Search Results

Search found 53463 results on 2139 pages for 'net generics'.

Page 412/2139 | < Previous Page | 408 409 410 411 412 413 414 415 416 417 418 419  | Next Page >

  • Studying for the 70-564 exam

    - by Pete
    Besides the searching MSDN with the course outline, there is little out there to help prepare for the 70-564 exam . Some say that using the 70-547 Training Kit book helps, but does anyone know (as a rough percentage) how much of the 70-547 book covers the 70-564 exam?

    Read the article

  • When is a parameterized method call useful?

    - by johann-christoph-jacob
    A Java method call may be parameterized like in the following code: class Test { <T> void test() { } public static void main(String[] args) { new Test().<Object>test(); // ^^^^^^^^ } } I found out this is possible from the Eclipse Java Formatter settings dialog and wondered if there are any cases where this is useful or required.

    Read the article

  • Is it possible to auto update only selected properties on an existent entity object without touching the others

    - by LaserBeak
    Say I have a bunch of boolean properties on my entity class public bool isActive etc. Values which will be manipulated by setting check boxes in a web application. I will ONLY be posting back the one changed name/value pair and the primary key at a time, say { isActive : true , NewsPageID: 34 } and the default model binder will create a NewsPage object with only those two properties set. Now if I run the below code it will not only update the values for the properties that have been set on the NewsPage object created by the model binder but of course also attempt to null all the other non set values for the existent entity object because they are not set on NewsPage object created by the model binder. Is it possible to somehow tell entity framework not to look at the properties that are set to null and attempt to persist those changes back to the retrieved entity object and hence database ? Perhaps there's some code I can write that will only utilize the non-null values and their property names on the NewsPage object created by model binder and only attempt to update those particular properties ? [HttpPost] public PartialViewResult SaveNews(NewsPage Np) { Np.ModifyDate = DateTime.Now; _db.NewsPages.Attach(Np); _db.ObjectStateManager.ChangeObjectState(Np, System.Data.EntityState.Modified); _db.SaveChanges(); _db.Dispose(); return PartialView("MonthNewsData"); } I can of course do something like below, but I have a feeling it's not the optimal solution. Especially considering that I have like 6 boolean properties that I need to set. [HttpPost] public PartialViewResult SaveNews(int NewsPageID, bool isActive, bool isOnFrontPage) { if (isActive != null) { //Get entity and update this property } if (isOnFontPage != null) { //Get entity and update this property } }

    Read the article

  • Method not found: 'Void Google.Apis.Util.Store.FileDataStore..ctor(System.String)'

    - by user3732193
    I've been stuck at this for days now. I copied the exact codes from google api samples to upload files to Google Drive. Here is the code UserCredential credential = GoogleWebAuthorizationBroker.AuthorizeAsync( new ClientSecrets { ClientId = ClientId, ClientSecret = ClientSecret, }, new[] { DriveService.Scope.Drive, DriveService.Scope.DriveFile }, "user", CancellationToken.None, new FileDataStore("MyStore")).Result; But it would throw an exception at runtime: Method not found: 'Void Google.Apis.Util.Store.FileDataStore..ctor(System.String)'. I already added the necessary Google Api dlls. Or if anyone could suggest a better code for uploading files to Google Drive in a website which implements Server-Side Authorization. Any help would be greatly appreciated. UPDATE: I changed my code to this var token = new TokenResponse { RefreshToken = "1/6hnki1x0xOMU4tr5YXNsLgutzbTcRK1M-QOTEuRVxL4" }; var credentials = new UserCredential(new GoogleAuthorizationCodeFlow(new GoogleAuthorizationCodeFlow.Initializer { ClientSecrets = new ClientSecrets { ClientId = ClientId, ClientSecret = ClientSecret }, Scopes = new[] { DriveService.Scope.Drive, DriveService.Scope.DriveFile } }), "user", token); But it also throws an exception: Method not found: 'Void Google.Apis.Auth.OAuth2.Flows.GoogleAuthorizationCodeFlow..ctor(Initializer). Is the problem with the dlls?

    Read the article

  • Login failed for user ''. The user is not associated with a trusted SQL Server connection

    - by Tony_Henrich
    My web service app on my Windows XP box is trying to log in to my sql server 2005 database on the same box. The machine is part of a domain. I am logged in in the domain and I am an admin on my machine. I am using Windows Authentication in my connection string as in "Server=myServerAddress;Database=myDataBase;Trusted_Connection=True". SQLServer is configured for both types of authentication (mixed mode) and accepts remote connections and accepts tcp and named pipes protocols. Integrated authentication is enabled in IIS and with and without anonymous access. 'Everyone' has access to computer from network setting in local security settings. ASPNET is a user in the sql server and has access to the daatabase. user is mapped to the login. The app works fine for other developers which means the app shouldn't be changed (It's not new code). So it seems it's my machine which has an issue. I am getting the error "Login failed for user ''. The user is not associated with a trusted SQL Server connection" Note the blank user name. Why am I getting this error when both the app and database are on my machine? I can use SQL Server authentication but don't want to. I can connect to the database using SSMS and my Windows credentials. It might be related to setspn, kerberos, delegation, AD. I am not sure what further checks to make?

    Read the article

  • asp:QueryStringParameter and empty query string parameter

    - by abatishchev
    I haveasp:GridView displaying client requests using asp:SqlDataSource. I want to limit displayed information by client: View.aspx has to display everything, View.aspx?client=1 has to display only requests from client ID #1. So I'm using <asp:QueryStringParameter Name="client" QueryStringField="client" /> for query "EXEC getRequests @client". Everything works properly when some client is specified. But don't - if not. I tested my SP using SSMS - it works properly in both cases - when parameter is specified and when it isn't (NULL passed explicitly). What have I do?

    Read the article

  • Is it possible to refactor this C# if(..) statement?

    - by Pure.Krome
    Hi folks, simple question :- i have the following simple if (..) statements :- if (foo == Animal.Cat || foo == Animal.Dog) { .. } if (baa == 1|| baa == 69) { .. } is it possible to refactor these into something like ... DISCLAIMER: I know this doesn't compile .. but this is sorta what i'm trying to get... if (foo == (Animal.Cat || Animal.Dog)) { .. } if (baa == (1 || 69)) { .. } Cheers :) EDIT I wonder if a lambda expression extension could do this? :P

    Read the article

  • Creating a Non-Databound Report in Winforms

    - by Jon
    I am using Visual Studio 2008 and all the components that come with it as well as Infragisitics for Winforms. I need to design a label that will print to a label printer. None of the controls are databound and will most likely be set in code eg/Label.Text = "My Heading"; as there will be minimal information on the label. One piece of information is a barcode so I need the functionality to do that, I assume I can just set the font of the label to barcode and it will do its thing. Can I just add a Crystal Report to a form design it, set the label text properties in code, tell it what printer to print to and then call report.Print(); I've had a quick go and seems not as easy as I thought. Thanks

    Read the article

  • Validate Div tag seperately...

    - by Joby Kurian
    i have 3 div tags.Each having no. of textboxs and button.Each textbox having validation.For all button causesvalidation property is true.If i click "button1" in "div1" tag will cause validation of other textbox in other div tags.I dont want to do this ? How to avoid this?

    Read the article

  • WCF: get generic type object (e.g. MyObject<T>) from remote machine

    - by Aaron
    I have two applications that are communicating through WCF. On the server the following object exists: public class MyObject<T> { ... public Entry<T> GetValue() } Where Entry<T> is another object with T Data as a public property. T could be any number of types (string, double, etc) On the client I have ClientObject<T> that needs to get the value of Data from the server (same type). Since I'm using WCF, I have to define my ServiceContract as an interface, and I can't have ClientObject<T> call Entry<T> GetMyObjectValue (string Name) which calls GetValue on the correct MyObject<T> because my interface isn't aware of the type information. I've tried implementing separate GetValue functions (GetMyObjectValueDouble, GetMyObjectValueString) in the interface and then have ClientObject determine the correct one to call. However, Entry<T> val = (Entry<T>)GetMyObjectValueDouble(...); doesn't work because it's not sure about the type information. How can I go about getting a generic object over WCF with the correct type information? Let me know if there are other details I can provide. Thanks!

    Read the article

  • c# template member functions

    - by user3730583
    How can I define a template member function in C# For instance I will fill any collection which supports an Add(...) member function, please check out the sample code below public class CInternalCollection { public static void ExternalCollectionTryOne<T<int>>(ref T<int> ext_col, int para_selection = 0) { foreach (int int_value in m_int_col) { if (int_value > para_selection) ext_col.Add(int_value); } } public static void ExternalCollectionTryTwo<T>(ref T ext_col, int para_selection = 0) { foreach (int int_value in m_int_col) { if (int_value > para_selection) ext_col.Add(int_value); } } static int[] m_int_col = { 0, -1, -3, 5, 7, -8 }; } The ExternalCollectionTryOne<...(...) would be the preferred kind, because the int type can be explicit defined, but results in an error: Type parameter declaration must be an identifier not a type The type or namespace name 'T' could not be found (are you missing a using directive or an assembly reference?) The ExternalCollectionTryTwo<...(...) results in an error: 'T' does not contain a definition for 'Add' and no extension method 'Add' accepting a first argument of type 'T' could be found (are you missing a using directive or an assembly reference?)... I hope the problem is clear – any suggestions? ----------------------------- edit -------------------------- The answers with the interface ICollection<.. without a template member works fine and thanks all for this hint, but I still cannot define successfully a member template(generic) function So a more simpler example ... how can I define this public class CAddCollectionValues { public static void AddInt<T>(ref T number, int selection) { T new_T = new T(); //this line is just an easy demonstration to get a compile error with type T foreach (int i_value in m_int_col) { if (i_value > selection) number += i_value; //again the type T cannot be used } } static int[] m_int_col = { 0, -1, -3, 5, 7, -8 }; }

    Read the article

  • C# - Why can't I enforce derived classes to have parameterless constructors?

    - by FrisbeeBen
    I am trying to do the following: public class foo<T> where T : bar, new { _t = new T(); private T _t; } public abstract class bar { public abstract void someMethod(); // Some implementation } public class baz : bar { public overide someMethod(){//Implementation} } And I am attempting to use it as follows: foo<baz> fooObject = new foo<baz>(); And I get an error explaining that 'T' must be a non-abstract type with a public parameterless constructor in order to use it as parameter 'T' in the generic type or method. I fully understand why this must be, and also understand that I could pass a pre-initialized object of type 'T' in as a constructor argument to avoid having to 'new' it, but is there any way around this? any way to enforce classes that derive from 'bar' to supply parameterless constructors?

    Read the article

  • Enum.TryParse with Flags attribute

    - by Sunny
    I have written code to TryParse enum either by value or by its name as shown below. How can I extend this code to include parsing enums with Flags attribute? public static bool TryParse<T>(this T enum_type, object value, out T result) where T : struct { return enum_type.TryParse<T>(value, true, out result); } public static bool TryParse<T>(this T enum_type, object value, bool ignoreCase, out T result) where T : struct { result = default(T); var is_converted = false; var is_valid_value_for_conversion = new Func<T, object, bool, bool>[]{ (e, v, i) => e.GetType().IsEnum, (e, v, i) => value != null, (e, v, i) => Enum.GetNames(e.GetType()).Any(n => String.Compare(n, v.ToString(), i) == 0) || Enum.IsDefined(e.GetType(), v) }; if(is_valid_value_for_conversion.All(rule => rule(enum_type, value, ignoreCase))){ result = (T)Enum.Parse(typeof(T), value.ToString(), ignoreCase); is_converted = true; } return is_converted; } Currently this code works for the following enums: enum SomeEnum{ A, B, C } // can parse either by 'A' or 'a' enum SomeEnum1 : int { A = 1, B = 2, C = 3 } // can parse either by 'A' or 'a' or 1 or "1" Does not work for: [Flags] enum SomeEnum2 { A = 1, B = 2, C = 4 } // can parse either by 'A' or 'a' // cannot parse for A|B Thanks!

    Read the article

  • ASP.NET MVC2 - usage of LINQ-generated class (validation problem)

    - by ile
    There are few things not clear to me about ASP.NET MV2. In database I have table Contacts with several fields, and there is an additional field XmlFields of which type is xml. In that field are stored additional description fields. There are 4 classes: Contact class which corresponds to Contact table and is defined by default when creating LINQ classes ContactListView class which inherits Contact class and has some additional properties ContactXmlView class that contains fields from XmlFields field ContactDetailsView class which merges ContactListView and ContactXmlView into one class and this one is used to display data in view pages ContactListView class has re-defined some properties from Contact class (so that I can add [Required] filter used for validation) - but I get warning message: 'ObjectTest.Models.Contacts.ContactListView.FirstName' hides inherited member 'SA.Model.Contact.FirstName'. Use the new keyword if hiding was intended. ContactDetailsView class is also used in a form when creating new contact and adding it to database. I am not sure if this is correct way, and the warning message confuses me a bit. Any advise about this? Thanks, Ile EDIT According to Jakob's instructions I tried it from scratch: [MetadataType(typeof(Person_Validation))] public partial class Person { } public class Person_Validation { [Required] string FirstName { get; set; } [Required] string LastName { get; set; } [Required] int Age { get; set; } } In Controller I have this: [HttpPost] public ActionResult Create(Person person, FormCollection collection) { if (ModelState.IsValid) { try { personRepository.Add(person); personRepository.Save(); } catch { return View(person); } } return RedirectToAction("Index"); } View: <%@ Page Title="" Language="C#" MasterPageFile="~/Views/Shared/Site.Master" Inherits="System.Web.Mvc.ViewPage<Validate.Models.Person>" %> <asp:Content ID="Content1" ContentPlaceHolderID="TitleContent" runat="server"> Create </asp:Content> <asp:Content ID="Content2" ContentPlaceHolderID="MainContent" runat="server"> <h2>Create</h2> <% using (Html.BeginForm()) {%> <%= Html.ValidationSummary(true) %> <fieldset> <legend>Fields</legend> <div class="editor-label"> <%= Html.LabelFor(model => model.FirstName) %> </div> <div class="editor-field"> <%= Html.TextBoxFor(model => model.FirstName) %> <%= Html.ValidationMessageFor(model => model.FirstName) %> </div> <div class="editor-label"> <%= Html.LabelFor(model => model.LastName) %> </div> <div class="editor-field"> <%= Html.TextBoxFor(model => model.LastName) %> <%= Html.ValidationMessageFor(model => model.LastName) %> </div> <div class="editor-label"> <%= Html.LabelFor(model => model.Age) %> </div> <div class="editor-field"> <%= Html.TextBoxFor(model => model.Age) %> <%= Html.ValidationMessageFor(model => model.Age) %> </div> <p> <input type="submit" value="Create" /> </p> </fieldset> <% } %> <div> <%= Html.ActionLink("Back to List", "Index") %> </div> </asp:Content> When posting new person with no values, nothing happens (page is just reloaded). When posting with some values, person is added to db. I have no idea what am I doing wrong.

    Read the article

  • What's my best approach on this simple hierarchy Java Problem?

    - by Nazgulled
    First, I'm sorry for the question title but I can't think of a better one to describe my problem. Feel free to change it :) Let's say I have this abstract class Box which implements a couple of constructors, methods and whatever on some private variables. Then I have a couple of sub classes like BoxA and BoxB. Both of these implement extra things. Now I have another abstract class Shape and a few sub classes like Square and Circle. For both BoxA and BoxB I need to have a list of Shape objects but I need to make sure that only Square objects go into BoxA's list and only Circle objects go into BoxB's list. For that list (on each box), I need to have a get() and set() method and also a addShape() and removeShape() methods. Another important thing to know is that for each box created, either BoxA or BoxB, each respectively Shape list is exactly the same. Let's say I create a list of Square's named ls and two BoxA objects named boxA1 and boxA2. No matter what, both boxA1 and boxA2 must have the same ls list. This is my idea: public abstract class Box { // private instance variables public Box() { // constructor stuff } // public instance methods } public class BoxA extends Box { // private instance variables private static List<Shape> list; public BoxA() { // constructor stuff } // public instance methods public static List<Square> getList() { List<Square> aux = new ArrayList<Square>(); for(Square s : list.values()) { aux.add(s.clone()); // I know what I'm doing with this clone, don't worry about it } return aux; } public static void setList(List<Square> newList) { list = new ArrayList<Square>(newList); } public static void addShape(Square s) { list.add(s); } public static void removeShape(Square s) { list.remove(list.indexOf(s)); } } As the list needs to be the same for that type of object, I declared as static and all methods that work with that list are also static. Now, for BoxB the class would be almost the same regarding the list stuff. I would only replace Square by Triangle and the problem was solved. So, for each BoxA object created, the list would be only one and the same for each BoxB object created, but a different type of list of course. So, what's my problem you ask? Well, I don't like the code... The getList(), setList(), addShape() and removeShape() methods are basically repeated for BoxA and BoxB, only the type of the objects that the list will hold is different. I can't think of way to do it in the super class Box instead. Doing it statically too, using Shape instead of Square and Triangle, wouldn't work because the list would be only one and I need it to be only one but for each sub class of Box. How could I do this differently and better? P.S: I could not describe my real example because I don't know the correct words in English for the stuff I'm doing, so I just used a box and shapes example, but it's basically the same.

    Read the article

  • server controls complex properties with sub collections.

    - by Richard Friend
    Okay i have a custom server control that has some autocomplete settings, i have this as follows and it works fine. /// <summary> /// Auto complete settings /// </summary> [System.ComponentModel.DesignerSerializationVisibility (System.ComponentModel.DesignerSerializationVisibility.Content), PersistenceMode(PersistenceMode.InnerProperty), Category("Data"), Description("Auto complete settings"), NotifyParentProperty(true)] public AutoCompleteLookupSettings AutoComplete { private set; get; } I also have a ParameterCollection that is really related to the auto complete settings, currently this collection resides off the control itself like so : /// <summary> /// Parameters for any data lookups /// </summary> [System.ComponentModel.DesignerSerializationVisibility(System.ComponentModel.DesignerSerializationVisibility.Content), PersistenceMode(PersistenceMode.InnerProperty)] public ParameterCollection Parameters { get; set; } What i would like to do is move the parameter collection inside of the AutoCompleteSettings as it really relates to my autocomplete, i have tried this but to no avail.. I would like to move from <cc1:TextField ID="TextField1" runat='server'> <AutoComplete MethodName="GetTest" TextField="Item1" TypeName ="AppFrameWork.Utils" /> <Parameters> <asp:ControlParameter ControlID="txtTest" PropertyName="Text" Name="test" /> </Parameters> </cc1:TextField> To <cc1:TextField ID="TextField1" runat='server'> <AutoComplete MethodName="GetTest" TextField="Item1" TypeName ="AppFrameWork.Utils" > <Parameters> <asp:ControlParameter ControlID="txtTest" PropertyName="Text" Name="test" /> </Parameters> </AutoComplete> </cc1:TextField>

    Read the article

  • URL losing port number in every page load

    - by MarceloRamires
    I'm currently taking care of a certain local website. The default port has been changed, and can no longer be not included in the URL due to technical reasons, so now i'm using a certain port in the end of the IP at the URL, for example 100.100.100.100/website.asp no longer works 100.100.100.100:10/website.asp with the port, works. Works, though I can't click in any link or anything and the port vanishes (new page doesn't load). Then I keep the same URL and just include the port at the end of the IP and it works again, until I click in another link inside of it. I have access to changing each link, but I guess that would not be the right approach. How should I procceed ?

    Read the article

  • Interface with generic parameters- can't get it to compile

    - by user997112
    I have an interface like so: public interface MyInterface<E extends Something1> { public void meth1(MyClass1<E> x); } and I have a subclass whose superclass implements the above interface: public class MyClass2<E extends Something1> extends Superclass{ public MyClass2(){ } public void meth1(MyClass1 x) { // TODO Auto-generated method stub } } superclass: public abstract class Superclass<E extends Something1> implements MyInterface{ MyClass1<E> x; protected E y; public Superclass(){ } } the problem is that the parameter for meth1() is supposed to be generic. If I do MyClass1 it doesn't like it and the only way I can get it to compile is by leaving out generic parameters- which feels wrong. What's going wrong?

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 408 409 410 411 412 413 414 415 416 417 418 419  | Next Page >