Search Results

Search found 4593 results on 184 pages for 'constructor injection'.

Page 8/184 | < Previous Page | 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15  | Next Page >

  • Constructor Overload Problem in C++ Inheritance

    - by metdos
    Here my code snippet: class Request { public: Request(void); ……….. } Request::Request(void) { qDebug()<<"Request: "<<"Hello World"; } class LoginRequest :public Request { public: LoginRequest(void); LoginRequest(QDomDocument); …………… } LoginRequest::LoginRequest(void) { qDebug()<<"LoginRequest: "<<"Hello World"; requestType=LOGIN; requestId=-1; } LoginRequest::LoginRequest(QDomDocument doc){ qDebug()<<"LoginRequest: "<<"Hello World with QDomDocument"; LoginRequest::LoginRequest(); xmlDoc_=doc; } When call constructor of Overrided LoginRequest LoginRequest *test=new LoginRequest(doc); I came up with this result: Request: Hello World LoginRequest: Hello World with QDomDocument Request: Hello World LoginRequest: Hello World Obviously both constructor of LoginRequest called REquest constructor. Is there any way to cape with this situation? I can construct another function that does the job I want to do and have both constructors call that function. But I wonder is there any solution?

    Read the article

  • Constructor Overload Problem in C++ Inherrentance

    - by metdos
    Here my code snippet: class Request { public: Request(void); ……….. } Request::Request(void) { qDebug()<<"Request: "<<"Hello World"; } class LoginRequest :public Request { public: LoginRequest(void); LoginRequest(QDomDocument); …………… } LoginRequest::LoginRequest(void) { qDebug()<<"LoginRequest: "<<"Hello World"; requestType=LOGIN; requestId=-1; } LoginRequest::LoginRequest(QDomDocument doc){ qDebug()<<"LoginRequest: "<<"Hello World with QDomDocument"; LoginRequest::LoginRequest(); xmlDoc_=doc; } When call constructor of Overrided LoginRequest LoginRequest *test=new LoginRequest(doc); I came up with this result: Request: Hello World LoginRequest: Hello World with QDomDocument Request: Hello World LoginRequest: Hello World Obviously both constructor of LoginRequest called REquest constructor. Is there any way to cape with this situation? I can construct another function that does the job I want to do and have both constructors call that function. But I wonder is there any solution?

    Read the article

  • C++ Constructor With Parameters Won't Initialize, Errors C2059 and C2228

    - by Some Girl
    I'm a C# programmer trying to muddle through C++ to create a Windows Forms Application. I have a Windows Form that makes use of a user-created class. Basically I'm trying to use a constructor that takes parameters, but my form won't let me initialize the object with parameter. Here's the code, hopefully somebody can explain the problem to me because I'm completely baffled... Here's my header file: BankAcct.h public ref class BankAcct { private: int money; public: BankAcct(); BankAcct(int); void Deposit(int); void GetBalance(int&); }; And my definition file: BankAcct.cpp #include "StdAfx.h" #include "BankAcct.h" BankAcct::BankAcct() { money = 0; } BankAcct::BankAcct(int startAmt) { money = startAmt; } void BankAcct::Deposit(int depAmt) { money += depAmt; } void BankAcct::GetBalance(int& balance) { balance = money; } And finally my main form. Won't copy the whole thing, of course, but I'm trying to declare the new bank account object, and start it with a balance of say $50. private: BankAcct myAccount(50); //does not work! WHY?? //private: //BankAcct myAccount; //works then in the form constructor my code is this: public: frmBank(void) { InitializeComponent(); int bal; myAccount.GetBalance(bal); lblBankBalance->Text += Convert::ToString(bal); } I've included the BankAcct.h file at the top of my frmBank.h, what else am I doing wrong here? It works great if I use the default constructor (the one that starts the bank balance at zero). I get the following error messages: error C2059: syntax error: 'constant' and error C2228: left of '.GetBalance' must have class/struct/union Thank you for any and all help on this one!!

    Read the article

  • c++ STL vector is not acccepting the copy constructor

    - by prabhakaran
    I wrote a code ( c++,visual studio 2010) which is having a vector, even I though copy const is declared, but is still showing that copy const is not declared Here the code #include<iostream> #include<vector> using namespace std; class A { public: A(){cout << "Default A is acting" << endl ;} A(A &a){cout << "Copy Constructor of A is acting" << endl ;} }; int main() { A a; A b=a; vector<A> nothing; nothing.push_back(a); int n; cin >> n; } The error I got is Error 1 error C2558: class 'A' : no copy constructor available or copy constructor is declared 'explicit' c:\program files\microsoft visual studio 10.0\vc\include\xmemory 48 1 delete Anybody please help me

    Read the article

  • Constructor ambiguous quesiton

    - by Crystal
    I'm trying to create a simple date class, but I get an error on my main file that says, "call of overloaded Date() is ambiguous." I'm not sure why since I thought as long as I had different parameters for my constructor, I was ok. Here is my code: header file: #ifndef DATE_H #define DATE_H using std::string; class Date { public: static const int monthsPerYear = 12; // num of months in a yr Date(int = 1, int = 1, int = 1900); // default constructor Date(); // uses system time to create object void print() const; // print date in month/day/year format ~Date(); // provided to confirm destruction order string getMonth(int month) const; // gets month in text format private: int month; // 1 - 12 int day; // 1 - 31 int year; // any year int checkDay(int) const; }; #endif .cpp file #include <iostream> #include <iomanip> #include <string> #include <ctime> #include "Date.h" using namespace std; Date::Date() { time_t seconds = time(NULL); struct tm* t = localtime(&seconds); month = t->tm_mon; day = t->tm_mday; year = t->tm_year; } Date::Date(int mn, int dy, int yr) { if (mn > 0 && mn <= monthsPerYear) month = mn; else { month = 1; // invalid month set to 1 cout << "Invalid month (" << mn << ") set to 1.\n"; } year = yr; // could validate yr day = checkDay(dy); // validate the day // output Date object to show when its constructor is called cout << "Date object constructor for date "; print(); cout << endl; } void Date::print() const { string str; cout << month << '/' << day << '/' << year << '\n'; // new code for HW2 cout << setfill('0') << setw(3) << day; // prints in ddd cout << " " << year << '\n'; // yyyy format str = getMonth(month); // prints in month (full word), day, year cout << str << " " << day << ", " << year << '\n'; } and my main.cpp #include <iostream> #include "Date.h" using std::cout; int main() { Date date1(4, 30, 1980); date1.print(); cout << '\n'; Date date2; date2.print(); }

    Read the article

  • Ambiguous constructor call

    - by Crystal
    I'm trying to create a simple date class, but I get an error on my main file that says, "call of overloaded Date() is ambiguous." I'm not sure why since I thought as long as I had different parameters for my constructor, I was ok. Here is my code: header file: #ifndef DATE_H #define DATE_H using std::string; class Date { public: static const int monthsPerYear = 12; // num of months in a yr Date(int = 1, int = 1, int = 1900); // default constructor Date(); // uses system time to create object void print() const; // print date in month/day/year format ~Date(); // provided to confirm destruction order string getMonth(int month) const; // gets month in text format private: int month; // 1 - 12 int day; // 1 - 31 int year; // any year int checkDay(int) const; }; #endif .cpp file #include <iostream> #include <iomanip> #include <string> #include <ctime> #include "Date.h" using namespace std; Date::Date() { time_t seconds = time(NULL); struct tm* t = localtime(&seconds); month = t->tm_mon; day = t->tm_mday; year = t->tm_year; } Date::Date(int mn, int dy, int yr) { if (mn > 0 && mn <= monthsPerYear) month = mn; else { month = 1; // invalid month set to 1 cout << "Invalid month (" << mn << ") set to 1.\n"; } year = yr; // could validate yr day = checkDay(dy); // validate the day // output Date object to show when its constructor is called cout << "Date object constructor for date "; print(); cout << endl; } void Date::print() const { string str; cout << month << '/' << day << '/' << year << '\n'; // new code for HW2 cout << setfill('0') << setw(3) << day; // prints in ddd cout << " " << year << '\n'; // yyyy format str = getMonth(month); // prints in month (full word), day, year cout << str << " " << day << ", " << year << '\n'; } and my main.cpp #include <iostream> #include "Date.h" using std::cout; int main() { Date date1(4, 30, 1980); date1.print(); cout << '\n'; Date date2; date2.print(); }

    Read the article

  • Need help with copy constructor for very basic implementation of singly linked lists

    - by Jesus
    Last week, we created a program that manages sets of strings, using classes and vectors. I was able to complete this 100%. This week, we have to replace the vector we used to store strings in our class with simple singly linked lists. The function basically allows users to declare sets of strings that are empty, and sets with only one element. In the main file, there is a vector whose elements are a struct that contain setName and strSet (class). HERE IS MY PROBLEM: It deals with the copy constructor of the class. When I remove/comment out the copy constructor, I can declare as many empty or single sets as I want, and output their values without a problem. But I know I will obviously need the copy constructor for when I implement the rest of the program. When I leave the copy constructor in, I can declare one set, either single or empty, and output its value. But if I declare a 2nd set, and i try to output either of the first two sets, i get a Segmentation Fault. Moreover, if i try to declare more then 2 sets, I get a Segmentation Fault. Any help would be appreciated!! Here is my code for a very basic implementation of everything: Here is the setcalc.cpp: (main file) #include <iostream> #include <cctype> #include <cstring> #include <string> #include "help.h" #include "strset2.h" using namespace std; // Declares of structure to hold all the sets defined struct setsOfStr { string nameOfSet; strSet stringSet; }; // Checks if the set name inputted is unique bool isSetNameUnique( vector<setsOfStr> strSetArr, string setName) { for(unsigned int i = 0; i < strSetArr.size(); i++) { if( strSetArr[i].nameOfSet == setName ) { return false; } } return true; } int main(int argc, char *argv[]) { char commandChoice; // Declares a vector with our declared structure as the type vector<setsOfStr> strSetVec; string setName; string singleEle; // Sets a loop that will constantly ask for a command until 'q' is typed while (1) { // declaring a set to be empty if(commandChoice == 'd') { cin >> setName; // Check that the set name inputted is unique if (isSetNameUnique(strSetVec, setName) == true) { strSet emptyStrSet; setsOfStr set1; set1.nameOfSet = setName; set1.stringSet = emptyStrSet; strSetVec.push_back(set1); } else { cerr << "ERROR: Re-declaration of set '" << setName << "'\n"; } } // declaring a set to be a singleton else if(commandChoice == 's') { cin >> setName; cin >> singleEle; // Check that the set name inputted is unique if (isSetNameUnique(strSetVec, setName) == true) { strSet singleStrSet(singleEle); setsOfStr set2; set2.nameOfSet = setName; set2.stringSet = singleStrSet; strSetVec.push_back(set2); } else { cerr << "ERROR: Re-declaration of set '" << setName << "'\n"; } } // using the output function else if(commandChoice == 'o') { cin >> setName; if(isSetNameUnique(strSetVec, setName) == false) { // loop through until the set name is matched and call output on its strSet for(unsigned int k = 0; k < strSetVec.size(); k++) { if( strSetVec[k].nameOfSet == setName ) { (strSetVec[k].stringSet).output(); } } } else { cerr << "ERROR: No such set '" << setName << "'\n"; } } // quitting else if(commandChoice == 'q') { break; } else { cerr << "ERROR: Ignoring bad command: '" << commandChoice << "'\n"; } } return 0; } Here is the strSet2.h: #ifndef _STRSET_ #define _STRSET_ #include <iostream> #include <vector> #include <string> struct node { std::string s1; node * next; }; class strSet { private: node * first; public: strSet (); // Create empty set strSet (std::string s); // Create singleton set strSet (const strSet &copy); // Copy constructor // will implement destructor later void output() const; strSet& operator = (const strSet& rtSide); // Assignment }; // End of strSet class #endif // _STRSET_ And here is the strSet2.cpp (implementation of class) #include <iostream> #include <vector> #include <string> #include "strset2.h" using namespace std; strSet::strSet() { first = NULL; } strSet::strSet(string s) { node *temp; temp = new node; temp->s1 = s; temp->next = NULL; first = temp; } strSet::strSet(const strSet& copy) { cout << "copy-cst\n"; node *n = copy.first; node *prev = NULL; while (n) { node *newNode = new node; newNode->s1 = n->s1; newNode->next = NULL; if (prev) { prev->next = newNode; } else { first = newNode; } prev = newNode; n = n->next; } } void strSet::output() const { if(first == NULL) { cout << "Empty set\n"; } else { node *temp; temp = first; while(1) { cout << temp->s1 << endl; if(temp->next == NULL) break; temp = temp->next; } } } strSet& strSet::operator = (const strSet& rtSide) { first = rtSide.first; return *this; }

    Read the article

  • Ninject WithConstructorArgument : No matching bindings are available, and the type is not self-bindable

    - by Jean-François Beauchamp
    My understanding of WithConstructorArgument is probably erroneous, because the following is not working: I have a service, lets call it MyService, whose constructor is taking multiple objects, and a string parameter called testEmail. For this string parameter, I added the following Ninject binding: string testEmail = "[email protected]"; kernel.Bind<IMyService>().To<MyService>().WithConstructorArgument("testEmail", testEmail); However, when executing the following line of code, I get an exception: var myService = kernel.Get<MyService>(); Here is the exception I get: Error activating string No matching bindings are available, and the type is not self-bindable. Activation path: 2) Injection of dependency string into parameter testEmail of constructor of type MyService 1) Request for MyService Suggestions: 1) Ensure that you have defined a binding for string. 2) If the binding was defined in a module, ensure that the module has been loaded into the kernel. 3) Ensure you have not accidentally created more than one kernel. 4) If you are using constructor arguments, ensure that the parameter name matches the constructors parameter name. 5) If you are using automatic module loading, ensure the search path and filters are correct. What am I doing wrong here? UPDATE: Here is the MyService constructor: [Ninject.Inject] public MyService(IMyRepository myRepository, IMyEventService myEventService, IUnitOfWork unitOfWork, ILoggingService log, IEmailService emailService, IConfigurationManager config, HttpContextBase httpContext, string testEmail) { this.myRepository = myRepository; this.myEventService = myEventService; this.unitOfWork = unitOfWork; this.log = log; this.emailService = emailService; this.config = config; this.httpContext = httpContext; this.testEmail = testEmail; } I have standard bindings for all the constructor parameter types. Only 'string' has no binding, and HttpContextBase has a binding that is a bit different: kernel.Bind<HttpContextBase>().ToMethod(context => new HttpContextWrapper(new HttpContext(new MyHttpRequest("", "", "", null, new StringWriter())))); and MyHttpRequest is defined as follows: public class MyHttpRequest : SimpleWorkerRequest { public string UserHostAddress; public string RawUrl; public MyHttpRequest(string appVirtualDir, string appPhysicalDir, string page, string query, TextWriter output) : base(appVirtualDir, appPhysicalDir, page, query, output) { this.UserHostAddress = "127.0.0.1"; this.RawUrl = null; } }

    Read the article

  • WCF and Unity - Dependecy Injection

    - by Michael
    I'm trying to hock up WCF with dependecy injection. All the examples that I have found is based on the assumptions that you either uses a .svc (ServiceHostFactory) service or uses app.config to configure the container. Other examples is also based on that the container is passed around to the classes. I would like a solution where the container is not passed around (not tightly coupled to Unity). Where I don't uses a config file to configure the container and where I use self-hosted services. The problem is - as I see it - that the ServiceHost is taking the type of the service implementation as a parameter so what different does it do to use the InstanceProvider? The solution I have come up with at the moment is to register the ServiceHost (or a specialization) an register a Type with a name ( e.g. container.RegisterInstance<Type>("ServiceName", typeof(Service);). And then container.RegisterType<UnityServiceHost>(new InjectionConstructor(new ResolvedParameter<Type>("ServiceName"))); to register the ServiceHost. Any better solutions out there? I'm I perhaps way of in my assumptions. Best regards, Michael

    Read the article

  • Factories, or Dependency Injection for object instantiation in WCF, when coding against an interface

    - by Saajid Ismail
    Hi I am writing a client/server application, where the client is a Windows Forms app, and the server is a WCF service hosted in a Windows Service. Note that I control both sides of the application. I am trying to implement the practice of coding against an interface: i.e. I have a Shared assembly which is referenced by the client application. This project contains my WCF ServiceContracts and interfaces which will be exposed to clients. I am trying to only expose interfaces to the clients, so that they are only dependant on a contract, not any specific implementation. One of the reasons for doing this is so that I can have my service implementation, and domain change at any time without having to recompile and redeploy the clients. The interfaces/contracts will in this case not change. I only need to recompile and redeploy my WCF service. The design issue I am facing now, is: on the client, how do I create new instances of objects, e.g. ICustomer, if the client doesn't know about the Customer concrete implementation? I need to create a new customer to be saved to the DB. Do I use dependency injection, or a Factory class to instantiate new objects, or should I just allow the client to create new instances of concrete implementations? I am not doing TDD, and I will typically only have one implementation of ICustomer or any other exposed interface.

    Read the article

  • Correctly use dependency injection

    - by Rune
    Me and two other colleagues are trying to understand how to best design a program. For example, I have an interface ISoda and multiple classes that implement that interface like Coke, Pepsi, DrPepper, etc.... My colleague is saying that it's best to put these items into a database like a key/value pair. For example: Key | Name -------------------------------------- Coke | my.namespace.Coke, MyAssembly Pepsi | my.namespace.Pepsi, MyAssembly DrPepper | my.namespace.DrPepper, MyAssembly ... then have XML configuration files that map the input to the correct key, query the database for the key, then create the object. I don't have any specific reasons, but I just feel that this is a bad design, but I don't know what to say or how to correctly argue against it. My second colleague is suggesting that we micro-manage each of these classes. So basically the input would go through a switch statement, something similiar to this: ISoda soda; switch (input) { case "Coke": soda = new Coke(); break; case "Pepsi": soda = new Pepsi(); break; case "DrPepper": soda = new DrPepper(); break; } This seems a little better to me, but I still think there is a better way to do it. I've been reading up on IoC containers the last few days and it seems like a good solution. However, I'm still very new to dependency injection and IoC containers, so I don't know how to correctly argue for it. Or maybe I'm the wrong one and there's a better way to do it? If so, can someone suggest a better method? What kind of arguments can I bring to the table to convince my colleagues to try another method? What are the pros/cons? Why should we do it one way? Unfortunately, my colleagues are very resistant to change so I'm trying to figure out how I can convince them.

    Read the article

  • dll injection using C

    - by AJINKYA
    hey i m trying to inject a dll into a process i.e lsass.exe to get hashes.Its a bit hacky but cant help its my project. I have a code of dll injection but in visual C++ it gives errors such as.. at TEXT("LoadLibraryA"))))----argument const wchar incompatible with LPCSTR at lpFuncAddr-----------argument type "LPVOID" incompatible with parameter type "LPTHREAD_START ROUTINE" CODE: BOOL InjectDLL(DWORD dwProcessId, LPCSTR lpszDLLPath) { HANDLE hProcess, hThread; LPVOID lpBaseAddr, lpFuncAddr; DWORD dwMemSize, dwExitCode; BOOL bSuccess = FALSE; HMODULE hUserDLL; //convert char to wchar char *lpszDLLPath = "hash.dll"; size_t origsize = strlen(orig) + 1; const size_t newsize = 100; size_t convertedChars = 0; wchar_t dllpath[newsize]; mbstowcs_s(&convertedChars, dllpath, origsize, orig, _TRUNCATE); if((hProcess = OpenProcess(PROCESS_CREATE_THREAD|PROCESS_QUERY_INFORMATION|PROCESS_VM_OPERATION |PROCESS_VM_WRITE|PROCESS_VM_READ, FALSE, dwProcessId))) { dwMemSize = wcslen(dllpath) + 1; if((lpBaseAddr = VirtualAllocEx(hProcess, NULL, dwMemSize, MEM_COMMIT, PAGE_READWRITE))) { if(WriteProcessMemory(hProcess, lpBaseAddr, lpszDLLPath, dwMemSize, NULL)) { if((hUserDLL = LoadLibrary(TEXT("kernel32.dll")))) { if((lpFuncAddr = GetProcAddress(hUserDLL, TEXT("LoadLibraryA")))) { if((hThread = CreateRemoteThread(hProcess, NULL, 0, lpFuncAddr, lpBaseAddr, 0, NULL))) { WaitForSingleObject(hThread, INFINITE); if(GetExitCodeThread(hThread, &dwExitCode)) { bSuccess = (dwExitCode != 0) ? TRUE : FALSE; } CloseHandle(hThread); } } FreeLibrary(hUserDLL); } } VirtualFreeEx(hProcess, lpBaseAddr, 0, MEM_RELEASE); } CloseHandle(hProcess); } return bSuccess; } int WINAPI WinMain(HINSTANCE hThisInstance, HINSTANCE hPrevInstance, LPSTR lpszCmdLine, int nCmdShow) { if(InjectDLL(PROCESSID, "hash.dll")) { MessageBox(NULL, TEXT("DLL Injected!"), TEXT("DLL Injector"), MB_OK); }else { MessageBox(NULL, TEXT("Couldn't inject DLL"), TEXT("DLL Injector"), MB_OK | MB_ICONERROR); } return 0; } i m a beginner to dll and windows programming so will appreciate your help.

    Read the article

  • Dependency injection and factory

    - by legenden
    Trying to figure out how to best handle the following scenario: Assume a RequestContext class which has a dependency to an external service, such as: public class RequestContext : IRequestContext { private readonly ServiceFactory<IWeatherService> _weatherService; public RequestContext(ServiceFactory<IWeatherService> weatherService, UserLocation location, string query) { _weatherService = weatherService; ... What sort of dependency should I require in the class that will ultimately instantiate RequestContext? It could be ServiceFactory<IWeatherService>, but that doesn't seem right, or I could create an IRequestContextFactory for it along the lines of: public class RequestContextFactory : IRequestContextFactory { private readonly ServiceFactory<IWeatherService> _weatherService; public RequestContextFactory(ServiceFactory<IWeatherService> weatherService) { _weatherService = weatherService; } public RequestContext Create(UserLocation location, string query) { return new RequestContext(_weatherService, location, query); } } And then pass the IRequestContextFactory through constructor injection. This seems like a good way to do it, but the problem with this approach is that I think it hinders discoverability (devs must know about the factory and implement it, which is not really apparent). Is there a better/more discoverable way that I'm missing?

    Read the article

  • Dependency Injection for objects that require parameters

    - by Andrew
    All of our reports are created from object graphs that are translated from our domain objects. To enable this, we have a Translator class for each report, and have been using Dependency Injection for passing in dependencies. This worked great, and would yield nice classes structured like this: public class CheckTranslator : ICheckTranslator { public CheckTranslator (IEmployeeService empSvc , IPaycheckService paySvc) { _empSvc = empSvc; _paySvc = paySvc; } public Check CreateCheck() { //do the translation... } } However, in some cases the mapping has many different grouping options. As a result, the c-tor would turn into a mix of class dependencies and parameters. public class CheckTranslator : ICheckTranslator { public CheckTranslator (IEmployeeService empSvc , IPaycheckService paySvc , bool doTranslateStubData , bool doAttachLogo) { _empSvc = empSvc; _paySvc = paySvc; _doTranslateStubData = doTranslateStubData; _doAttachLogo = doAttachLogo; } public Check CreateCheck() { //do the translation... } } Now, we can still test it, but it no longer really works with an IoC container, at least in a clean fashion. Plus, we can no longer call the CreateCheck twice if the settings are different for each check. While I recognize it's a problem, I don't necessarily see the right solution. It seems kind of strange to create a Factory for each class ... or is this the best way?

    Read the article

  • Considerations when architecting an application using Dependency Injection

    - by Dan Bryant
    I've begun experimenting with dependency injection (in particular, MEF) for one of my projects, which has a number of different extensibility points. I'm starting to get a feel for what I can do with MEF, but I'd like to hear from others who have more experience with the technology. A few specific cases: My main use case at the moment is exposing various singleton-like services that my extensions make use of. My Framework assembly exposes service interfaces and my Engine assembly contains concrete implementations. This works well, but I may not want to allow all of my extensions to have access to all of my services. Is there a good way within MEF to limit which particular imports I allow a newly instantiated extension to resolve? This particular application has extension objects that I repeatedly instantiate. I can import multiple types of Controllers and Machines, which are instantiated in different combinations for a Project. I couldn't find a good way to do this with MEF, so I'm doing my own type discovery and instantiation. Is there a good way to do this within MEF or other DI frameworks? I welcome input on any other things to watch out for or surprising capabilities you've discovered that have changed the way you architect.

    Read the article

  • Dependecy Injection with Massive ORM: dynamic trouble

    - by Sergi Papaseit
    I've started working on an MVC 3 project that needs data from an enormous existing database. My first idea was to go ahead and use EF 4.1 and create a bunch of POCO's to represent the tables I need, but I'm starting to think the mapping will get overly complicated as I only need some of the columns in some of the tables. (thanks to Steven for the clarification in the comments. So I thought I'd give Massive ORM a try. I normally use a Unit of Work implementation so I can keep everything nicely decoupled and can use Dependency Injection. This is part of what I have for Massive: public interface ISession { DynamicModel CreateTable<T>() where T : DynamicModel, new(); dynamic Single<T>(string where, params object[] args) where T : DynamicModel, new(); dynamic Single<T>(object key, string columns = "*") where T : DynamicModel, new(); // Some more methods supported by Massive here } And here's my implementation of the above interface: public class MassiveSession : ISession { public DynamicModel CreateTable<T>() where T : DynamicModel, new() { return new T(); } public dynamic Single<T>(string where, params object[] args) where T: DynamicModel, new() { var table = CreateTable<T>(); return table.Single(where, args); } public dynamic Single<T>(object key, string columns = "*") where T: DynamicModel, new() { var table = CreateTable<T>(); return table.Single(key, columns); } } The problem comes with the First(), Last() and FindBy() methods. Massive is based around a dynamic object called DynamicModel and doesn't define any of the above method; it handles them through a TryInvokeMethod() implementation overriden from DynamicObject instead: public override bool TryInvokeMember(InvokeMemberBinder binder, object[] args, out object result) { } I'm at a loss on how to "interface" those methods in my ISession. How could my ISession provide support for First(), Last() and FindBy()? Put it another way, how can I use all of Massive's capabilities and still be able to decouple my classes from data access?

    Read the article

  • Unity 1.2 Dependency injection of internal types

    - by qvin
    I have a facade in a library that exposes some complex functionality through a simple interface. My question is how do I do dependency injection for the internal types used in the facade. Let's say my C# library code looks like - public class XYZfacade:IFacade { [Dependency] internal IType1 type1 { get; set; } [Dependency] internal IType2 type2 { get; set; } public string SomeFunction() { return type1.someString(); } } internal class TypeA { .... } internal class TypeB { .... } And my website code is like - IUnityContainer container = new UnityContainer(); container.RegisterType<IType1, TypeA>(); container.RegisterType<IType2, TypeB>(); container.RegisterType<IFacade, XYZFacade>(); ... ... IFacade facade = container.Resolve<IFacade>(); Here facade.SomeFunction() throws an exception because facade.type1 and facade.type2 are null. Any help is appreciated.

    Read the article

  • Dependency Injection into your Singleton

    - by Langali
    I have a singleton that has a spring injected Dao (simplified below): public class MyService<T> implements Service<T> { private final Map<String, T> objects; private static MyService instance; MyDao myDao; public void set MyDao(MyDao myDao) { this. myDao = myDao; } private MyService() { this.objects = Collections.synchronizedMap(new HashMap<String, T>()); // start a background thread that runs for ever } public static synchronized MyService getInstance() { if(instance == null) { instance = new MyService(); } return instance; } public void doSomething() { myDao.persist(objects); } } My spring config will probably look like this: <bean id="service" class="MyService" factory-method="getInstance"/> But this will instantiate the MyService during startup. Is there a programmatic way to do a dependency injection of MyDao into MyService, but not have spring manage the MyService? Basically I want to be able to do this from my code: MyService.getInstance().doSomething(); while having spring inject the MyDao for me.

    Read the article

  • Dependency injection in constructors

    - by andre
    Hello everyone. I'm starting a new project and setting up the base to work on. A few questions have risen and I'll probably be asking quite a few in here, hopefully I'll find some answers. First step is to handle dependencies for objects. I've decided to go with the dependency injection design pattern, to which I'm somewhat new, to handle all of this for the application. When actually coding it I came across a problem. If a class has multiple dependencies and you want to pass on multiple dependencies via the constructor (so that they cannot be changed after you instantiate the object). How do you do it without passing an array of dependencies, using call_user_func_array(), eval() or Reflection? This is what i'm looking for: <?php class DI { public function getClass($classname) { if(!$this->pool[$classname]) { # Load dependencies $deps = $this->loadDependencies($classname); # Here is where the magic should happen $instance = new $classname($dep1, $dep2, $dep3); # Add to pool $this->pool[$classname] = $instance; return $instance; } else { return $this->pool[$classname]; } } } Again, I would like to avoid the most costly methods to call the class. Any other suggestions?

    Read the article

  • Dependency injection in C++

    - by Yorgos Pagles
    This is also a question that I asked in a comment in one of Miško Hevery's google talks that was dealing with dependency injection but it got buried in the comments. I wonder how can the factory / builder step of wiring the dependencies together can work in C++. I.e. we have a class A that depends on B. The builder will allocate B in the heap, pass a pointer to B in A's constructor while also allocating in the heap and return a pointer to A. Who cleans up afterwards? Is it good to let the builder clean up after it's done? It seems to be the correct method since in the talk it says that the builder should setup objects that are expected to have the same lifetime or at least the dependencies have longer lifetime (I also have a question on that). What I mean in code: class builder { public: builder() : m_ClassA(NULL),m_ClassB(NULL) { } ~builder() { if (m_ClassB) { delete m_ClassB; } if (m_ClassA) { delete m_ClassA; } } ClassA *build() { m_ClassB = new class B; m_ClassA = new class A(m_ClassB); return m_ClassA; } }; Now if there is a dependency that is expected to last longer than the lifetime of the object we are injecting it into (say ClassC is that dependency) I understand that we should change the build method to something like: ClassA *builder::build(ClassC *classC) { m_ClassB = new class B; m_ClassA = new class A(m_ClassB, classC); return m_ClassA; } What is your preferred approach?

    Read the article

  • C++ and Dependency Injection in unit testing

    - by lhumongous
    Suppose I have a C++ class like so: class A { public: A() { } void SetNewB( const B& _b ) { m_B = _b; } private: B m_B; } In order to unit test something like this, I would have to break A's dependency on B. Since class A holds onto an actual object and not a pointer, I would have to refactor this code to take a pointer. Additionally, I would need to create a parent interface class for B so I can pass in my own fake of B when I test SetNewB. In this case, doesn't unit testing with dependency injection further complicate the existing code? If I make B a pointer, I'm now introducing heap allocation, and some piece of code is now responsible for cleaning it up (unless I use ref counted pointers). Additionally, if B is a rather trivial class with only a couple of member variables and functions, why introduce a whole new interface for it instead of just testing with an instance of B? I suppose you could make the argument that it would be easier to refactor A by using an interface. But are there some cases where two classes might need to be tightly coupled?

    Read the article

  • Proper structure for dependency injection (using Guice)

    - by David B.
    I would like some suggestions and feedback on the best way to structure dependency injection for a system with the structure described below. I'm using Guice and thus would prefer solutions centered around it's annotation-based declarations, not XML-heavy Spring-style configuration. Consider a set of similar objects, Ball, Box, and Tube, each dependent on a Logger, supplied via the constructor. (This might not be important, but all four classes happen to be singletons --- of the application, not Gang-of-Four, variety.) A ToyChest class is responsible for creating and managing the three shape objects. ToyChest itself is not dependent on Logger, aside from creating the shape objects which are. The ToyChest class is instantiated as an application singleton in a Main class. I'm confused about the best way to construct the shapes in ToyChest. I either (1) need access to a Guice Injector instance already attached to a Module binding Logger to an implementation or (2) need to create a new Injector attached to the right Module. (1) is accomplished by adding an @Inject Injector injectorfield to ToyChest, but this feels weird because ToyChest doesn't actually have any direct dependencies --- only those of the children it instantiates. For (2), I'm not sure how to pass in the appropriate Module. Am I on the right track? Is there a better way to structure this? The answers to this question mention passing in a Provider instead of using the Injector directly, but I'm not sure how that is supposed to work. EDIT: Perhaps a more simple question is: when using Guice, where is the proper place to construct the shapes objects? ToyChest will do some configuration with them, but I suppose they could be constructed elsewhere. ToyChest (as the container managing them), and not Main, just seems to me like the appropriate place to construct them.

    Read the article

  • Global State and Singletons Dependency injection

    - by Manu
    this is a problem i face lot of times when i am designing a new app i'll use a sample problem to explain this think i am writing simple game.so i want to hold a list of players. i have few options.. 1.use a static field in some class private static ArrayList<Player> players = new ArrayList<Integer>(); public Player getPlayer(int i){ return players.get(i); } but this a global state 2.or i can use a singleton class PlayerList{ private PlayerList instance; private PlayerList(){...} public PlayerList getInstance() { if(instance==null){ ... } return instance; } } but this is bad because it's a singleton 3.Dependency injection class Game { private PlayerList playerList; public Game(PlayerList list) { this.list = list; } public PlayerList getPlayerList() { return playerList; } } this seems good but it's not, if any object outside Game need to look at PlayerList (which is the usual case) i have to use one of the above methods to make the Game class available globally. so I just add another layer to the problem. didn't actually solve anything. what is the optimum solution ? (currently i use Singleton approach)

    Read the article

  • Dependency Injection: How to pass DB around?

    - by Stephane
    Edit: This is a conceptual question first and foremost. I can make applications work without knowing this, but I'm trying to learn the concept. I've seen lots of videos with related classes and that makes sense, but when it comes to classes wrapping around other classes, I can't seem to grasp where things should be instantiated/passed around. =-=-=-=-=-=-= Question: Let's say I have a simple page that loads data from a table, manipulates the result and displays it. Simple. I'm going to use '=' for instantiating a class and '-' for passing a class in using constructor injection. It seems to me that the database has to be passed from one end of the application to the other which doesn't seem right. Here's how I would do it if I wanted to separate concerns: index =>Controller =>Model Layer =>Database =>DAO->Database I have this rule in my head that says I'm not supposed to create objects inside other objects. So what do I do with the Database? Or even the Model for that matter? I'm obviously missing something so basic about this. I would love a simplified example so that I can move forward in my code. I feel really hamstrung by this.

    Read the article

  • How can I use "Dependency Injection" in simple php functions, and should I bother?

    - by Tchalvak
    I hear people talking about dependency injection and the benefit of it all the time, but I don't really understand it. I'm wondering if it's a solution to the "I pass database connections as arguments all the time" problem. I tried reading wikipedia's entry on it, but the example is written in Java so I don't solidly understand the difference it is trying to make clear. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dependency_injection ). I read this dependency-injection-in-php article ( http://www.potstuck.com/2009/01/08/php-dependency-injection/ ), and it seems like the objective is to not pass dependencies to an object directly, but to cordon off the creation of an object along with the creation of it's dependencies. I'm not sure how to apply that in a using php functions context, though. Additionally, is the following Dependency Injection, and should I bother trying to do dependency injection in a functional context? Version 1: (the kind of code that I create, but don't like, every day) function get_data_from_database($database_connection){ $data = $database_connection->query('blah'); return $data; } Version 2: (don't have to pass a database connection, but perhaps not dependency injection?) function get_database_connection(){ static $db_connection; if($db_connection){ return $db_connection; } else { // create db_connection ... } } function get_data_from_database(){ $conn = get_database_connection(); $data = $conn->query('blah'); return $data; } $data = get_data_from_database(); Version 3: (the creation of the "object"/data is separate, and the database code is still, so perhaps this would count as dependency injection?) function factory_of_data_set(){ static $db_connection; $data_set = null; $db_connection = get_database_connection(); $data_set = $db_connection->query('blah'); return $data_set; } $data = factory_of_data_set(); Anyone have a good resource or just insight that makes the method and benefit -crystal- clear?

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15  | Next Page >