Search Results

Search found 8330 results on 334 pages for 'template inheritance'.

Page 79/334 | < Previous Page | 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86  | Next Page >

  • How to Correct & Improve the Design of this Code?

    - by DaveDev
    HI Guys, I've been working on a little experiement to see if I could create a helper method to serialize any of my types to any type of HTML tag I specify. I'm getting a NullReferenceException when _writer = _viewContext.Writer; is called in protected virtual void Dispose(bool disposing) {/*...*/} I think I'm at a point where it almost works (I've gotten other implementations to work) and I was wondering if somebody could point out what I'm doing wrong? Also, I'd be interested in hearing suggestions on how I could improve the design? So basically, I have this code that will generate a Select box with a number of options: // the idea is I can use one method to create any complete tag of any type // and put whatever I want in the content area <% using (Html.GenerateTag<SelectTag>(Model, new { href = Url.Action("ActionName") })) { %> <%foreach (var fund in Model.Funds) {%> <% using (Html.GenerateTag<OptionTag>(fund)) { %> <%= fund.Name %> <% } %> <% } %> <% } %> This Html.GenerateTag helper is defined as: public static MMTag GenerateTag<T>(this HtmlHelper htmlHelper, object elementData, object attributes) where T : MMTag { return (T)Activator.CreateInstance(typeof(T), htmlHelper.ViewContext, elementData, attributes); } Depending on the type of T it'll create one of the types defined below, public class HtmlTypeBase : MMTag { public HtmlTypeBase() { } public HtmlTypeBase(ViewContext viewContext, params object[] elementData) { base._viewContext = viewContext; base.MergeDataToTag(viewContext, elementData); } } public class SelectTag : HtmlTypeBase { public SelectTag(ViewContext viewContext, params object[] elementData) { base._tag = new TagBuilder("select"); //base.MergeDataToTag(viewContext, elementData); } } public class OptionTag : HtmlTypeBase { public OptionTag(ViewContext viewContext, params object[] elementData) { base._tag = new TagBuilder("option"); //base.MergeDataToTag(viewContext, _elementData); } } public class AnchorTag : HtmlTypeBase { public AnchorTag(ViewContext viewContext, params object[] elementData) { base._tag = new TagBuilder("a"); //base.MergeDataToTag(viewContext, elementData); } } all of these types (anchor, select, option) inherit from HtmlTypeBase, which is intended to perform base.MergeDataToTag(viewContext, elementData);. This doesn't happen though. It works if I uncomment the MergeDataToTag methods in the derived classes, but I don't want to repeat that same code for every derived class I create. This is the definition for MMTag: public class MMTag : IDisposable { internal bool _disposed; internal ViewContext _viewContext; internal TextWriter _writer; internal TagBuilder _tag; internal object[] _elementData; public MMTag() {} public MMTag(ViewContext viewContext, params object[] elementData) { } public void Dispose() { Dispose(true /* disposing */); GC.SuppressFinalize(this); } protected virtual void Dispose(bool disposing) { if (!_disposed) { _disposed = true; _writer = _viewContext.Writer; _writer.Write(_tag.ToString(TagRenderMode.EndTag)); } } protected void MergeDataToTag(ViewContext viewContext, object[] elementData) { Type elementDataType = elementData[0].GetType(); foreach (PropertyInfo prop in elementDataType.GetProperties()) { if (prop.PropertyType.IsPrimitive || prop.PropertyType == typeof(Decimal) || prop.PropertyType == typeof(String)) { object propValue = prop.GetValue(elementData[0], null); string stringValue = propValue != null ? propValue.ToString() : String.Empty; _tag.Attributes.Add(prop.Name, stringValue); } } var dic = new Dictionary<string, object>(StringComparer.OrdinalIgnoreCase); var attributes = elementData[1]; if (attributes != null) { foreach (PropertyDescriptor descriptor in TypeDescriptor.GetProperties(attributes)) { object value = descriptor.GetValue(attributes); dic.Add(descriptor.Name, value); } } _tag.MergeAttributes<string, object>(dic); _viewContext = viewContext; _viewContext.Writer.Write(_tag.ToString(TagRenderMode.StartTag)); } } Thanks Dave

    Read the article

  • C++ Dynamic object construction

    - by Rajesh Subramanian
    I have a base class, class Msg { ParseMsg() { ParseMsgData(); ParseTrailer(); } virtual void ParseMsgData() = 0; ParseTrailer(); }; and derived classes, class InitiateMsg { void ParseMsgData() { ... } }; class ReadOperationMsg { void ParseMsgData() { ... } }; class WriteOperationMsg { void ParseMsgData() { ... } }; and the scenario is below, void UsageFunction(string data) { Msg* msg = ParseHeader(data); ParseMsg } Msg* ParseHeader(string data) { Msg *msg = NULL; .... switch() { case 1: msg = new InitiateMsg(); break; case 2: msg = new ReadOperationMsg{(); break; case 3: msg = new WriteOperationMsg{(); break; .... } return msg; } based on the data ParseHeader method will decide which object has to be created, So I have implemented ParseHeader function outside the class where I am using. How can I make the ParseHeader function inside the Msg class and then use it? In C# the same is achieved by defining ParseHeader method as static with in class and use it from outside,

    Read the article

  • Does string inherits from Object in Javascript?

    - by Morgan Cheng
    Is Object the base class of all objects in Javascript, just like other language such as Java & C#? I tried below code in Firefox with Firebug installed. var t = new Object(); var s1 = new String('str'); var s2 = 'str'; console.log(typeof t); console.log(typeof s1); console.log(typeof s2); The console output is object object string So, s1 and s2 are of diffeent type?

    Read the article

  • How to have variables with dynamic data types in Java?

    - by Nazgulled
    Hi, I need to have a UserProfile class that it's just that, a user profile. This user profile has some vital user data of course, but it also needs to have lists of messages sent from the user friends. I need to save these messages in LinkedList, ArrayList, HashMap and TreeMap. But only one at a time and not duplicate the message for each data structure. Basically, something like a dynamic variable type where I could pick the data type for the messages. Is this, somehow, possible in Java? Or my best approach is something like this? I mean, have 2 different classes (for the user profile), one where I host the messages as Map<K,V> (and then I use HashMap and TreeMap where appropriately) and another class where I host them as List<E> (and then I use LinkedList and ArrayList where appropriately). And probably use a super class for the UserProfile so I don't have to duplicate variables and methods for fields like data, age, address, etc... Any thoughts?

    Read the article

  • javascript function object's inheritFrom method

    - by gawpertron
    I've come across this.inheritFrom that enables you to inherit from a super class. var superClass = function() { this.foo = 'foo'; this.bar = 'bar'; } var subClass = function() { this.inheritFrom = superClass; this.inheritFrom(); this.myFunction = function() { return this.foo; }; } I've looked in Mozilla and MSDN, but I can't seem to find it documented any where. As far as I can see it works in IE6 and Firefox 3. Any reason why it wouldn't be documented?

    Read the article

  • Why can a public class not inherit from a less visible one?

    - by Dan Tao
    I apologize if this question has been asked before. I've searched SO somewhat and wasn't able to find it. I'm just curious what the rationale behind this design was/is. Obviously I understand that private/internal members of a base type cannot, nor should they, be exposed through a derived public type. But it seems to my naive thinking that the "hidden" parts could easily remain hidden while some base functionality is still shared and a new interface is exposed publicly. I'm thinking of something along these lines: Assembly X internal class InternalClass { protected virtual void DoSomethingProtected() { // Let's say this method provides some useful functionality. // Its visibility is quite limited (only to derived types in // the same assembly), but at least it's there. } } public class PublicClass : InternalClass { public void DoSomethingPublic() { // Now let's say this method is useful enough that this type // should be public. What's keeping us from leveraging the // base functionality laid out in InternalClass's implementation, // without exposing anything that shouldn't be exposed? } } Assembly Y public class OtherPublicClass : PublicClass { // It seems (again, to my naive mind) that this could work. This class // simply wouldn't be able to "see" any of the methods of InternalClass // from AssemblyX directly. But it could still access the public and // protected members of PublicClass that weren't inherited from // InternalClass. Does this make sense? What am I missing? }

    Read the article

  • Get derived class type from a base's class static method

    - by Marco Bettiolo
    Hi, i would like to get the type of the derived class from a static method of its base class. How can this be accomplished? Thanks! class BaseClass { static void Ping () { Type t = this.GetType(); // should be DerivedClass, but it is not possible with a static method } } class DerivedClass : BaseClass {} // somewhere in the code DerivedClass.Ping();

    Read the article

  • PHP inheriting/extending a particular instance of an Object

    - by delta9
    Is there any way to force PHP to extend an existing/particular (and for that matter, already instantiated) instance of an object? This imaginary code should explain what I am wondering: class Base { public $var; function __construct($var){ $this->var = $name; } } class Extender extends Base { function __construct($parent) { parent = $parent; } } $base = new Base('yay!'); $extender = new Extender($base); echo 'Extended base var value: '.$extender->var.'<br/>'; Output (would be): Extended base var value: yay! To be clear, I am wanting to instantiate an object that extends a PARTICULAR INSTANCE of another object, one that has already been instantiated. I am aware that I can pass a reference to an object to another object (via it's constructor function) and then add it as a property of the receiving object, I'm wondering if there is a real way to do this?

    Read the article

  • Why can't I create an abstract constructor on an abstract C# class?

    - by Anthony D
    I am creating an abstract class. I want each of my derived classes to be forced to implement a specific signature of constructor. As such, I did what I would have done has I wanted to force them to implement a method, I made an abstract one. public abstract class A { abstract A(int a, int b); } However I get a message saying the abstract modifier is invalid on this item. My goal was to force some code like this. public class B : A { public B(int a, int b) : base(a, b) { //Some other awesome code. } } This is all C# .NET code. Can anyone help me out? Update 1 I wanted to add some things. What I ended up with was this. private A() { } protected A(int a, int b) { //Code } That does what some folks are saying, default is private, and the class needs to implement a constructor. However that doesn't FORCE a constructor with the signature A(int a, int b). public abstract class A { protected abstract A(int a, int b) { } } Update 2 I should be clear, to work around this I made my default constructor private, and my other constructor protected. I am not really looking for a way to make my code work. I took care of that. I am looking to understand why C# does not let you do this.

    Read the article

  • are Hierarchical SIngletons in Java possible?

    - by Zach H
    I've been toying with an interesting idea (No idea if I'll include it in any code, but it's fun to think about) Let's say we have a program that requires a large number of classes, all of a certain subclass. And those classes all need to be singletons. Now, we could write the singleton pattern for each of those classes, but it seems wasteful to write the same code over and over, and we already have a common base class. It would be really nice to create a getSingleton method of A that when called from a subclass, returns a singleton of the B class (cast to class A for simplicity) class A{ public A getSingleton(){ //Wizardry } } class B extends A{ } A blargh = B.getSingleton() A gish = B.getSingleton() if(A == B) System.out.println("It works!") It seems to me that the way to do this would be to recognize and call B's default constructor (assuming we don't need to pass anything in.) I know a little of the black magic of reflection in Java, but i'm not sure if this can be done. Anyone interested in puzzling over this?

    Read the article

  • C# casting question: from IEnumerable to custom type

    - by Sarah Vessels
    I have a custom class called Rows that implements IEnumerable<Row>. I often use LINQ queries on Rows instances: Rows rows = new Rows { row1, row2, row3 }; IEnumerable<Row> particularRows = rows.Where<Row>(row => condition); What I would like is to be able to do the following: Rows rows = new Rows { row1, row2, row3 }; Rows particularRows = (Rows)rows.Where<Row>(row => condition); However, I get a "System.InvalidCastException: Unable to cast object of type 'WhereEnumerableIterator1[NS.Row]' to type 'NS.Rows'". I do have a Rows constructor taking IEnumerable<Row>, so I could do: Rows rows = new Rows { row1, row2, row3 }; Rows particularRows = new Rows(rows.Where<Row>(row => condition)); This seems bulky, however, and I would love to be able to cast an IEnumerable<Row> to be a Rows since Rows implements IEnumerable<Row>. Any ideas?

    Read the article

  • Class lookup structure array in C++

    - by wyatt
    I'm trying to create a structure array which links input strings to classes as follows: struct {string command; CommandPath cPath;} cPathLookup[] = { {"set an alarm", AlarmCommandPath}, {"send an email", EmailCommandPath}, {"", NULL} }; which will be used as follows: CommandPath *cPath = NULL; string input; getline(cin, input); for(int i = 0; cPathLookup[i] != ""; i++) { if(cPathLookup[i].command == input) cPath = new cPathLookup[i].cPath; } Obviously, this code is meaningless, but I think my intention is apparent - depending on input, I'd like cPath to be initialized as either a new AlarmCommandPath or a new EmailCommandPath. I could handle it with a function returning an instance depending on input, but a whole sequence of ifs just seems inelegant. I should also note that, in case it's not apparent and important, that AlarmCommandPath and EmailCommandPath are derived from CommandPath, and CommandPath is an abstract class. Thanks for any help you can offer. EDIT: I just noticed that, in spite of CommandPath being abstract, I have a declaration: CommandPath *cPath = NULL; in working code. Why does that compile?

    Read the article

  • Container<ImplementerOfIInterface> is not Container<IInterface>. Why not?

    - by Chris Simmons
    Why wouldn't DoesntWork() work below? The error is: Cannot implicitly convert type 'List' to 'IEnumerable'. An explicit conversion exists (are you missing a cast?). I know this is something about generic/templates I'm not getting, but List is IEnumerable and Implementer is an IInterface. I don't see why this needs to be casted (or if it really can be). public interface IInterface { // ... } public class Implementer : IInterface { // ... } IEnumerable<IInterface> DoesntWork() { List<Implementer> result = new List<Implementer>(); return result; }

    Read the article

  • Ways to make (relatively) safe assumptions about the type of concrete subclasses?

    - by Kylotan
    I have an interface (defined as a abstract base class) that looks like this: class AbstractInterface { public: bool IsRelatedTo(const AbstractInterface& other) const = 0; } And I have an implementation of this (constructors etc omitted): class ConcreteThing { public: bool IsRelatedTo(const AbstractInterface& other) const { return m_ImplObject.has_relationship_to(other.m_ImplObject); } private: ImplementationObject m_ImplObject; } The AbstractInterface forms an interface in Project A, and the ConcreteThing lives in Project B as an implementation of that interface. This is so that code in Project A can access data from Project B without having a direct dependency on it - Project B just has to implement the correct interface. Obviously the line in the body of the IsRelatedTo function cannot compile - that instance of ConcreteThing has an m_ImplObject member, but it can't assume that all AbstractInterfaces do, including the other argument. In my system, I can actually assume that all implementations of AbstractInterface are instances of ConcreteThing (or subclasses thereof), but I'd prefer not to be casting the object to the concrete type in order to get at the private member, or encoding that assumption in a way that will crash without a diagnostic later if this assumption ceases to hold true. I cannot modify ImplementationObject, but I can modify AbstractInterface and ConcreteThing. I also cannot use the standard RTTI mechanism for checking a type prior to casting, or use dynamic_cast for a similar purpose. I have a feeling that I might be able to overload IsRelatedTo with a ConcreteThing argument, but I'm not sure how to call it via the base IsRelatedTo(AbstractInterface) method. It wouldn't get called automatically as it's not a strict reimplementation of that method. Is there a pattern for doing what I want here, allowing me to implement the IsRelatedTo function via ImplementationObject::has_relationship_to(ImplementationObject), without risky casts? (Also, I couldn't think of a good question title - please change it if you have a better one.)

    Read the article

  • Determine an object's class returned by a factory method (Error: function does not take 1 arguments

    - by tzippy
    I have a factorymethod that either returns an object of baseclass or one that is of derivedclass (a derived class of baseclass). The derived class has a method virtual void foo(int x) that takes one argument. baseclass however has virtual void foo() without an argument. In my code, a factory method returns a pointer of type bar that definetly points to an object of class derivedclass. However since this is only known at runtime I get a compiler error saying that foo() does not take an argument. Can I cast this pointer to a pointer of type derivedclass? std::auto_ptr<baseclass> bar = classfactory::CreateBar(); //returns object of class derivedclass bar->foo(5); class baseclass { public: virtual void foo(); } class derivedclass : public baseclass { public: virtual void foo(int x); }

    Read the article

  • Unable to bind in asp.net grid Template Column

    - by OneSmartGuy
    I am having trouble accessing the data field. I receive the error: Databinding methods such as Eval(), XPath(), and Bind() can only be used in the context of a databound control. I can get the value but using <%# getOpenJobs((string)Eval("ParentPart")) % but I need to use it in the if to display a certian picture if it passes the condition. Is there a better way to do this or am i just missing something simple? <telerik:GridTemplateColumn UniqueName="hasOpenJobs" HeaderText=""> <ItemTemplate> <% if (getOpenJobs((string)Eval("ParentPart")) > 1) { %> <img src="../images/job-icon.gif" alt="Open Jobs" /> <%} %> </ItemTemplate> </telerik:GridTemplateColumn>

    Read the article

  • 3 column html template - content overflows though there is clear both and height is 100%

    - by MeltingDog
    I have 3 divs within a wrapper: <div id="wrapper"> <div id="leftbar"> Lorem ipsum dolar sit amet </div><!--LEFTBAR--> <div id="middle"> Lorem ipsum dolar sit amet </div><!--middle--> <div id="rightbar"> Lorem ipsum dolar sit amet </div><!--RIGHTBAR--> </div><!--wrapper--> Both 'leftbar' and 'middle' are floating left, whilst 'rightbar' is floating right. 'wrapper' has height:100%; clear:both; set. However, if there is a large amount of text or content in 'middle' it overflows the 'wrapper' div. I am struggling to figure out why this is occurring. My CSS is: #wrapper { width: 1000px; height: 100%; margin:auto; padding: 30px; margin-top: 40px; background-color:#FFF; color:#000; border: 2px solid #828fc4; clear:both; } #leftbar { float:left; width: 150px; min-height: 450px; padding: 5px; } #middle { float:left; height: 100%; width: 580px; padding-left: 20px; padding-right: 20px; border-right: 1px dotted #2B308C; border-left: 1px dotted #2B308C; } #rightbar { float:right; width: 200px; min-height: 450px; padding: 5px; } Any advice is appreciated! EDIT: here is the issue on a test server: http://host.pixelframe.net.au/~pptestco/index.php?id=20

    Read the article

  • How to override "inherited" z-indexes?

    - by Earlz
    I am needing to override the notion of inherited z-indexes. For instance in this code <style> div{ background-color:white; top: 0px; bottom: 0px; left: 0px; right: 0px; } </style> <div style="position: fixed; z-index: 2;"> div 1 <div style="position: fixed; z-index: 3;"> div 2 </div> </div> <div style="position: fixed; z-index: 2;"> div 3 </div> http://jsbin.com/epoqo3/3 I want for div 2 to be displayed, but instead div 3 is displayed. How can I change this behavior without changing my structure.

    Read the article

  • Add Method to Built In Class

    - by Evorlor
    I am pretty sure this is not doable, but I will go ahead and cross my fingers and ask. I am trying to add a method to a built in class. I want this method to be callable by all of the built in class's subclasses. Specifically: I have a JButton, a JTextPane, and other JComponents. I want to be able to pass in a JDom Element instead of a Rectangle to setBounds(). My current solution is to extend each JComponent subclass with the desired methods, but that is a LOT of duplicate code. Is there a way I can write the following method just one time, and have it callable on all JComponent objects? Or is it required that I extend each subclass individually, and copy and paste the method below? public void setBounds(Element element) { this.setBounds(Integer.parseInt(element.getAttribute( "x").toString()), Integer.parseInt(element .getAttribute("y").toString()), Integer .parseInt(element.getAttribute("width").toString()), Integer.parseInt(element.getAttribute("height") .toString())); }

    Read the article

  • Calling an Overridden Method from a Parent-Class Constructor

    - by Vaibhav Bajpai
    I tried calling an overridden method from a constructor of a parent class and noticed different behavior across languages. C++ - echoes A.foo() class A{ public: A(){foo();} virtual void foo(){cout<<"A.foo()";} }; class B : public A{ public: B(){} void foo(){cout<<"B.foo()";} }; int main(){ B *b = new B(); } Java - echoes B.foo() class A{ public A(){foo();} public void foo(){System.out.println("A.foo()");} } class B extends A{ public void foo(){System.out.println("B.foo()");} } class Demo{ public static void main(String args[]){ B b = new B(); } } C# - echoes B.foo() class A{ public A(){foo();} public virtual void foo(){Console.WriteLine("A.foo()");} } class B : A{ public override void foo(){Console.WriteLine("B.foo()");} } class MainClass { public static void Main (string[] args) { B b = new B(); } } I realize that in C++ objects are created from top-most parent going down the hierarchy, so when the constructor calls the overridden method, B does not even exist, so it calls the A' version of the method. However, I am not sure why I am getting different behavior in Java and C#.

    Read the article

  • C++ boost function overloaded template

    - by aaa
    I cannot figure out why this segment gives unresolved overloaded function error (gcc version 4.3.4 (Debian 4.3.4-6)): #include <algorithm> #include <boost/function.hpp> int main { typedef boost::function2<const int&, const int&, const int&> max; max m(static_cast<max>(&std::max<int>)); } can you help me, thanks

    Read the article

  • ASP.NET Custom Control - Template Allowing Literal Content

    - by Bob Fincheimer
    I want my User Control to be able to have Literal Content inside of it. For Example: <fc:Text runat="server">Please enter your login information:</fc:Text> Currently the code for my user control is: <ParseChildren(True, "Content")> _ Partial Public Class ctrFormText Inherits FormControl Private _content As ArrayList <PersistenceMode(PersistenceMode.InnerDefaultProperty), _ DesignerSerializationVisibility(DesignerSerializationVisibility.Content), _ TemplateInstance(TemplateInstance.Single)> _ Public Property Content() As ArrayList Get If _content Is Nothing Then Return New ArrayList End If Return _content End Get Set(ByVal value As ArrayList) _content = value End Set End Property Protected Overrides Sub CreateChildControls() If _content IsNot Nothing Then ctrChildren.Controls.Clear() For Each i As Control In _content ctrChildren.Controls.Add(i) Next End If MyBase.CreateChildControls() End Sub End Class And when I put text inside this control (like above) i get this error: Parser Error Message: Literal content ('Please enter your login information to access CKMS:') is not allowed within a 'System.Collections.ArrayList'. This control could have other content than just the text, so making the Content property an attribute will not solve my problem. I found in some places that I need to implement a ControlBuilder Class, along with another class that implements IParserAccessor. Anyway I just want my default "Content" property to have all types of controls allowed in it, both literal and actual controls.

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86  | Next Page >