Search Results

Search found 45129 results on 1806 pages for 'public key'.

Page 345/1806 | < Previous Page | 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352  | Next Page >

  • Java extends classes - Share the extended class fields within the super class.

    - by Bastan
    Straight to the point... I have a class public class P_Gen{ protected String s; protected Object oP_Gen; public P_Gen(String str){ s = str; oP_Gen = new Myclass(this); } } Extended class: public class P extends P_Gen{ protected Object oP; public P(String str){ oP = new aClass(str); super(str); } } MyClass: public class MyClass{ protected Object oMC; public MyClass(P extendedObject){ oMc = oP.getSomething(); } } I came to realize that MyClass can only be instantiated with (P_Gen thisObject) as opposed to (P extendedObject). The situation is that I have code generated a bunch of classes like P_Gen. For each of them I have generated a class P which would contains my P specific custom methods and fields. When I'll regenerate my code in the future, P would not be overwritten as P_Gen would. ** So what happened in my case???!!!... I realized that MyClass would beneficiate from the info stored in P in addition to only P_Gen. Would that possible? I know it's not JAVA "realistic" since another class that extends P_Gen might not have the same fields... BY DESIGN, P_Gen will not be extended by anything but P.... And that's where it kinda make sens. :-) at least in other programming language ;-) In other programming language, it seems like P_Gen.this === P.this, in other word, "this" becomes a combination of P and P_Gen. Is there a way to achieve this knowing that P_Gen won't be extended by anything than P?

    Read the article

  • DCI: How to implement Context with Dependency Injection?

    - by ciscoheat
    Most examples of a DCI Context are implemented as a Command pattern. When using Dependency Injection though, it's useful to have the dependencies injected in the constructor and send the parameters into the executing method. Compare the Command pattern class: public class SomeContext { private readonly SomeRole _someRole; private readonly IRepository<User> _userRepository; // Everything goes into the constructor for a true encapsuled command. public SomeContext(SomeRole someRole, IRepository<User> userRepository) { _someRole = someRole; _userRepository = userRepository; } public void Execute() { _someRole.DoStuff(_userRepository); } } With the Dependency injected class: public class SomeContext { private readonly IRepository<User> _userRepository; // Only what can be injected using the DI provider. public SomeContext(IRepository<User> userRepository) { _userRepository = userRepository; } // Parameters from the executing method public void Execute(SomeRole someRole) { someRole.DoStuff(_userRepository); } } The last one seems a bit nicer, but I've never seen it implemented like this so I'm curious if there are any things to consider.

    Read the article

  • C# ? Can anyone explain the strange behaviour?

    - by partizan
    Hi, guys. Here is the example with comments: class Program { // first version of structure public struct D1 { public double d; public int f; } // during some changes in code then we got D2 from D1 // Field f type became double while it was int before public struct D2 { public double d; public double f; } static void Main(string[] args) { // Scenario with the first version D1 a = new D1(); D1 b = new D1(); a.f = b.f = 1; a.d = 0.0; b.d = -0.0; bool r1 = a.Equals(b); // gives true, all is ok // The same scenario with the new one D2 c = new D2(); D2 d = new D2(); c.f = d.f = 1; c.d = 0.0; d.d = -0.0; bool r2 = c.Equals(d); // false, oops! this is not the result i've expected for } } So, what do you think about this?

    Read the article

  • Service behavior not being applied correctly

    - by Rubans
    I have a custom behavior for a service where I want to specify a receive timeout value, I have created a behavior and on the build service header. I use the declarative attribute to apply the behavior or as I thought. But the behavior seems to make no difference, i.e. the set timeout value is not being applied as expected. However when I have noticed the behavior is only being applied when the host is opened rather than when created. The same behavior when applied explicitly through does work. Any ideas? Behavior: [AttributeUsage(AttributeTargets.Class)] public class BuildServiceBindingBehavior : Attribute, IServiceBehavior { public BuildServiceBindingBehavior( string p_receiveTime ) { ReceiveTimeout = TimeSpan.Parse( p_receiveTime ); } #region IServiceBehavior Members public void AddBindingParameters( ServiceDescription serviceDescription, ServiceHostBase serviceHostBase, System.Collections.ObjectModel.Collection<ServiceEndpoint> endpoints, System.ServiceModel.Channels.BindingParameterCollection bindingParameters ) { } public void ApplyDispatchBehavior( ServiceDescription serviceDescription, ServiceHostBase serviceHostBase ) { // add this behavior to each endpoint foreach ( var endPoint in serviceDescription.Endpoints ) { endPoint.Binding.ReceiveTimeout = ReceiveTimeout; } } public void Validate( ServiceDescription serviceDescription, ServiceHostBase serviceHostBase ) { } #endregion internal TimeSpan ReceiveTimeout { get; set; } } Service code: [ServiceBehavior(Name = "DotNetBuildsService", InstanceContextMode = InstanceContextMode.PerSession, ConcurrencyMode = ConcurrencyMode.Single )] // Set receieve time out [BuildServiceBindingBehavior( "0:0:1" )] public class BuildService : IBuildTasksService { //implementation code }

    Read the article

  • How do I pass references as method parameters across AppDomains?

    - by Thiado de Arruda
    I have been trying to get the following code to work(everything is defined in the same assembly) : namespace SomeApp{ public class A : MarshalByRefObject { public byte[] GetSomeData() { // } } public class B : MarshalByRefObject { private A remoteObj; public void SetA(A remoteObj) { this.remoteObj = remoteObj; } } public class C { A someA = new A(); public void Init() { AppDomain domain = AppDomain.CreateDomain("ChildDomain"); string currentAssemblyPath = Assembly.GetExecutingAssembly().Location; B remoteB = domain.domain.CreateInstanceFromAndUnwrap(currentAssemblyPath,"SomeApp.B") as B; remoteB.SetA(someA); // this throws an ArgumentException "Object type cannot be converted to target type." } } } What I'm trying to do is pass a reference of an 'A' instance created in the first AppDomain to the child domain and have the child domain execute a method on the first domain. In some point on 'B' code I'm going to call 'remoteObj.GetSomeData()'. This has to be done because the 'byte[]' from 'GetSomeData' method must be 'calculated' on the first appdomain. What should I do to avoid the exception, or what can I do to achieve the same result?

    Read the article

  • Java Inheritance doubt in parameterised collection

    - by Gala101
    It's obvious that a parent class's object can hold a reference to a child, but does this not hold true in case of parameterised collection ?? eg: Car class is parent of Sedan So public void doSomething(Car c){ ... } public void caller(){ Sedan s = new Sedan(); doSomething(s); } is obviously valid But public void doSomething(Collection<Car> c){ ... } public void caller(){ Collection<Sedan> s = new ArrayList<Sedan>(); doSomething(s); } Fails to compile Can someone please point out why? and also, how to implement such a scenario where a function needs to iterate through a Collection of parent objects, modifying only the fields present in parent class, using parent class methods, but the calling methods (say 3 different methods) pass the collection of three different subtypes.. Ofcourse it compiles fine if I do as below: public void doSomething(Collection<Car> c){ ... } public void caller(){ Collection s = new ArrayList<Sedan>(); doSomething(s); }

    Read the article

  • java template design

    - by Sean Nguyen
    Hi, I have this class: public class Converter { private Logger logger = Logger.getLogger(Converter.class); public String convert(String s){ if (s == null) throw new IllegalArgumentException("input can't be null"); logger.debug("Input = " + s); String r = s + "abc"; logger.debug("Output = " + s); return r; } public Integer convert(Integer s){ if (s == null) throw new IllegalArgumentException("input can't be null"); logger.debug("Input = " + s); Integer r = s + 10; logger.debug("Output = " + s); return r; } } The above 2 methods are very similar so I want to create a template to do the similar things and delegate the actual work to the approriate class. But I also want to easily extends this frame work without changing the template. So for example: public class ConverterTemplate { private Logger logger = Logger.getLogger(Converter.class); public Object convert(Object s){ if (s == null) throw new IllegalArgumentException("input can't be null"); logger.debug("Input = " + s); Object r = doConverter(); logger.debug("Output = " + s); return r; } protected abstract Object doConverter(Object arg); } public class MyConverter extends ConverterTemplate { protected String doConverter(String str) { String r = str + "abc"; return r; } protected Integer doConverter(Integer arg) { Integer r = arg + 10; return r; } } But that doesn't work. Can anybody suggest me a better way to do that? I want to achieve 2 goals: 1. A template that is extensible and does all the similar work for me. 2. I ant to minimize the number of extended class. Thanks,

    Read the article

  • Using abstract base to implement private parts of a template class?

    - by StackedCrooked
    When using templates to implement mix-ins (as an alternative to multiple inheritance) there is the problem that all code must be in the header file. I'm thinking of using an abstract base class to get around that problem. Here's a code sample: class Widget { public: virtual ~Widget() {} }; // Abstract base class allows to put code in .cpp file. class AbstractDrawable { public: virtual ~AbstractDrawable() = 0; virtual void draw(); virtual int getMinimumSize() const; }; // Drawable mix-in template<class T> class Drawable : public T, public AbstractDrawable { public: virtual ~Drawable() {} virtual void draw() { AbstractDrawable::draw(); } virtual int getMinimumSize() const { return AbstractDrawable::getMinimumSize(); } }; class Image : public Drawable< Widget > { }; int main() { Image i; i.draw(); return 0; } Has anyone walked that road before? Are there any pitfalls that I should be aware of?

    Read the article

  • Why do I get Error#2036 in flash AS3 and how to solve this?

    - by sydas
    I'm currently building an application in flash in relation to RSS/XML feeds for a project. I'm stuck at the moment because I keep getting this error: Error opening URL 'http://distilleryimage6.instagram.com/.jpg' Error #2044: Unhandled IOErrorEvent:. text=Error #2036: Load Never Completed. I know my string picURL is not functioning properly, but am I missing something that makes it not functional? This is my code: package { import flash.display.*; import flash.events.*; import flash.net.*; public class instagramFeed extends MovieClip { //link to #rit xml loader public var ritFileRequest = new URLRequest("http://instagram.com/tags/rit/feed/recent.rss"); public var ritXmlLoader = new URLLoader(); //link to #rochester xml loader // same as above public variables public function instagramFeed() { // constructor code trace("About to load..."); //Loads #rit hashtag xml data. ritXmlLoader.load(ritFileRequest); ritXmlLoader.addEventListener(Event.COMPLETE, displayRITInfo); } //focuses on data with #rit hashtag public function displayRITInfo(e:Event):void{ var ritInstagramData:XML = new XML(ritXmlLoader.data); var ritInfoList:XMLList = ritInstagramData.elements().item; trace(ritInfoList); //load the image var ritPic:String = ritInfoList.*::condition.@code; var picURL:String = "http://distilleryimage6.instagram.com/" + ritPic + ".jpg"; trace(picURL); //show the image on the stage! var ritImageRequest:URLRequest = new URLRequest(picURL); var ritImageLoader:Loader = new Loader(); ritImageLoader.load(ritImageRequest); addChild(ritImageLoader); ritImageLoader.x=200; ritImageLoader.y=100; ritImageLoader.scaleX = 3; ritImageLoader.scaleY = 3; } } }

    Read the article

  • pass Value from class to JFrame

    - by MYE
    Hello everybody! i have problem between pass value from Class to another JFrame my code write follow MVC Model. Therefore i have 1 class is controller , one jframe is view and 1 class is model. i have some handle process on controller to get value on it and i want this value to jframe but not pass by constructor . How can i pass value from class to jframe and when value be pass jframe will use it to handle. Ex: public class A{ private String str; public A(){ } public void handle(){ ViewFrame v = new ViewFrame(); v.setVisible(true); v.pack(). v.setSize(330,600); str = "Hello World"; //init value here v.getString(str);// pass value to jframe here. } } ======================= public class ViewFrame extends JFrame{ private String str; public ViewFrame (){ System.out.println(str); } public String getString(String str){ return this.str = str; } } but it return null??

    Read the article

  • Can you explain this generics behavior and if I have a workaround?

    - by insta
    Sample program below: using System; using System.Collections.Generic; using System.Linq; using System.Text; namespace GenericsTest { class Program { static void Main(string[] args) { IRetrievable<int, User> repo = new FakeRepository(); Console.WriteLine(repo.Retrieve(35)); } } class User { public int Id { get; set; } public string Name { get; set; } } class FakeRepository : BaseRepository<User>, ICreatable<User>, IDeletable<User>, IRetrievable<int, User> { // why do I have to implement this here, instead of letting the // TKey generics implementation in the baseclass handle it? //public User Retrieve(int input) //{ // throw new NotImplementedException(); //} } class BaseRepository<TPoco> where TPoco : class,new() { public virtual TPoco Create() { return new TPoco(); } public virtual bool Delete(TPoco item) { return true; } public virtual TPoco Retrieve<TKey>(TKey input) { return null; } } interface ICreatable<TPoco> { TPoco Create(); } interface IDeletable<TPoco> { bool Delete(TPoco item); } interface IRetrievable<TKey, TPoco> { TPoco Retrieve(TKey input); } } This sample program represents the interfaces my actual program uses, and demonstrates the problem I'm having (commented out in FakeRepository). I would like for this method call to be generically handled by the base class (which in my real example is able to handle 95% of the cases given to it), allowing for overrides in the child classes by specifying the type of TKey explicitly. It doesn't seem to matter what parameter constraints I use for the IRetrievable, I can never get the method call to fall through to the base class. Also, if anyone can see an alternate way to implement this kind of behavior and get the result I'm ultimately looking for, I would be very interested to see it. Thoughts?

    Read the article

  • Is there a way to make sure classes implementing an Interface implement static methods?

    - by Tobias Kienzler
    Frist of all, I read erickson's usefull reply to "Why can’t I define a static method in a Java interface?". This question is not about the "why" but about the "how then?". So basically I want one Interface to provide both usual methods and e.g. a getSimilarObject method. For (a made up) example public interface ParametricFunction { /** @return f(x) using the parameters */ static abstract public double getValue(double x, double[] parameters); /** @return The function's name */ static abstract public String getName(); } and then public class Parabola implements ParametricFunction { /** @return f(x) = parameters[0] * x² + parameters[1] * x + parameters[2] */ static public double getValue(double x, double[] parameters) { return ( parameters[2] + x*(parameters[1] + x*parameters[0])); } static public String getName() { return "Parabola"; } } Since this is not allowed in the current Java standard, what is the closest thing to this? The idea behind this is putting several ParametricFunction's in a package and use Reflection to list them all, allowing the user to pick e.g. which one to plot. Obviously one could provide a loader class containing an array of the available ParametricFunction's, but every time a new one is implemented one has to remember adding it there, too.

    Read the article

  • How to use App.Xaml's ResourseDictionaries with own entry point

    - by Polaris
    Hello friends. I created some logic for singleInstance application and I must to use my own entry point (not App.xaml) for Application. I have some styles in App.xaml which now is not working. How can I use this ResourceDictionaries from my App.xaml for entire project in my situation? My class for manage Application Startup public class SingleInstanceManager : WindowsFormsApplicationBase { App app; public SingleInstanceManager() { this.IsSingleInstance = true; } protected override bool OnStartup(Microsoft.VisualBasic.ApplicationServices.StartupEventArgs e) { try { // First time app is launched app = new App(); App.Current.Properties["rcID"] = e.CommandLine; //IntroLibrary.OpenDocumentFromNotify(); app.Run(); return false; } catch (Exception ex) { MessageBox.Show(ex.Message); return false; } } protected override void OnStartupNextInstance(StartupNextInstanceEventArgs eventArgs) { // Subsequent launches base.OnStartupNextInstance(eventArgs); Intro win = (Intro)app.MainWindow; if (eventArgs != null) { App.Current.Properties["rcID"] = eventArgs.CommandLine[0]; } IntroLibrary.OpenDocumentFromNotify(); app.Activate(); } } and my own Entry Point: public class EntryPoint { [STAThread] public static void Main(string[] args) { SingleInstanceManager manager = new SingleInstanceManager(); manager.Run(args); } } And my App.Xaml code behind: public partial class App : Application { protected override void OnStartup(System.Windows.StartupEventArgs e) { base.OnStartup(e); // Create and show the application's main window Intro window = new Intro(); window.Show(); } public void Activate() { // Reactivate application's main window this.MainWindow.Activate(); } } And my App.xaml has some code which decribe ResourceDictionaries which doesnt work. Why?

    Read the article

  • How to bind Assisted Injected class to interface?

    - by eric2323223
    Here is the problem I met: Class SimpleCommand implements Executable{ private final ConfigManager config; private String name; @Inject public SimpleCommand(ConfigManager config, @Assisted String name){ this.config = config; this.name = name; } } Class MyModule extends AbstractModule{ @Override protected void configure() { bind(CommandFactory.class).toProvider(FactoryProvider.newFactory(CommandFactory.class, SimpleCommand.class)); bind(Executable.class).to(SimpleCommand.class); } } When I try to get instance of SimpleCommand using: Guice.createInjector(new MyModule()).getInstance(CommandFactory.class).create("sample command"); I got this error: 1) No implementation for java.lang.String annotated with @com.google.inject.assistedinject.Assisted(value=) was bound. while locating java.lang.String annotated with @com.google.inject.assistedinject.Assisted(value=) for parameter 2 at model.Command.<init>(SimpleCommand.java:58) at module.MyModule.configure(MyModule.java:34) So my problem is how can I bind SimpleCommand to Executable when SimpleCommand has Assisted Injected parameter? Here is the CommandFactory and its implementation: public interface CommandFactory{ public Command create(String name); } public class GuiceCommandFactory implements CommandFactory{ private Provider<ConfigManager> configManager ; @Inject public GuiceCommandFactory(Provider<ConfigManager> configManager){ this.configManager = configManager; } public Command create(String cmd){ return new Command(configManager.get(), cmd); } }

    Read the article

  • Dependencyproperty doesn't have value on load

    - by Jakob
    My problem is this, I have a UC called profile that contains another UC called FollowImageControl. In my Profile.xaml i declaretively bind a property of FollowImageControl called FollowerId to a CurrentUserId from Profile.xaml.cs. Problem is that I CurrentUserId is assigned in Profile.xaml.cs; the Profile.xaml code-behind. This means that I do not initially get the FollowerId. I have these methods in the FollowImageControl.xaml.cs: public static readonly DependencyProperty _followUserId = DependencyProperty.Register("FollowUserId", typeof(Guid), typeof(FollowImageControl), null); public Guid FollowUserId { get { return (Guid)GetValue(_followUserId); } set { SetValue(_followUserId, value); } } public FollowImageControl() { // Required to initialize variables InitializeComponent(); LoggedInUserId = WebContext.Current.User.UserId; var ctx = new NotesDomainContext(); if (ctx.IsFollowingUser(LoggedInUserId, FollowUserId).Value) SwitchToDelete.Begin(); } private void AddImg_MouseLeftButtonDown(object sender, MouseButtonEventArgs e) { if (LoggedInUserId != FollowUserId) { var ctx = new NotesDomainContext(); ctx.FollowUser(FollowUserId, LoggedInUserId); ctx.SubmitChanges(); } } THE WEIRD THING IS that when i insert breakpoints the FollowerUserId in FollowImageControl() is 0, but it has a value in AddImg_MouseLeftButtonDown, and there is no inbetween logic that sets the value of it. How is this??? Here's a little more code info: This is my binding from profile.xaml <internalCtrl:FollowImageControl FollowUserId="{Binding ElementName=ProfileCtrl, Path=CurrentUserId}" /> this is my constructor in profile.xaml.cs wherein the CurrentUserId is set public static readonly DependencyProperty _CurrentUserId = DependencyProperty.Register("CurrentUserId", typeof(Guid), typeof(Profile), null); public Guid CurrentUserId { get { return (Guid)GetValue(_CurrentUserId); } set { SetValue(_CurrentUserId, value); } } public Profile(Guid UserId) { CurrentUserId = UserId; InitializeComponent(); Loaded += new RoutedEventHandler(Profile_Loaded); } I'm seriously dumbfound that one minute the FollowerId has no value, and the next it holds the right, without me having changed the value in the code-behind.

    Read the article

  • Wouldn't it be nice to have a type variable referring to the class's instance.

    - by user93197
    I often have a pattern like this: class VectorBase<SubClass, Element> where SubClass : VectorBase<SubClass, Element>, new() where Element : Addable<Element> { Element[] data; public VectorBase(Element[] data) { this.data = data; } public SubClass add(SubClass second) { Element[] newData = new Element[data.Length]; for (int i = 0; i < newData.Length; i++) { newData[i] = data[i].add(second.data[i]); } SubClass result = new SubClass(); result.data = newData; return result; } } class VectorInt : VectorBase<VectorInt, Int32> { } class MyInt : Addable<MyInt> { int data; public MyInt(int data) { this.data = data; } public MyInt add(MyInt t) { return new MyInt(data + t.data); } } interface Addable<T> { T add(T t); } But I would rather just have: class VectorBase2<Element> where Element : Addable<Element> { Element[] data; public VectorBase(Element[] data) { this.data = data; } public SubClass add(SubClass second) { Element[] newData = new Element[data.Length]; for (int i = 0; i < newData.Length; i++) { newData[i] = data[i].add(second.data[i]); } SubClass result = new SubClass(data); return result; } } class VectorInt2 : VectorBase2<Int32> { } Why not make the subclass type available to all classes? Is this technically impossible?

    Read the article

  • Followed the official android documentations but still could not use SQLite in app

    - by user366539
    My DBHelper class public class DBHelper extends SQLiteOpenHelper { public DBHelper(Context context) { super(context,"SIMPLE_DB",null,1); } @Override public void onCreate(SQLiteDatabase db) { db.execSQL("CREATE TABLE SIMPLE_TABLE ( " + "ID INTEGER PRIMARY KEY " + "DESC TEXT);"); } @Override public void onUpgrade(SQLiteDatabase db, int oldVersion, int newVersion) { } } Activity class public class SimpleDatabase extends Activity { /** Called when the activity is first created. */ @Override public void onCreate(Bundle savedInstanceState) { super.onCreate(savedInstanceState); setContentView(R.layout.main); DBHelper dbHelper = new DBHelper(this); SQLiteDatabase db = dbHelper.getReadableDatabase(); db.execSQL("INSERT INTO SIMPLE_TABLE VALUES (NULL, 'test');"); Cursor cursor = db.rawQuery("SELECT * FROM SIMPLE_TABLE", null); TextView text = (TextView)findViewById(R.id.textbox); text.setText(cursor.getString(0)); } } I figure it crashed (application has stopped unexpectedly!) at SQLiteDatabase db = ... because if I commented the code out from there to the end then it worked fine. But I have no idea whatsoever why it does that. Any help would be appreciated.

    Read the article

  • Adding functions to Java class libraries

    - by Eric
    I'm using a Java class library that is in many ways incomplete: there are many classes that I feel ought to have additional member functions built in. However, I am unsure of the best practice of adding these member functions. Lets call the insufficient base class A. class A { public A(/*long arbitrary arguments*/) { //... } public A(/*long even more arbitrary arguments*/) { //... } public int func() { return 1; } } Ideally, I would like to add a function to A. However, I can't do that. My choice is between: class B extends A { //Implement ALL of A's constructors here public int reallyUsefulFunction() { return func()+1; } } and class AddedFuncs { public int reallyUsefulFunction(A a) { return a.func()+1; } } The way I see it, they both have advantages and disadvantages. The first choice gives a cleaner syntax than the second, and is more logical, but has problems: Let's say I have a third class, C, within the class library. class C { public A func() { return new A(/*...*/); } } As I see it, there is no easy way of doing this: C c; int useful = c.func().reallyUsefulFunction(); as the type returned by C.func() is an A, not a B, and you can't down-cast. So what is the best way of adding a member function to a read-only library class?

    Read the article

  • Problem Binding to a Brush Property in WPF

    - by Krisc
    Working in WPF, writing a custom user control. I am trying to change the background property of the Border element when I change the value of a property of the class. Right now I am working on simply binding it to a DP, though if there is a better way I am open to suggestions. Here is the XAML for the UserControl <UserControl x:Class="MyProject.MyControl" xmlns="http://schemas.microsoft.com/winfx/2006/xaml/presentation" xmlns:x="http://schemas.microsoft.com/winfx/2006/xaml" xmlns:mc="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/markup-compatibility/2006" xmlns:d="http://schemas.microsoft.com/expression/blend/2008" xmlns:js="clr-namespace:MyProject" mc:Ignorable="d" x:Name="MyControlRootLayout" Background="Transparent" d:DesignHeight="300" d:DesignWidth="300" Cursor="Hand"> <Border x:Name="RootBorder" Background="{Binding Path=CoreBackground, ElementName=MyControlRootLayout}" > </Border> </UserControl> And the code... public partial class MyControl : UserControl { public static DependencyProperty IsSelectedProperty = DependencyProperty.Register("IsSelected", typeof(bool), typeof(MyControl)); public static DependencyProperty CoreBackgroundProperty = DependencyProperty.Register("CoreBackground", typeof(Brush), typeof(MyControl)); public MyControl() { CoreBackground = new SolidColorBrush(Color.FromArgb(0, 255, 245, 104)); InitializeComponent(); Margin = new Thickness(5); } public Brush CoreBackground { get { return (Brush)GetValue(CoreBackgroundProperty); } set { SetValue(CoreBackgroundProperty, value); } } public bool IsSelected { get { return (bool)GetValue(IsSelectedProperty); } private set { SetValue(IsSelectedProperty, value); } } } Instead, the background comes out as transparent.

    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

  • Initializing ExportFactory using MEF

    - by Riz
    Scenario Application has multiple parts. Each part is in separate dll and implements interface IFoo All such dlls are present in same directory (plugins) The application can instantiate multiple instances of each part Below is the code snippet for the interfaces, part(export) and the import. The problem I am running into is, the "factories" object is initialized with empty list. However, if I try container.Resolve(typeof(IEnumerable< IFoo )) I do get object with the part. But that doesn't serve my purpose (point 4). Can anyone point what I am doing wrong here? public interface IFoo { string Name { get; } } public interface IFooMeta { string CompType { get; } } Implementation of IFoo in separate Dll [ExportMetadata("CompType", "Foo1")] [Export(typeof(IFoo), RequiredCreationPolicy = CreationPolicy.NonShared))] public class Foo1 : IFoo { public string Name { get { return this.GetType().ToString(); } } } Main application that loads all the parts and instantiate them as needed class PartsManager { [ImportMany] private IEnumerable<ExportFactory<IFoo, IFooMeta>> factories; public PartsManager() { IContainer container = ConstructContainer(); factories = (IEnumerable<ExportFactory<IFoo, IFooMeta>>) container.Resolve(typeof(IEnumerable<ExportFactory<IFoo, IFooMeta>>)); } private static IContainer ConstructContainer() { var catalog = new DirectoryCatalog(@"C:\plugins\"); var builder = new ContainerBuilder(); builder.RegisterComposablePartCatalog(catalog); return builder.Build(); } public IFoo GetPart(string compType) { var matchingFactory = factories.FirstOrDefault( x => x.Metadata.CompType == compType); if (factories == null) { return null; } else { IFoo foo = matchingFactory.CreateExport().Value; return foo; } } }

    Read the article

  • variables in abstract classes C++

    - by wyatt
    I have an abstract class CommandPath, and a number of derived classes as below: class CommandPath { public: virtual CommandResponse handleCommand(std::string) = 0; virtual CommandResponse execute() = 0; virtual ~CommandPath() {} }; class GetTimeCommandPath : public CommandPath { int stage; public: GetTimeCommandPath() : stage(0) {} CommandResponse handleCommand(std::string); CommandResponse execute(); }; All of the derived classes have the member variable 'stage'. I want to build a function into all of them which manipulates 'stage' in the same way, so rather than defining it many times I thought I'd build it into the parent class. I moved 'stage' from the private sections of all of the derived classes into the protected section of CommandPath, and added the function as follows: class CommandPath { protected: int stage; public: virtual CommandResponse handleCommand(std::string) = 0; virtual CommandResponse execute() = 0; std::string confirmCommand(std::string, int, int, std::string, std::string); virtual ~CommandPath() {} }; class GetTimeCommandPath : public CommandPath { public: GetTimeCommandPath() : stage(0) {} CommandResponse handleCommand(std::string); CommandResponse execute(); }; Now my compiler tells me for the constructor lines that none of the derived classes have a member 'stage'. I was under the impression that protected members are visible to derived classes? The constructor is the same in all classes, so I suppose I could move it to the parent class, but I'm more concerned about finding out why the derived classes aren't able to access the variable. Also, since previously I've only used the parent class for pure virtual functions, I wanted to confirm that this is the way to go about adding a function to be inherited by all derived classes.

    Read the article

  • Get the parent class of a null object (C# Reflection)

    - by Nick
    How would I get the parent class of an object that has a value of null? For example... 'Class A' contains 'int? i' which is not set to any value when the class is created. Then in some other place in the code I want to pass in 'i' as a parameter to some function. Using 'i' as the only info, I want to be able to figure out that 'Class A' "owns" 'i'. The reason for this is because 'Class A' also contains some other object, and I want to call this other object's value from that same function mentioned in the above paragraph. Could also be: public class A { public class B { public int? i; public int? j; } B classBInstance = new B(); public string s; } { ... A someClassAInstance = new A(); ... doSomething(someClassAInstance.classBInstance.i); ... } public static bool doSomething(object theObject) { string s = /* SOMETHING on theObject to get to "s" from Class A */; int someValue = (int)theObject; }

    Read the article

  • Why do we need serialization in web service

    - by Cloud2010
    I have one webservice: public class Product { public int ProductId { get; set; } public string ProductName { get; set; } } public class Service : System.Web.Services.WebService { public Service () { //Uncomment the following line if using designed components //InitializeComponent(); } [WebMethod] public List<Product> GetItems() { List<Product> productList = new List<Product>() { new Product{ProductId=1,ProductName="Pencil"}, new Product{ProductId=2,ProductName="Pen"} }; return productList; } and in a asp.net application I am consuming it like: localhost.Service s = new localhost.Service(); List<localhost.Product> k = new List<localhost.Product>(); k = s.GetItems().ToList(); // i am getting the values here. now my question is do I need to serialize my webmethod as i am returning custom types? when should we serialize ? is it necessary at all, if yes , then what are the conditions?

    Read the article

  • C#; listbox's as one object(container)

    - by Oyeme
    Hello, I use Visual studio 2008 I have 5 listbox's on form,I created a new class file -called him "scaner.cs" scaner.cs -he cannot see "listbox". I have create an instance. scaner Comp = new scaner(listBox2, listBox1, listBox3, listBox4, listBox5); In scaner.cs file I use it like this. class scaner { public ListBox ls; public ListBox lsE; public ListBox lsIVars; public ListBox lsNumbers; public ListBox lsStrings; public scaner(ListBox ls, ListBox lsE, ListBox lsIVars, ListBox lsNumbers, ListBox lsStrings) { this.ls = ls; this.lsE = lsE; this.lsIVars = lsIVars; this.lsNumbers = lsNumbers; this.lsStrings = lsStrings; } } My question : How can i replaced this big code to more "comfortably" method. scaner Comp = new scaner(listBox2, listBox1, listBox3, listBox4, listBox5); IF i had more then 5 listbox's ,it will be awful. How can i acced form another class file "Listbox's" Thanks for answers.

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352  | Next Page >