Search Results

Search found 13321 results on 533 pages for 'schweb design llc'.

Page 239/533 | < Previous Page | 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246  | Next Page >

  • 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

  • Magic Method __set() on a Instanciated Object

    - by streetparade
    Ok i have a problem, sorry if i cant explaint it clear but the code speaks for its self. i have a class which generates objects from a given class name; Say we say the class is Modules: public function name($name) { $this->includeModule($name); try { $module = new ReflectionClass($name); $instance = $module->isInstantiable() ? $module->newInstance() : "Err"; $this->addDelegate($instance); } catch(Exception $e) { Modules::Name("Logger")->log($e->getMessage()); } return $this; } The AddDelegate Method: protected function addDelegate($delegate) { $this->aDelegates[] = $delegate; } The __call Method public function __call($methodName, $parameters) { $delegated = false; foreach ($this->aDelegates as $delegate) { if(class_exists(get_class($delegate))) { if(method_exists($delegate,$methodName)) { $method = new ReflectionMethod(get_class($delegate), $methodName); $function = array($delegate, $methodName); return call_user_func_array($function, $parameters); } } } The __get Method public function __get($property) { foreach($this->aDelegates as $delegate) { if ($delegate->$property !== false) { return $delegate->$property; } } } All this works fine expect the function __set public function __set($property,$value) { //print_r($this->aDelegates); foreach($this->aDelegates as $k=>$delegate) { //print_r($k); //print_r($delegate); if (property_exists($delegate, $property)) { $delegate->$property = $value; } } //$this->addDelegate($delegate); print_r($this->aDelegates); } class tester { public function __set($name,$value) { self::$module->name(self::$name)->__set($name,$value); } } Module::test("logger")->log("test"); // this logs, it works echo Module::test("logger")->path; //prints /home/bla/test/ this is also correct But i cant set any value to class log like this Module::tester("logger")->path ="/home/bla/test/log/"; The path property of class logger is public so its not a problem of protected or private property access. How can i solve this issue? I hope i could explain my problem clear.

    Read the article

  • How can I get a property as an Entity in Action of Asp.Net Mvc ?

    - by Felipe
    Hi all, i'd like to know how can I get a property like an entity, for example: My Model: public class Product { public int Id { get; set; } public string Name { get; set; } public Category Category { get; set; } } View: Name: <%=Html.TextBoxFor(x => x.Name) %> Category: <%= Html.DropDownList("Category", IEnumerable<SelectListItem>)ViewData["Categories"]) %> Controller: public ActionResult Save(Product product) { /// produtct.Category ??? } and how is the category property ? It's fill by the view ? ASP.Net MVC know how to fill this object by ID ? Thanks!

    Read the article

  • Is there anything wrong with having a few private methods exposing IQueryable<T> and all public meth

    - by Nate Bross
    I'm wondering if there is a better way to approach this problem. The objective is to reuse code. Let’s say that I have a Linq-To-SQL datacontext and I've written a "repository style" class that wraps up a lot of the methods I need and exposes IQueryables. (so far, no problem). Now, I'm building a service layer to sit on top of this repository, many of the service methods will be 1<-1 with repository methods, but some will not. I think a code sample will illustrate this better than words. public class ServiceLayer { MyClassDataContext context; IMyRepository rpo; public ServiceLayer(MyClassDataContext ctx) { context = ctx; rpo = new MyRepository(context); } private IQueryable<MyClass> ReadAllMyClass() { // pretend there is some complex business logic here // and maybe some filtering of the current users access to "all" // that I don't want to repeat in all of the public methods that access // MyClass objects. return rpo.ReadAllMyClass(); } public IEnumerable<MyClass> GetAllMyClass() { // call private IQueryable so we can do attional "in-database" processing return this.ReadAllMyClass(); } public IEnumerable<MyClass> GetActiveMyClass() { // call private IQueryable so we can do attional "in-database" processing // in this case a .Where() clause return this.ReadAllMyClass().Where(mc => mc.IsActive.Equals(true)); } #region "Something my class MAY need to do in the future" private IQueryable<MyOtherTable> ReadAllMyOtherTable() { // there could be additional constrains which define // "all" for the current user return context.MyOtherTable; } public IEnumerable<MyOtherTable> GetAllMyOtherTable() { return this.ReadAllMyOtherTable(); } public IEnumerable<MyOtherTable> GetInactiveOtherTable() { return this.ReadAllMyOtherTable.Where(ot => ot.IsActive.Equals(false)); } #endregion } This particular case is not the best illustration, since I could just call the repository directly in the GetActiveMyClass method, but let’s presume that my private IQueryable does some extra processing and business logic that I don't want to replicate in both of my public methods. Is that a bad way to attack an issue like this? I don't see it being so complex that it really warrants building a third class to sit between the repository and the service class, but I'd like to get your thoughts. For the sake of argument, lets presume two additional things. This service is going to be exposed through WCF and that each of these public IEnumerable methods will be calling a .Select(m => m.ToViewModel()) on each returned collection which will convert it to a POCO for serialization. The service will eventually need to expose some context.SomeOtherTable which wont be wrapped into the repository.

    Read the article

  • Conditional on WebClient

    - by CarryFlag
    Given: thin client (JS) model services client use services. services use model. Model consists of (for sample): Rect Circle ... Ellipse services: class CanvasProviger { public Canvas getCanvas() { return new Canvas(); } } model: class Canvas ... { private List < Figure > figures = new List < Figure >; ... } class Circle extends Figure { private int x, y, r; } class Rect extends Figure { private x, y, w, h; } client: ... var figure = MyJSRPCImpl.getCanvas().nextFigure(); if(figure == JSLocalModel.Rect) { drawRect(figure); } else if(figure == JSLocalModel.Circle) { drawCircle(figure); } ... How else can do way conditional? In rich client I used pattern Visitor. // my bad english, I know =(

    Read the article

  • What difference between Web Apps & Descktop app shoud one keep in mind to model the system right?

    - by simple
    Sometimes it seems like some architectural techniques are not for the Web application I am building and then I just go and code =(, Though I really want to make a habit to architect system before moving to the code, as when I just code I endup writing some useless components which then I rewrite =(, So can you just point out some differences between web apps and desktop ones ?

    Read the article

  • What is the Rule of Thumb on Exposing Encapsulated Class Methods

    - by javamonkey79
    Consider the following analogy: If we have a class: "Car" we might expect it to have an instance of "Engine" in it. As in: "The car HAS-A engine". Similarly, in the "Engine" class we would expect an instance of "Starting System" or "Cooling System" which each have their appropriate sub-components. By the nature of encapsulation, is it not true that the car "HAS-A" "radiator hose" in it as well as the engine? Therefore, is it appropriate OO to do something like this: public class Car { private Engine _engine; public Engine getEngine() { return _engine; } // is it ok to use 'convenience' methods of inner classes? // are the following 2 methods "wrong" from an OO point of view? public RadiatorHose getRadiatorHose() { return getCoolingSystem().getRadiatorHose(); } public CoolingSystem getCoolingSystem() { return _engine.getCoolingSystem(); } } public class Engine { private CoolingSystem _coolingSystem; public CoolingSystem getCoolingSystem() { return _coolingSystem; } } public class CoolingSystem { private RadiatorHose _radiatorHose; public RadiatorHose getRadiatorHose() { return _radiatorHose; } } public class RadiatorHose {//... }

    Read the article

  • What is the best way to expose a callback API - C++

    - by rursw1
    Hi, I have a C++ library that should expose some system\ resource calls as callbacks from the linked application. For example: the interfacing application (which uses this library) can send socket management callback functions - send, receive, open, close etc., and the library will use this implementation in stead of the library's implementation. (This way enables the application to manage the sockets by itself, can be useful). This library has to expose also more callbacks, like, for example, a password validation, so I wonder if there is a preferred method to expose the callback sending option in one API. Something like: int AddCallbackFunc (int functionCallbackType, <generic function prototype>, <generic way to pass some additional arguments>) Then within my library I will assign the callback to the appropriate function pointer according to the functionCallbackType parameter. Is there any way to implement it in a generic way which will fit ANY function prototype and ANY additional arguments? Your help will be more than appreciated... Thanks!

    Read the article

  • Static assembly initialization

    - by ph0enix
    I'm attempting to develop an Interceptor framework (in C#) where I can simply implement some interfaces, and through the use of some static initialization, register all my Interceptors with a common Dispatcher to be invoked at a later time. The problem lies in the fact that my Interceptor implementations are never actually referenced by my application so the static constructors never get called, and as a result, the Interceptors are never registered. If possible, I would like to keep all references to my Interceptor libraries out of my application, as this is my way of (hopefully) enforcing loose coupling across different modules. Hopefully this makes some sense. Let me know if there's anything I can clarify... Does anyone have any ideas, or perhaps a better way to go about implementing my Interceptor pattern? TIA, Jeremy

    Read the article

  • C#. Where struct methods code kept in memory?

    - by maxima120
    It is somewhat known where .NET keeps value types in memory (mostly in stack but could be in heap in certain circumstances etc)... My question is - where is the code of the struct? If I have say 16 byte of data fields in the struct and a massive computation method in it - I am presuming that 16 byte will be copied in stack and the method code is stored somewhere else and is shared for all instances of the struct. Are these presumptions correct?

    Read the article

  • MVC alternatives: examples of MVA & AVC?

    - by Phillip Oldham
    I'm interested in learning about the alternative patterns to Model-View-Controller, specifically the Model-View-Adapter and Application-View-Controller patterns. Google results tend to be either a high-level overview or Java-based. Can anyone either provide, or point me to, an example of these patterns in either PHP, Python or JavaScript?

    Read the article

  • When to update audit fields? DDD

    - by user676767
    I have a Meeting Object: Meeting{id, name, time, CreatedBy, UpdatedBy} and a MeetingAssignee{id, MeetingID, EmployeeId, CreatedBy, UpdatedBy) Meeting, as Aggregate root, has a method AssignEmployee. I was about to pass in the current user to the Meeting object as I call AssignEmployee, so that it can update its audit fields accordingly. But this doesn't seem right - is it? Obviously I can keep the audit fields public and change them later - perhaps at service level? What is everyone's else preferred method for updating these fields? Please note: We are not using Nhibernate, but a custom ORM which does not have anything automatic in place. Thanks.

    Read the article

  • Can I set ignore_dup_key on for a primary key?

    - by Mr. Flibble
    I have a two-column primary key on a table. I have attempted to alter it to set the ignore_dup_key to on with this command: ALTER INDEX PK_mypk on MyTable SET (IGNORE_DUP_KEY = ON); But I get this error: Cannot use index option ignore_dup_key to alter index 'PK_mypk' as it enforces a primary or unique constraint. How else should I set IGNORE_DUP_KEY to on?

    Read the article

  • How do I manipulate a tree of immutable objects?

    - by Frederik
    I'm building an entire application out of immutable objects so that multi-threading and undo become easier to implement. I'm using the Google Collections Library which provides immutable versions of Map, List, and Set. My application model looks like a tree: Scene is a top-level object that contains a reference to a root Node. Each Node can contain child Nodes and Ports. An object graph might look like this: Scene | +-- Node | +-- Node | +- Port +-- Node | +- Port +- Port If all of these objects are immutable, controlled by a top-level SceneController object: What is the best way to construct this hierarchy? How would I replace an object that is arbitrarily deep in the object tree? Is there a way to support back-links, e.g. a Node having a "parent" attribute?

    Read the article

  • Should I use a huge composite primary key or just a unique id?

    - by Jack
    I have been trying to do web scraping of a particular site and storing the results in a database. My original assumptions about the data allowed a schema where I could use fairly reasonable composite primary keys (usually containing only 2 or 3 fields) but as time went on, I realized that my original assumptions about the data were wrong and my primary keys were not as unique as I thought they were, so I have slowly been expanding them to contain more and more fields. In fact, I have recently come to believe that their database has no constraints whatsoever. Just today, I have finally expanded my a primary key for one of my tables to contain every field in that table and I thought now would be a good time to ask: is it better to add an auto-incrementing column that is just a unique id or just leave a composite primary key on the entire table?

    Read the article

  • How much to put in a Repository class?

    - by chobo
    When using the repository pattern is it recommended to have one Repository class for each database table? Would I also map one service layer class to one repository class. I'm having a hard time trying to understand how much stuff one repository or service layer class should have. Thanks!

    Read the article

  • How to make 2 incompatible types, but with the same members, interchangeable?

    - by Quigrim
    Yesterday 2 of the guys on our team came to me with an uncommon problem. We are using a third-party component in one of our winforms applications. All the code has already been written against it. They then wanted to incorporate another third-party component, by the same vender, into our application. To their delight they found that the second component had the exact same public members as the first. But to their dismay, the 2 components have completely separate inheritance hierarchies, and implement no common interfaces. Makes you wonder... Well, makes me wonder. An example of the problem: public class ThirdPartyClass1 { public string Name { get { return "ThirdPartyClass1"; } } public void DoThirdPartyStuff () { Console.WriteLine ("ThirdPartyClass1 is doing its thing."); } } public class ThirdPartyClass2 { public string Name { get { return "ThirdPartyClass2"; } } public void DoThirdPartyStuff () { Console.WriteLine ("ThirdPartyClass2 is doing its thing."); } } Gladly they felt copying and pasting the code they wrote for the first component was not the correct answer. So they were thinking of assigning the component instant into an object reference and then modifying the code to do conditional casts after checking what type it was. But that is arguably even uglier than the copy and paste approach. So they then asked me if I can write some reflection code to access the properties and call the methods off the two different object types since we know what they are, and they are exactly the same. But my first thought was that there goes the elegance. I figure there has to be a better, graceful solution to this problem.

    Read the article

  • Static selection and Ruby on Rails objects

    - by Dave
    Hi all- I have a simple problem, but am having trouble wrapping my head around it. I have an video object that should have one or more "genres". This list of genres should be prepopulated and then the user should just select one or more using autocomplete or some such. Here is the question: Is it worth creating a table with genres for the static selection? Or should it just be included in the presentation layer? If there is a static table, how do we name it correctly. I envision something like this class Video < ActiveRecord::Base has_many :genres ... end class Genre < ... belongs_to :video ... end But then we get a table called genre, that basically maps all the selected genres to their parent videos. There would need to be some static table to reference the static genres. Is this the best way to do it? Sorry if this was rambl-y a little stream of conciousness. Thanks!

    Read the article

  • How to handle request/response propagation up and down a widget hierarchy in a GUI app?

    - by fig-gnuton
    Given a GUI application where widgets can be composed of other widgets: If the user triggers an event resulting in a lower level widget needing data from a model, what's the cleanest way to be able to send that request to a controller (or the datastore itself)? And subsequently get the response back to that widget? Presumably one wouldn't want the controller or datastore to be a singleton directly available to all levels of widgets, or is this an acceptable use of singleton? Or should a top level controller be injected as a dependency through a widget hierarchy, as far down as the lowest level widget that might need that controller? Or a different approach entirely?

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246  | Next Page >