, is there a way to do this just using regular C# language features and possibly a few small helper classes? Or am I just going to have to accept that there's a trade-off here and strike one of the above requirements from the list?

    Read the article

  • Is this a good way to expose generic base class methods through an interface?

    - by Nate Heinrich
    I am trying to provide an interface to an abstract generic base class. I want to have a method exposed on the interface that consumes the generic type, but whose implementation is ultimately handled by the classes that inherit from my abstract generic base. However I don't want the subclasses to have to downcast to work with the generic type (as they already know what the type should be). Here is a simple version of the only way I can see to get it to work at the moment. public interface IFoo { void Process(Bar_base bar); } public abstract class FooBase<T> : IFoo where T : Bar_base { abstract void Process(T bar); // Explicit IFoo Implementation void IFoo.Process(Bar_base bar) { if (bar == null) throw new ArgumentNullException(); // Downcast here in base class (less for subclasses to worry about) T downcasted_bar = bar as T; if (downcasted_bar == null) { throw new InvalidOperationException( string.Format("Expected type '{0}', not type '{1}'", T.ToString(), bar.GetType().ToString()); } //Process downcasted object. Process(downcasted_bar); } } Then subclasses of FooBase would look like this... public class Foo_impl1 : FooBase<Bar_impl1> { void override Process(Bar_impl1 bar) { //No need to downcast here! } } Obviously this won't provide me compile time Type Checking, but I think it will get the job done... Questions: 1. Will this function as I think it will? 2. Is this the best way to do this? 3. What are the issues with doing it this way? 4. Can you suggest a different approach? Thanks!

    Read the article

  • How can I improve this design?

    - by klausbyskov
    Let's assume that our system can perform actions, and that an action requires some parameters to do its work. I have defined the following base class for all actions (simplified for your reading pleasure): public abstract class BaseBusinessAction<TActionParameters> : where TActionParameters : IActionParameters { protected BaseBusinessAction(TActionParameters actionParameters) { if (actionParameters == null) throw new ArgumentNullException("actionParameters"); this.Parameters = actionParameters; if (!ParametersAreValid()) throw new ArgumentException("Valid parameters must be supplied", "actionParameters"); } protected TActionParameters Parameters { get; private set; } protected abstract bool ParametersAreValid(); public void CommonMethod() { ... } } Only a concrete implementation of BaseBusinessAction knows how to validate that the parameters passed to it are valid, and therefore the ParametersAreValid is an abstract function. However, I want the base class constructor to enforce that the parameters passed are always valid, so I've added a call to ParametersAreValid to the constructor and I throw an exception when the function returns false. So far so good, right? Well, no. Code analysis is telling me to "not call overridable methods in constructors" which actually makes a lot of sense because when the base class's constructor is called the child class's constructor has not yet been called, and therefore the ParametersAreValid method may not have access to some critical member variable that the child class's constructor would set. So the question is this: How do I improve this design? Do I add a Func<bool, TActionParameters> parameter to the base class constructor? If I did: public class MyAction<MyParameters> { public MyAction(MyParameters actionParameters, bool something) : base(actionParameters, ValidateIt) { this.something = something; } private bool something; public static bool ValidateIt() { return something; } } This would work because ValidateIt is static, but I don't know... Is there a better way? Comments are very welcome.

    Read the article

  • Getting the constructor of an Interface Type through reflection, is there a better approach than loo

    - by Will Marcouiller
    I have written a generic type: IDirectorySource<T> where T : IDirectoryEntry, which I'm using to manage Active Directory entries through my interfaces objects: IGroup, IOrganizationalUnit, IUser. So that I can write the following: IDirectorySource<IGroup> groups = new DirectorySource<IGroup>(); // Where IGroup implements `IDirectoryEntry`, of course.` foreach (IGroup g in groups.ToList()) { listView1.Items.Add(g.Name).SubItems.Add(g.Description); } From the IDirectorySource<T>.ToList() methods, I use reflection to find out the appropriate constructor for the type parameter T. However, since T is given an interface type, it cannot find any constructor at all! Of course, I have an internal class Group : IGroup which implements the IGroup interface. No matter how hard I have tried, I can't figure out how to get the constructor out of my interface through my implementing class. [DirectorySchemaAttribute("group")] public interface IGroup { } internal class Group : IGroup { internal Group(DirectoryEntry entry) { NativeEntry = entry; Domain = NativeEntry.Path; } // Implementing IGroup interface... } Within the ToList() method of my IDirectorySource<T> interface implementation, I look for the constructor of T as follows: internal class DirectorySource<T> : IDirectorySource<T> { // Implementing properties... // Methods implementations... public IList<T> ToList() { Type t = typeof(T) // Let's assume we're always working with the IGroup interface as T here to keep it simple. // So, my `DirectorySchema` property is already set to "group". // My `DirectorySearcher` is already instantiated here, as I do it within the DirectorySource<T> constructor. Searcher.Filter = string.Format("(&(objectClass={0}))", DirectorySchema) ConstructorInfo ctor = null; ParameterInfo[] params = null; // This is where I get stuck for now... Please see the helper method. GetConstructor(out ctor, out params, new Type() { DirectoryEntry }); SearchResultCollection results = null; try { results = Searcher.FindAll(); } catch (DirectoryServicesCOMException ex) { // Handling exception here... } foreach (SearchResult entry in results) entities.Add(ctor.Invoke(new object() { entry.GetDirectoryEntry() })); return entities; } } private void GetConstructor(out ConstructorInfo constructor, out ParameterInfo[] parameters, Type paramsTypes) { Type t = typeof(T); ConstructorInfo[] ctors = t.GetConstructors(BindingFlags.CreateInstance | BindingFlags.NonPublic | BindingFlags.Public | BindingFlags.InvokeMethod); bool found = true; foreach (ContructorInfo c in ctors) { parameters = c.GetParameters(); if (parameters.GetLength(0) == paramsTypes.GetLength(0)) { for (int index = 0; index < parameters.GetLength(0); ++index) { if (!(parameters[index].GetType() is paramsTypes[index].GetType())) found = false; } if (found) { constructor = c; return; } } } // Processing constructor not found message here... } My problem is that T will always be an interface, so it never finds a constructor. Is there a better way than looping through all of my assembly types for implementations of my interface? I don't care about rewriting a piece of my code, I want to do it right on the first place so that I won't need to come back again and again and again. EDIT #1 Following Sam's advice, I will for now go with the IName and Name convention. However, is it me or there's some way to improve my code? Thanks! =)

    Read the article

  • Testing a Generic Class

    - by Jonas Gorauskas
    More than a question, per se, this is an attempt to compare notes with other people. I wrote a generic History class that emulates the functionality of a browser's history. I am trying to wrap my head around how far to go when writing unit tests for it. I am using NUnit. Please share your testing approaches below. The full code for the History class is here (http://pastebin.com/ZGKK2V84).

    Read the article

  • Create method to handle multiple types of controls

    - by Praesagus
    I am trying to create a method that accepts multiple types of controls - in this case Labels and Panels. The conversion does not work because IConvertible doesn't convert these Types. Any help would be so appreciated. Thanks in advance public void LocationsLink<C>(C control) { if (control != null) { WebControl ctl = (WebControl)Convert.ChangeType(control, typeof(WebControl)); Literal txt = new Literal(); HyperLink lnk = new HyperLink(); txt.Text = "If you prefer a map to the nearest facility please "; lnk.Text = "click here"; lnk.NavigateUrl = "/content/Locations.aspx"; ctl.Controls.Add(txt); ctl.Controls.Add(lnk); } }

    Read the article

  • Partial generic type inference possible in C#?

    - by Lasse V. Karlsen
    I am working on rewriting my fluent interface for my IoC class library, and when I refactored some code in order to share some common functionality through a base class, I hit upon a snag. Note: This is something I want to do, not something I have to do. If I have to make do with a different syntax, I will, but if anyone has an idea on how to make my code compile the way I want it, it would be most welcome. I want some extension methods to be available for a specific base-class, and these methods should be generic, with one generic type, related to an argument to the method, but the methods should also return a specific type related to the particular descendant they're invoked upon. Better with a code example than the above description methinks. Here's a simple and complete example of what doesn't work: using System; namespace ConsoleApplication16 { public class ParameterizedRegistrationBase { } public class ConcreteTypeRegistration : ParameterizedRegistrationBase { public void SomethingConcrete() { } } public class DelegateRegistration : ParameterizedRegistrationBase { public void SomethingDelegated() { } } public static class Extensions { public static ParameterizedRegistrationBase Parameter<T>( this ParameterizedRegistrationBase p, string name, T value) { return p; } } class Program { static void Main(string[] args) { ConcreteTypeRegistration ct = new ConcreteTypeRegistration(); ct .Parameter<int>("age", 20) .SomethingConcrete(); // <-- this is not available DelegateRegistration del = new DelegateRegistration(); del .Parameter<int>("age", 20) .SomethingDelegated(); // <-- neither is this } } } If you compile this, you'll get: 'ConsoleApplication16.ParameterizedRegistrationBase' does not contain a definition for 'SomethingConcrete' and no extension method 'SomethingConcrete'... 'ConsoleApplication16.ParameterizedRegistrationBase' does not contain a definition for 'SomethingDelegated' and no extension method 'SomethingDelegated'... What I want is for the extension method (Parameter<T>) to be able to be invoked on both ConcreteTypeRegistration and DelegateRegistration, and in both cases the return type should match the type the extension was invoked on. The problem is as follows: I would like to write: ct.Parameter<string>("name", "Lasse") ^------^ notice only one generic argument but also that Parameter<T> returns an object of the same type it was invoked on, which means: ct.Parameter<string>("name", "Lasse").SomethingConcrete(); ^ ^-------+-------^ | | +---------------------------------------------+ .SomethingConcrete comes from the object in "ct" which in this case is of type ConcreteTypeRegistration Is there any way I can trick the compiler into making this leap for me? If I add two generic type arguments to the Parameter method, type inference forces me to either provide both, or none, which means this: public static TReg Parameter<TReg, T>( this TReg p, string name, T value) where TReg : ParameterizedRegistrationBase gives me this: Using the generic method 'ConsoleApplication16.Extensions.Parameter<TReg,T>(TReg, string, T)' requires 2 type arguments Using the generic method 'ConsoleApplication16.Extensions.Parameter<TReg,T>(TReg, string, T)' requires 2 type arguments Which is just as bad. I can easily restructure the classes, or even make the methods non-extension-methods by introducing them into the hierarchy, but my question is if I can avoid having to duplicate the methods for the two descendants, and in some way declare them only once, for the base class. Let me rephrase that. Is there a way to change the classes in the first code example above, so that the syntax in the Main-method can be kept, without duplicating the methods in question? The code will have to be compatible with both C# 3.0 and 4.0. Edit: The reason I'd rather not leave both generic type arguments to inference is that for some services, I want to specify a parameter value for a constructor parameter that is of one type, but pass in a value that is a descendant. For the moment, matching of specified argument values and the correct constructor to call is done using both the name and the type of the argument. Let me give an example: ServiceContainerBuilder.Register<ISomeService>(r => r .From(f => f.ConcreteType<FileService>(ct => ct .Parameter<Stream>("source", new FileStream(...))))); ^--+---^ ^---+----^ | | | +- has to be a descendant of Stream | +- has to match constructor of FileService If I leave both to type inference, the parameter type will be FileStream, not Stream.

    Read the article

  • What about optional generic type parameters in C# 5.0?

    - by Lars Corneliussen
    Just a thought. Wouldn't it be useful to have optional type parameters in C#? This would make life simpler. I'm tired of having multiple classes with the same name, but different type parameters. Also VS doesn't support this very vell (file names) :-) This would eliminate the need for a non-generic IEnumerable: interface IEnumerable<out T=object>{ IEnumerator<T> GetEnumerator() } What do you think?

    Read the article

  • .NET template class instance - passing a variable data type

    - by FerretallicA
    As the title suggests, I'm tyring to pass a variable data type to a template class. Something like this: frmExample = New LookupForm(Of Models.MyClass) 'Works fine Dim SelectedType As Type = InstanceOfMyClass.GetType() 'Works fine frmExample = New LookupForm(Of SelectedType) 'Ba-bow! frmExample = New LookupForm(Of InstanceOfMyClass.GetType()) 'Ba-bow! LookupForm<Models.MyClass> frmExample; Type SelectedType = InstanceOfMyClass.GetType(); frmExample = new LookupForm<SelectedType.GetType()>(); //Ba-bow frmExample = new LookupForm<(Type)SelectedType>(); //Ba-bow I'm assuming it's something to do with the template being processed at compile time but even if I'm off the mark there, it wouldn't solve my problem anyway. I can't find any relevant information on using Reflection to instance template classes either. (How) can I create an instance of a dynamically typed repository at runtime?

    Read the article

  • how to implement class with collection of string/object pairs so that an object can be returned with

    - by matti
    The values in a file are read as string and can be double, string or int or maybe even lists. An example file: DatabaseName=SomeBase Classes=11;12;13 IntValue=3 //this is required! DoubleValue=4.0 I was thinking something like this: public static T GetConfigValue(string cfgName) { // here we just return for example the value which could // be List[int] if parameter cfgName='Classes' // and LoadConfig was called with Dictionary containing // keyvaluepair 'Classes' / typeof(List[int]) } public static bool LoadConfig(Dictionary reqSettings, Dictionary optSettings) { foreach (KeyValuePair kvPair in reqSettings) { if (ReadCheckAndStore(kVPair, true)) return false; } foreach (KeyValuePair kvPair in reqSettings) { if (ReadCheckAndStore(kVPair, false)) return false; } return true; } private static bool ReadCheckAndStore(KeyValuePair kVPair, bool isRequired) { if (!ReadValue(kVPair.Key, out confValue) && isRequired) //req. IntValue !found return false; //here also have to test if read value is wanted type. //and if yes store to collection. } Thanks a lot & BR! -Matti PS. Additional issue is default values for optional settings. It's not elegant to pass them to LoadConfig in separate Dictionary, but that is an other issue...

    Read the article

  • Why is it impossible to declare extension methods in a generic static class?

    - by Hun1Ahpu
    I'd like to create a lot of extension methods for some generic class, e.g. for public class SimpleLinkedList<T> where T:IComparable And I've started creating methods like this: public static class LinkedListExtensions { public static T[] ToArray<T>(this SimpleLinkedList<T> simpleLinkedList) where T:IComparable { //// code } } But when I tried to make LinkedListExtensions class generic like this: public static class LinkedListExtensions<T> where T:IComparable { public static T[] ToArray(this SimpleLinkedList<T> simpleLinkedList) { ////code } } I get "Extension methods can only be declared in non-generic, non-nested static class". And I'm trying to guess where this restriction came from and have no ideas.

    Read the article

  • Best way to translate from IDictionary to a generic IDictionary

    - by George Mauer
    I've got an IDictionary field that I would like to expose via a property of type IDictionary<string, dynamic> the conversion is surprisingly difficult since I have no idea what I can .Cast<>() the IDictionary to. Best I've got: IDictionary properties; protected virtual IDictionary<string, dynamic> Properties { get { return _properties.Keys.Cast<string>() .ToDictionary(name=>name, name=> _properties[name] as dynamic); } }

    Read the article

  • In VB.NET how do you specify Inherits/implements on a generic class with multi-constraints

    - by Romel Evans
    When I write the following statement in VB.Net (C# is my normal language), I get an "end of statement expected" referring to the "Implements" statement. <Serializable()> _ <XmlSchemaProvider("EtgSchema")> _ Public Class SerializeableEntity(Of T As {Class, ISerializable, New}) _ Implements IXmlSerializable, ISerializable ... End Class The C# version that I'm trying to emulate is: [Serializable] [XmlSchemaProvider("MySchema")] public class SerializableEntity<T> : IXmlSerializable, ISerializable where T : class, new() { .... } Sometimes I feel like I have 5 thumbs with VB.NET :)

    Read the article

  • Can protobuf-net serialize this combination of interface and generic collection?

    - by tsupe
    I am trying to serialize a ItemTransaction and protobuf-net (r282) is having a problem. ItemTransaction : IEnumerable<KeyValuePair<Type, IItemCollection>></code> and ItemCollection is like this: FooCollection : ItemCollection<Foo> ItemCollection<T> : BindingList<T>, IItemCollection IItemCollection : IList<Item> where T is a derived type of Item. ItemCollection also has a property of type IItemCollection. I am serializing like this: IItemCollection itemCol = someService.Blah(...); ... SerializeWithLengthPrefix<IItemCollection>(stream, itemCol, PrefixStyle.Base128); My eventual goal is to serialize ItemTransaction, but am snagged with IItemCollection. Item and it's derived types can be [de]serialized with no issues, see [1], but deserializing an IItemCollection fails (serializing works). ItemCollection has a ItemExpression property and when deserializing protobuf can't create an abstract class. This makes sense to me, but I'm not sure how to get through it. ItemExpression<T> : ItemExpression, IItemExpression ItemExpression : Expression ItemExpression is abstract as is Expression How do I get this to work properly? Also, I am concerned that ItemTransaction will fail since the IItemCollections are going to be differing and unknown at compile time (an ItemTransaction will have FooCollection, BarCollection, FlimCollection, FlamCollection, etc). What am I missing (Marc) ? [1] http://stackoverflow.com/questions/2276104/protobuf-net-deserializing-across-assembly-boundaries

    Read the article

  • The CHOICE : Firebird or H2

    - by blow
    Hi, i have to choice a database to use in server-mode for a java desktop application. I think both are great java database. In my opinion (im NOT well-informed): H2 PRO Is java based Develeopment say it is very very fast Easy to install, configure and use with java application H2 CONS Is a young project Reliability doubt for commercial porpouse FireBird PRO Rock solid project Well documented Should be fast and well optimized for large data Has a java driver... FireBird CONS It is not java based ... ? So, i can't choice between this great db, can i have a suggestion? Thank.

    Read the article

  • JDBC CallableStatement and Oracle SYS_REFCURSOR IN parameters?

    - by deebo
    Pretty much what it says in the title, how the hell is this supposed to be done? Basically i need to pass a null (empty?) ref cursor as an IN parameter to a stored procedure. /** spring's PreparedStatementSetter#setValues(...) */ public void setValues(PreparedStatement ps) throws SQLException { CallableStatement cs = (CallableStatement) ps; cs.setString(1,"constant"); //this is the IN param cs.setNull(2, OracleTypes.CURSOR); //this is the OUT param cs.registerOutParameter(3, OracleTypes.CURSOR); } And this fails with: caused by: java.sql.SQLException: Unsupported feature: sqlType=-10 at oracle.jdbc.driver.DatabaseError.throwSqlException(DatabaseError.java:112) at oracle.jdbc.driver.DatabaseError.throwSqlException(DatabaseError.java:146) at oracle.jdbc.driver.OraclePreparedStatement.setNullCritical(OraclePreparedStatement.java:4399) at oracle.jdbc.driver.OraclePreparedStatement.setNullInternal(OraclePreparedStatement.java:4161) at oracle.jdbc.driver.OracleCallableStatement.setNull(OracleCallableStatement.java:4472) I'm at a loss here, tried several different ways to do this, but I couldn't find any examples about this and have no idea how to do it properly.

    Read the article

  • CreateDelegate with unknown types

    - by Giorgi
    Hello, I am trying to create Delegate for reading/writing properties of unknown type of class at runtime. I have a generic class Main<T> and a method which looks like this: Delegate.CreateDelegate(typeof(Func<T, object>), get) where get is a MethodInfo of the property that should be read. The problem is that when the property returns int (I guess this happens for value types) the above code throws ArgumentException because the method cannot be bound. In case of string it works well. To solve the problem I changed the code so that corresponding Delegate type is generated by using MakeGenericType. So now the code is: Type func = typeof(Func<,>); Type generic = func.MakeGenericType(typeof(T), get.ReturnType); var result = Delegate.CreateDelegate(generic, get) The problem now is that the created delegate instance of generic so I have to use DynamicInvoke which would be as slow as using pure reflection to read the field. So my question is why is that the first snippet of code fails with value types. According to MSDN it should work as it says that The return type of a delegate is compatible with the return type of a method if the return type of the method is more restrictive than the return type of the delegate and how to execute the delegate in the second snippet so that it is faster than reflection. Thanks.

    Read the article

  • sOperator as and generic classes

    - by abatishchev
    I'm writing .NET On-the-Fly compiler for CLR scripting and want execution method make generic acceptable: object Execute() { return type.InvokeMember(..); } T Execute<T>() { return Execute() as T; /* doesn't work: The type parameter 'T' cannot be used with the 'as' operator because it does not have a class type constraint nor a 'class' constraint */ // also neither typeof(T) not T.GetType(), so on are possible return (T) Execute(); // ok } But I think operator as will be very useful: if result type isn't T method will return null, instead of an exception! Is it possible to do?

    Read the article

  • List<T> and IEnumerable difference

    - by Jonas Elfström
    While implementing this generic merge sort, as a kind of Code Kata, I stumbled on a difference between IEnumerable and List that I need help to figure out. Here's the MergeSort public class MergeSort<T> { public IEnumerable<T> Sort(IEnumerable<T> arr) { if (arr.Count() <= 1) return arr; int middle = arr.Count() / 2; var left = arr.Take(middle).ToList(); var right = arr.Skip(middle).ToList(); return Merge(Sort(left), Sort(right)); } private static IEnumerable<T> Merge(IEnumerable<T> left, IEnumerable<T> right) { var arrSorted = new List<T>(); while (left.Count() > 0 && right.Count() > 0) { if (Comparer<T>.Default.Compare(left.First(), right.First()) < 0) { arrSorted.Add(left.First()); left=left.Skip(1); } else { arrSorted.Add(right.First()); right=right.Skip(1); } } return arrSorted.Concat(left).Concat(right); } } If I remove the .ToList() on the left and right variables it fails to sort correctly. Do you see why? Example var ints = new List<int> { 5, 8, 2, 1, 7 }; var mergeSortInt = new MergeSort<int>(); var sortedInts = mergeSortInt.Sort(ints); With .ToList() [0]: 1 [1]: 2 [2]: 5 [3]: 7 [4]: 8 Without .ToList() [0]: 1 [1]: 2 [2]: 5 [3]: 7 [4]: 2 Edit It was my stupid test that got me. I tested it like this: var sortedInts = mergeSortInt.Sort(ints); ints.Sort(); if (Enumerable.SequenceEqual(ints, sortedInts)) Console.WriteLine("ints sorts ok"); just changing the first row to var sortedInts = mergeSortInt.Sort(ints).ToList(); removes the problem (and the lazy evaluation). EDIT 2010-12-29 I thought I would figure out just how the lazy evaluation messes things up here but I just don't get it. Remove the .ToList() in the Sort method above like this var left = arr.Take(middle); var right = arr.Skip(middle); then try this var ints = new List<int> { 5, 8, 2 }; var mergeSortInt = new MergeSort<int>(); var sortedInts = mergeSortInt.Sort(ints); ints.Sort(); if (Enumerable.SequenceEqual(ints, sortedInts)) Console.WriteLine("ints sorts ok"); When debugging You can see that before ints.Sort() a sortedInts.ToList() returns [0]: 2 [1]: 5 [2]: 8 but after ints.Sort() it returns [0]: 2 [1]: 5 [2]: 5 What is really happening here?

    Read the article

  • Discover generic types

    - by vittore
    Thanks @dtb for help, he advised really need piece of code for generic service locator static class Locator { private static class LocatorEntry<T> where T : ... { public static IDataManager<T> instance; } public static void Register<T>(IDataManager<T> instance) where T : ... { LocatorEntry<T>.instance = instance; } public static IDataManager<T> GetInstance<T>() where T : ... { return LocatorEntry<T>.instance; } } However in my previous version I used reflection on assembly to discover a hundred of DataManager's I want to write an method discover like the following void Discover() { var pManager = new ProtocolSQLDataManager(); Register(pManager); var rManager = new ResultSQLDataManager(); Register(rManager); var gType = typeof(ISQLDataAccessManager<>); foreach (Type type in Assembly.GetExecutingAssembly().GetTypes()) { if (type.IsSubclassOf(gType) && !type.IsAbstract)) { var manager = Activator.CreateInstance(type); // put something here in order to make next line of code works Register<T>(manager); } } } How to cast type to appropriate type in order to make Register working( and call appropriate Register ?

    Read the article

  • Best Practice - Removing item from generic collection in C#

    - by Matt Davis
    I'm using C# in Visual Studio 2008 with .NET 3.5. I have a generic dictionary that maps types of events to a generic list of subscribers. A subscriber can be subscribed to more than one event. private static Dictionary<EventType, List<ISubscriber>> _subscriptions; To remove a subscriber from the subscription list, I can use either of these two options. Option 1: ISubscriber subscriber; // defined elsewhere foreach (EventType event in _subscriptions.Keys) { if (_subscriptions[event].Contains(subscriber)) { _subscriptions[event].Remove(subscriber); } } Option 2: ISubscriber subscriber; // defined elsewhere foreach (EventType event in _subscriptions.Keys) { _subscriptions[event].Remove(subscriber); } I have two questions. First, notice that Option 1 checks for existence before removing the item, while Option 2 uses a brute force removal since Remove() does not throw an exception. Of these two, which is the preferred, "best-practice" way to do this? Second, is there another, "cleaner," more elegant way to do this, perhaps with a lambda expression or using a LINQ extension? I'm still getting acclimated to these two features. Thanks. EDIT Just to clarify, I realize that the choice between Options 1 and 2 is a choice of speed (Option 2) versus maintainability (Option 1). In this particular case, I'm not necessarily trying to optimize the code, although that is certainly a worthy consideration. What I'm trying to understand is if there is a generally well-established practice for doing this. If not, which option would you use in your own code?

    Read the article

  • Calling a method with an instance of derived class of derived generic type

    - by madsbirk
    Okay, so I have classes class B<T> : A<T> class L : K and a method void Method(A<K> a) {...} What I would like to do is this b = new B<L>(); Method(b); //error But it is not possible to b to the correct type. Indeed it is not possible to make this cast A<K> t = new A<L>(); //error I would really like to not have to change the internals of Method. I have no problems making changes to B and/or L. Do I have any options for making some sort of workaround? I guess it should be possible for Method to execute all of its method calls etc. on b, since B derives from A and L derives from K?

    Read the article

  • How to refactor these generic methods?

    - by Steve Crane
    I have written two nearly identical generic extension methods and am trying to figure out how I might refactor them into a single method. They differ only in that one operates on List and the other on List, and the properties I'm interested in are AssetID for AssetDocument and PersonID for PersonDocument. Although AssetDocument and PersonDocument have the same base class the properties are defined in each class so I don't think that helps. I have tried public static string ToCSVList<T>(this T list) where T : List<PersonDocument>, List<AssetDocument> thinking I might then be able to test the type and act accordingly but this results in the syntax error Type parameter 'T' inherits conflicting constraints These are the methods that I would like to refactor into a single method but perhaps I am simply going overboard and they would besat be left as they are. I'd like to hear what you think. public static string ToCSVList<T>(this T list) where T : List<AssetDocument> { var sb = new StringBuilder(list.Count * 36 + list.Count); string delimiter = String.Empty; foreach (var document in list) { sb.Append(delimiter + document.AssetID.ToString()); delimiter = ","; } return sb.ToString(); } public static string ToCSVList<T>(this T list) where T : List<PersonDocument> { var sb = new StringBuilder(list.Count * 36 + list.Count); string delimiter = String.Empty; foreach (var document in list) { sb.Append(delimiter + document.PersonID.ToString()); delimiter = ","; } return sb.ToString(); }

    Read the article

  • c# Generic List

    - by user177883
    I m populating data for different entities into set of lists using generic lists as follows : List<Foo> foos .. List<Bar> bars .. I need to write these lists to a file, i do have a util method to get the values of properties etc. using reflection. What i want to do is: using a single method to write these into files such as: void writeToFile(a generic list) { //Which i will write to file here. } How can i do this? I want to be able to call : writeToFile(bars); writeToFile(foos);

    Read the article

  • Why does a function that takes IEnumerable<interface> not accept IEnumerable<class>?

    - by Matt Whitfield
    Say, for instance, I have a class: public class MyFoo : IMyBar { ... } Then, I would want to use the following code: List<MyFoo> classList = new List<MyFoo>(); classList.Add(new MyFoo(1)); classList.Add(new MyFoo(2)); classList.Add(new MyFoo(3)); List<IMyBar> interfaceList = new List<IMyBar>(classList); But this produces the error: `Argument '1': cannot convert from 'IEnumerable<MyFoo>' to 'IEnumerable<IMyBar>' Why is this? Since MyFoo implements IMyBar, one would expect that an IEnumerable of MyFoo could be treated as an IEnumerable of IMyBar. A mundane real-world example being producing a list of cars, and then being told that it wasn't a list of vehicles. It's only a minor annoyance, but if anyone can shed some light on this, I would be much obliged.

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 407 408 409 410 411 412 413 414 415 416 417 418  | Next Page >