Search Results

Search found 18135 results on 726 pages for 'shared objects'.

Page 89/726 | < Previous Page | 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96  | Next Page >

  • Databinding Error when Recreating object

    - by Maxim Gershkovich
    Hi All, Figure there is a simple solution to this problem but I have been unable to find it. I have databinding in an ASP.Net application to a GridView. This gridview is bound to an ObjectDataSource as per standard usage. The problem I have is that one of my bound fields uses the property DataFormatString="{0:C}" and due to the currency format being displayed when an update is attempted and the object recreated I get a error as such "$13.00 is not a valid value for Decimal." Clearly this is a result of the column using a FormatString and then attempting to bind it back to a decimal property I have in my object called UnitPrice. I am assuming there is some markup I can set that can specify how the value is translated back? Thanks in advance for any help.

    Read the article

  • Does changing the order of class private data members breaks ABI

    - by Dmitry Yudakov
    I have a class with number of private data members (some of them static), accessed by virtual and non-virtual member functions. There's no inline functions and no friend classes. class A { int number; string str; static const int static_const_number; public: // got virtual and non-virtual functions, working with these memebers virtual void func1(); void func2(); // no inline functions or friends }; Does changing the order of private data members breaks ABI in this case? class A { string str; static const int static_const_number; int number; // <-- integer member moved here ... };

    Read the article

  • Naming a typedef for a boost::shared_ptr<const Foo>

    - by Blair Zajac
    Silly question, but say you have class Foo: class Foo { public: typedef boost::shared_ptr<Foo> RcPtr; void non_const_method() {} void const_method() const {} }; Having a const Foo::RcPtr doesn't prevent non-const methods from being invoked on the class, the following will compile: #include <boost/shared_ptr.hpp> int main() { const Foo::RcPtr const_foo_ptr(new Foo); const_foo_ptr->non_const_method(); const_foo_ptr->const_method(); return 0; } But naming a typedef ConstRcPtr implies, to me, that the typedef would be typedef const boost::shared_ptr<Foo> ConstRcPtr; which is not what I'm interested in. An odder name, but maybe more accurate, is RcPtrConst: typedef boost::shared_ptr<const Foo> RcPtrConst; However, Googling for RcPtrConst gets zero hits, so people don't use this as a typedef name :) Does anyone have any other suggestions?

    Read the article

  • Business entity: private instance VS single instance

    - by taoufik
    Suppose my WinForms application has a business entity Order, the entity is used in multiple views, each view handles a different domain or use-case in the application. As an example, one managing orders, the other one digging into one order and displaying additional data. If I'd use nHibernate (or any other ORM) and use one session/dataContext per view (or per db action), I'd end up getting two different instances for the same Order (let's say orderId = 1). Although functionally the same entity, they are technically two different instances. Yes, I could implement Equals/GetHashcode to make them "seem" the same. Why would you go for a single instance per entity vs private instances per view or per use-case? Having single instances has the advantage of sharing INotifyPropertyChanged events, and sharing additional (non-persistent) data. Having a private instance in each view would give you the flexibility of the undo functionality on a view level. In the example above, I'd allow the user to change order details, and give them the flexibility to not save the change. Here, synchronisation between the view/use-case happens on a data persistence level. What would your argument be?

    Read the article

  • Using DTOs and BOs

    - by ryanzec
    One area of question for me about DTOs/BOs is about when to pass/return the DTOs and when to pass/return the BOs. My gut reaction tells me to always map NHibernate to the DTOs, not BOs, and always pass/return the DTOs. Then whenever I needed to perform business logic, I would convert my DTO into a BO. The way I would do this is that my BO would have a have a constructor that takes a parameter that is the type of my interface (that defines the required fields/properties) that both my DTO and BO implement as the only argument. Then I would be able to create my BO by passing it the DTO in the constructor (since both with implement the same interface, they both with have the same properties) and then be able to perform my business logic with that BO. I would then also have a way to convert a BO to a DTO. However, I have also seen where people seem to only work with BOs and only work with DTOs in the background where to the user, it looks like there are no DTOs. What benefits/downfalls are there with this architecture vs always using BO's? Should I always being passing/returning either DTOs or BOs or mix and match (seems like mixing and matching could get confusing)?

    Read the article

  • JS: capture a static snapshot of an object at a point in time with a method

    - by Barney
    I have a JS object I use to store DOM info for easy reference in an elaborate GUI. It starts like this: var dom = { m:{ old:{}, page:{x:0,y:0}, view:{x:0,y:0}, update:function(){ this.old = this; this.page.x = $(window).width(); this.page.y = $(window).height(); this.view.x = $(document).width(); this.view.y = window.innerHeight || $(window).height(); } I call the function on window resize: $(window).resize(function(){dom.m.update()}); The problem is with dom.m.old. I would have thought that by calling it in the dom.m.update() method before the new values for the other properties are assigned, at any point in time dom.m.old would contain a snapshot of the dom.m object as of the last update – but instead, it's always identical to dom.m. I've just got a pointless recursion method. Why isn't this working? How can I get a static snapshot of the object that won't update without being specifically told to? Comments explaining how I shouldn't even want to be doing anything remotely like this in the first place are very welcome :)

    Read the article

  • Using LINQ to find a common prefix?

    - by Roger Lipscombe
    I've got two sequences: IEnumerable<string> x = new[] { "a", "b", "c" }; IEnumerable<string> y = new[] { "a", "b", "d", "e" }; I'd like to find the common prefix of these two sequences (i.e. "a", "b"). Is there a succinct way to do this in LINQ? Bear in mind that these aren't really IEnumerable<string>; they're IEnumerable<PathComponent>, where I have an implementation of IEqualityComparer<PathComponent>.

    Read the article

  • Transfer data between C++ classes efficiently

    - by David
    Hi, Need help... I have 3 classes, Manager which holds 2 pointers. One to class A another to class B . A does not know about B and vise versa. A does some calculations and at the end it puts 3 floats into the clipboard. Next, B pulls from clipboard the 3 floats, and does it's own calculations. This loop is managed by the Manager and repeats many times (iteration after iteration). My problem: Now class A produces a vector of floats which class B needs. This vector can have more than 1000 values and I don't want to use the clipboard to transfer it to B as it will become time consumer, even bottleneck, since this behavior repeats step by step. Simple solution is that B will know A (set a pointer to A). Other one is to transfer a pointer to the vector via Manager But I'm looking for something different, more object oriented that won't break the existent separation between A and B Any ideas ? Many thanks David

    Read the article

  • Accomplishing boost::shared_from_this() in constructor via boost::shared_from_raw(this)

    - by Kyle
    Googling and poking around the boost code, it appears that it's now possible to construct a shared_ptr to this in a constructor, by inheriting from enable_shared_from_raw and calling shared_from_raw(this) Is there any documentation or examples of this? I'm finding nothing with google. Why am I not finding any useful buzz on this on google? I would have thought using shared_from_this in a constructor would be a hot/desirable item. Should I be inheriting from both enable_shared_from_raw and enable_shared_from_this, and restricting my usage of enable_shared_from_raw when I have to? If so, why? Is there a performance hit with shared_from_raw?

    Read the article

  • Casting Between Data Types in C#

    - by Jimbo
    I have (for example) an object of type A that I want to be able to cast to type B (similar to how you can cast an int to a float) Data types A and B are my own. Is it possible to define the rules by which this casting occurs? Example int a = 1; float b = (float)a; int c = (int)b;

    Read the article

  • Python: override __init__ args in __new__

    - by EoghanM
    I have a __new__ method as follows: class MyClass(object): def __new__(cls, *args): new_args = [] args.sort() prev = args.pop(0) while args: next = args.pop(0) if prev.compare(next): prev = prev.combine(next) else: new_args.append(prev) prev = next if some_check(prev): return SomeOtherClass() new_args.append(prev) return super(MyClass, cls).__new__(cls, new_args) def __init__(self, *args): ... However, this fails with a deprecation warning: DeprecationWarning: object.__new__() takes no parameters SomeOtherClass can optionally get created as the args are processed, that's why they are being processed in __new__ and not in __init__ What is the best way to pass new_args to __init__? Otherwise, I'll have to duplicate the processing of args in __init__ (without some_check)

    Read the article

  • Extend a direct instance

    - by Diolor
    We have a new instance of an object with four properties: person={firstname:"John",lastname:"Doe",age:50,eyecolor:"blue"}; What is the best way to many other properties to that object? If we wanted few couple more sure we would: person[address_no] = 4; .... person[country] = 'Netherlands'; But what if we have a lot properties. Is there any minimalistic way like the one below? (I know it doesn't work) person +={address_no: '4', .... , country: 'Netherlands'};

    Read the article

  • shared_ptr requires complete type; cannot use it with lua_State*

    - by topright
    Hello! I'm writing a C++/OOP wrapper for Lua. My code is: class LuaState { boost::shared_ptr<lua_State> L; LuaState(): L( luaL_newstate(), LuaState::CustomDeleter ) { } } The problem is lua_State is incomplete type and shared_ptr constructor requires complete type. And I need safe pointer sharing. (Funny thing boost docs say most functions do not require complete type, but constructor requires, so there is no way of using it. http://www.boost.org/doc/libs/1_42_0/libs/smart_ptr/smart_ptr.htm) Can can I solve this? Thank you.

    Read the article

  • how to pass an arbitrary signature to Certifcate

    - by eskoba
    I am trying to sign certificate (X509) using secret sharing. that is shareholders combine their signatures to produce the final signature. which will be in this case the signed certificate. however practically from my understanding only one entity can sign a certificate. therefore I want to know: which entities or data of the x509certificate are actually taken as input to the signing algorithm? ideally I want this data to be signed by the shareholders and then the final combination will be passed to the X509certificate as valid signature. is this possible? how could it done? if not are they other alternatives?

    Read the article

  • C++ smart pointer for a non-object type?

    - by Brian
    Hi, I'm trying to use smart pointers such as auto_ptr, shared_ptr. However, I don't know how to use it in this situation. CvMemStorage *storage = cvCreateMemStorage(); ... use the pointer ... cvReleaseMemStorage(&storage); I'm not sure, but I think that the storage variable is just a malloc'ed memory, not a C++ class object. Is there a way to use the smart pointers for the storage variable? Thank you.

    Read the article

  • Host Primary Domain from a subfolder

    - by TandemAdam
    I am having a problem making a sub directory act as the public_html for my main domain, and getting a solution that works with that domains sub directories too. My hosting allows me to host multiple sites, which are all working great. I have set up a subfolder under my ~/public_html/ directory called /domains/, where I create a folder for each separate website. e.g. public_html domains websiteone websitetwo websitethree ... This keeps my sites nice and tidy. The only issue was getting my "main domain" to fit into this system. It seems my main domain, is somehow tied to my account (or to Apache, or something), so I can't change the "document root" of this domain. I can define the document roots for any other domains ("Addon Domains") that I add in cPanel no problem. But the main domain is different. I was told to edit the .htaccess file, to redirect the main domain to a subdirectory. This seemed to work great, and my site works fine on it's home/index page. The problem I'm having is that if I try to navigate my browser to say the images folder (just for example) of my main site, like this: www.yourmaindomain.com/images/ then it seems to ignore the redirect and shows the entire server directory in the url, like this: www.yourmaindomain.com/domains/yourmaindomain/images/ It still actually shows the correct "Index of /images" page, and show the list of all my images. Here is an example of my .htaccess file that I am using: RewriteEngine on RewriteCond %{HTTP_HOST} ^(www.)?yourmaindomain.com$ RewriteCond %{REQUEST_URI} !^/domains/yourmaindomain/ RewriteCond %{REQUEST_FILENAME} !-f RewriteCond %{REQUEST_FILENAME} !-d RewriteRule ^(.*)$ /domains/yourmaindomain/$1 RewriteCond %{HTTP_HOST} ^(www.)?yourmaindomain.com$ RewriteRule ^(/)?$ domains/yourmaindomain/index.html [L] Does this htaccess file look correct? I just need to make it so my main domain behaves like an addon domain, and it's subdirectories adhere to the redirect rules.

    Read the article

  • Why aren't these shared_ptrs pointing to the same container?

    - by BeeBand
    I have a class Model: class Model { ... boost::shared_ptr<Deck> _deck; boost::shared_ptr<CardStack> _stack[22]; }; Deck inherits from CardStack. I tried to make _stack[0] point to the same thing that _deck points to by going: { _deck = boost::shared_ptr<Deck>(new Deck()); _stack[0] = _deck; } It seems that the assignment to _deck of _stack[0] results in a copy of _deck being made. How can I get them to point to the same thing?

    Read the article

  • Is there any boost-independent version of boost/tr1 shared_ptr

    - by Artyom
    I'm looking for independent implementation of boost/tr1 shared_ptr, weak_ptr and enable_shared_from_this. I need: Boost independent very small implementation of these features. I need support of only modern compilers like GCC-4.x, MSVC-2008, Intel not things like MSVC6 or gcc-3.3 I need it to be licensed under non-copyleft LGPL compatible license like Boost/Mit/3-clause BSD. So I can include it in my library. Note - it is quite hard to extract shared_ptr from boost, at least BCP gives about 324 files...

    Read the article

  • Use LINQ and C# to make a new List from an old List

    - by Addie
    This should be pretty simple, but I am new at LINQ. I have a List of FillList structs. I'd like to use LINQ to create a new List where instead of having the number of buys and sells, I would have one variable containing the sum. For example, if the FillStruct structure has buy = 4 and sell = 2 then the NewFillStruct structure will have numlong = 2. If the FillStruct structure has buy = 2 and sell = 4 then the NewFillStruct structure will have numlong = -2. Here are the structures. struct FillStruct { int buy; int sell; string date; } struct NewFillStruct { int numlong; string date; }

    Read the article

  • Configuring a library to be included with C++ test

    - by vrish88
    Hello, I would like to utilize the UnitTest++ library in a testing file. However, I am having some difficulty getting the library to be included at compile time. So here is my current directory structure: tests/ UnitTests++/ libUnitTest++.a src/ UnitTests++.h unit/ test.cpp I have just used the UnitTest++ getting started guide to just get the library setup. Here is test.cpp: // test.cpp #include <UnitTest++.h> TEST(FailSpectacularly) { CHECK(false); } int main() { return UnitTest::RunAllTests(); } And I am currently trying to compile with: gcc -lUnitTest++ -L../UnitTest++/ -I../UnitTest++/src/ test.cpp I am currently getting a bunch output with ld: symbol(s) not found at the end. So how would I be able to get the UnitTest++ library properly included when this program is compiled? I am on a Mac and I'd also like for there to be an easy way for people on a Linux machine to run these same tests. Whew, I hope this provides enough information, if not please let me know.

    Read the article

  • JScript JSON Object Check

    - by George
    I'm trying to check if json[0]['DATA']['name'][0]['DATA']['first_0'] exists or not when in some instances json[0]['DATA']['name'] contains nothing. I can check json[0]['DATA']['name'] using if (json[0]['DATA']['name'] == '') { // DOES NOT EXIST } however if (json[0]['DATA']['name'][0]['DATA']['first_0'] == '' || json[0]['DATA']['name'][0]['DATA']['first_0'] == 'undefined') { // DOES NOT EXIST } returns json[0]['DATA']['name'][0]['DATA'] is null or not an object. I understand this is because the array 'name' doesn't contain anything in this case, but in other cases first_0 does exist and json[0]['DATA']['name'] does return a value. Is there a way that I can check json[0]['DATA']['name'][0]['DATA']['first_0'] directly without having to do the following? if (json[0]['DATA']['name'] == '') { if (json[0]['DATA']['name'][0]['DATA']['first_0'] != 'undefined') { // OBJECT EXISTS } }

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96  | Next Page >