Search Results

Search found 32484 results on 1300 pages for 'method overriding'.

Page 1/1300 | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >

• Partial overriding in Java (or dynamic overriding while overloading)

  - by Lie Ryan

  If I have a parent-child that defines some method .foo() like this: class Parent { public void foo(Parent arg) { System.out.println("foo in Function"); } } class Child extends Parent { public void foo(Child arg) { System.out.println("foo in ChildFunction"); } } When I called them like this: Child f = new Child(); Parent g = f; f.foo(new Parent()); f.foo(new Child()); g.foo(new Parent()); g.foo(new Child()); the output is: foo in Parent foo in Child foo in Parent foo in Parent But, I want this output: foo in Parent foo in Child foo in Parent foo in Child I have a Child class that extends Parent class. In the Child class, I want to "partially override" the Parent's foo(), that is, if the argument arg's type is Child then Child's foo() is called instead of Parent's foo(). That works Ok when I called f.foo(...) as a Child; but if I refer to it from its Parent alias like in g.foo(...) then the Parent's foo(..) get called irrespective of the type of arg. As I understand it, what I'm expecting doesn't happen because method overloading in Java is early binding (i.e. resolved statically at compile time) while method overriding is late binding (i.e. resolved dynamically at compile time) and since I defined a function with a technically different argument type, I'm technically overloading the Parent's class definition with a distinct definition, not overriding it. But what I want to do is conceptually "partially overriding" when .foo()'s argument is a subclass of the parent's foo()'s argument. I know I can define a bucket override foo(Parent arg) in Child that checks whether arg's actual type is Parent or Child and pass it properly, but if I have twenty Child, that would be lots of duplication of type-unsafe code. In my actual code, Parent is an abstract class named "Function" that simply throws NotImplementedException(). The children includes "Polynomial", "Logarithmic", etc and .foo() includes things like Child.add(Child), Child.intersectionsWith(Child), etc. Not all combination of Child.foo(OtherChild) are solvable and in fact not even all Child.foo(Child) is solvable. So I'm best left with defining everything undefined (i.e. throwing NotImplementedException) then defines only those that can be defined. So the question is: Is there any way to override only part the parent's foo()? Or is there a better way to do what I want to do?

  Read the article

• Creating a dynamic proxy generator with c# – Part 4 – Calling the base method

  - by SeanMcAlinden

  Creating a dynamic proxy generator with c# – Part 1 – Creating the Assembly builder, Module builder and caching mechanism Creating a dynamic proxy generator with c# – Part 2 – Interceptor Design Creating a dynamic proxy generator with c# – Part 3 – Creating the constructors   The plan for calling the base methods from the proxy is to create a private method for each overridden proxy method, this will allow the proxy to use a delegate to simply invoke the private method when required. Quite a few helper classes have been created to make this possible so as usual I would suggest download or viewing the code at http://rapidioc.codeplex.com/. In this post I’m just going to cover the main points for when creating methods. Getting the methods to override The first two notable methods are for getting the methods. private static MethodInfo[] GetMethodsToOverride<TBase>() where TBase : class {     return typeof(TBase).GetMethods().Where(x =>         !methodsToIgnore.Contains(x.Name) &&                              (x.Attributes & MethodAttributes.Final) == 0)         .ToArray(); } private static StringCollection GetMethodsToIgnore() {     return new StringCollection()     {         "ToString",         "GetHashCode",         "Equals",         "GetType"     }; } The GetMethodsToIgnore method string collection contains an array of methods that I don’t want to override. In the GetMethodsToOverride method, you’ll notice a binary AND which is basically saying not to include any methods marked final i.e. not virtual. Creating the MethodInfo for calling the base method This method should hopefully be fairly easy to follow, it’s only function is to create a MethodInfo which points to the correct base method, and with the correct parameters. private static MethodInfo CreateCallBaseMethodInfo<TBase>(MethodInfo method) where TBase : class {     Type[] baseMethodParameterTypes = ParameterHelper.GetParameterTypes(method, method.GetParameters());       return typeof(TBase).GetMethod(        method.Name,        BindingFlags.Instance | BindingFlags.Public | BindingFlags.NonPublic,        null,        baseMethodParameterTypes,        null     ); }   /// <summary> /// Get the parameter types. /// </summary> /// <param name="method">The method.</param> /// <param name="parameters">The parameters.</param> public static Type[] GetParameterTypes(MethodInfo method, ParameterInfo[] parameters) {     Type[] parameterTypesList = Type.EmptyTypes;       if (parameters.Length > 0)     {         parameterTypesList = CreateParametersList(parameters);     }     return parameterTypesList; }   Creating the new private methods for calling the base method The following method outline how I’ve created the private methods for calling the base class method. private static MethodBuilder CreateCallBaseMethodBuilder(TypeBuilder typeBuilder, MethodInfo method) {     string callBaseSuffix = "GetBaseMethod";       if (method.IsGenericMethod || method.IsGenericMethodDefinition)     {                         return MethodHelper.SetUpGenericMethod             (                 typeBuilder,                 method,                 method.Name + callBaseSuffix,                 MethodAttributes.Private | MethodAttributes.HideBySig             );     }     else     {         return MethodHelper.SetupNonGenericMethod             (                 typeBuilder,                 method,                 method.Name + callBaseSuffix,                 MethodAttributes.Private | MethodAttributes.HideBySig             );     } } The CreateCallBaseMethodBuilder is the entry point method for creating the call base method. I’ve added a suffix to the base classes method name to keep it unique. Non Generic Methods Creating a non generic method is fairly simple public static MethodBuilder SetupNonGenericMethod(     TypeBuilder typeBuilder,     MethodInfo method,     string methodName,     MethodAttributes methodAttributes) {     ParameterInfo[] parameters = method.GetParameters();       Type[] parameterTypes = ParameterHelper.GetParameterTypes(method, parameters);       Type returnType = method.ReturnType;       MethodBuilder methodBuilder = CreateMethodBuilder         (             typeBuilder,             method,             methodName,             methodAttributes,             parameterTypes,             returnType         );       ParameterHelper.SetUpParameters(parameterTypes, parameters, methodBuilder);       return methodBuilder; }   private static MethodBuilder CreateMethodBuilder (     TypeBuilder typeBuilder,     MethodInfo method,     string methodName,     MethodAttributes methodAttributes,     Type[] parameterTypes,     Type returnType ) { MethodBuilder methodBuilder = typeBuilder.DefineMethod(methodName, methodAttributes, returnType, parameterTypes); return methodBuilder; } As you can see, you simply have to declare a method builder, get the parameter types, and set the method attributes you want.   Generic Methods Creating generic methods takes a little bit more work. /// <summary> /// Sets up generic method. /// </summary> /// <param name="typeBuilder">The type builder.</param> /// <param name="method">The method.</param> /// <param name="methodName">Name of the method.</param> /// <param name="methodAttributes">The method attributes.</param> public static MethodBuilder SetUpGenericMethod     (         TypeBuilder typeBuilder,         MethodInfo method,         string methodName,         MethodAttributes methodAttributes     ) {     ParameterInfo[] parameters = method.GetParameters();       Type[] parameterTypes = ParameterHelper.GetParameterTypes(method, parameters);       MethodBuilder methodBuilder = typeBuilder.DefineMethod(methodName,         methodAttributes);       Type[] genericArguments = method.GetGenericArguments();       GenericTypeParameterBuilder[] genericTypeParameters =         GetGenericTypeParameters(methodBuilder, genericArguments);       ParameterHelper.SetUpParameterConstraints(parameterTypes, genericTypeParameters);       SetUpReturnType(method, methodBuilder, genericTypeParameters);       if (method.IsGenericMethod)     {         methodBuilder.MakeGenericMethod(genericArguments);     }       ParameterHelper.SetUpParameters(parameterTypes, parameters, methodBuilder);       return methodBuilder; }   private static GenericTypeParameterBuilder[] GetGenericTypeParameters     (         MethodBuilder methodBuilder,         Type[] genericArguments     ) {     return methodBuilder.DefineGenericParameters(GenericsHelper.GetArgumentNames(genericArguments)); }   private static void SetUpReturnType(MethodInfo method, MethodBuilder methodBuilder, GenericTypeParameterBuilder[] genericTypeParameters) {     if (method.IsGenericMethodDefinition)     {         SetUpGenericDefinitionReturnType(method, methodBuilder, genericTypeParameters);     }     else     {         methodBuilder.SetReturnType(method.ReturnType);     } }   private static void SetUpGenericDefinitionReturnType(MethodInfo method, MethodBuilder methodBuilder, GenericTypeParameterBuilder[] genericTypeParameters) {     if (method.ReturnType == null)     {         methodBuilder.SetReturnType(typeof(void));     }     else if (method.ReturnType.IsGenericType)     {         methodBuilder.SetReturnType(genericTypeParameters.Where             (x => x.Name == method.ReturnType.Name).First());     }     else     {         methodBuilder.SetReturnType(method.ReturnType);     }             } Ok, there are a few helper methods missing, basically there is way to much code to put in this post, take a look at the code at http://rapidioc.codeplex.com/ to follow it through completely. Basically though, when dealing with generics there is extra work to do in terms of getting the generic argument types setting up any generic parameter constraints setting up the return type setting up the method as a generic All of the information is easy to get via reflection from the MethodInfo.   Emitting the new private method Emitting the new private method is relatively simple as it’s only function is calling the base method and returning a result if the return type is not void. ILGenerator il = privateMethodBuilder.GetILGenerator();   EmitCallBaseMethod(method, callBaseMethod, il);   private static void EmitCallBaseMethod(MethodInfo method, MethodInfo callBaseMethod, ILGenerator il) {     int privateParameterCount = method.GetParameters().Length;       il.Emit(OpCodes.Ldarg_0);       if (privateParameterCount > 0)     {         for (int arg = 0; arg < privateParameterCount; arg++)         {             il.Emit(OpCodes.Ldarg_S, arg + 1);         }     }       il.Emit(OpCodes.Call, callBaseMethod);       il.Emit(OpCodes.Ret); } So in the main method building method, an ILGenerator is created from the method builder. The ILGenerator performs the following actions: Load the class (this) onto the stack using the hidden argument Ldarg_0. Create an argument on the stack for each of the method parameters (starting at 1 because 0 is the hidden argument) Call the base method using the Opcodes.Call code and the MethodInfo we created earlier. Call return on the method   Conclusion Now we have the private methods prepared for calling the base method, we have reached the last of the relatively easy part of the proxy building. Hopefully, it hasn’t been too hard to follow so far, there is a lot of code so I haven’t been able to post it all so please check it out at http://rapidioc.codeplex.com/. The next section should be up fairly soon, it’s going to cover creating the delegates for calling the private methods created in this post.   Kind Regards, Sean.

  Read the article

• overriding protected internal with protected!

  - by Asad Butt

  This is an extension for this question asked an hour ago. We cannot modify the access modifiers, when overriding a virtual method in derived class. Consider Control class in System.Web.UI namespace public class Control : IComponent, IDisposable,... { protected internal virtual void CreateChildControls() { } . . } Now Consider This public class someClass : System.Web.UI.Control { // This should not compile but it does protected override void CreateChildControls() { } // This should compile but it does not protected internal override void CreateChildControls() { } } can any body explain this ? Thanks

  Read the article

• what's the point of method overloading?

  - by David

  I am following a textbook in which I have just come across method overloading. It briefly described method overloading as: when the same method name is used with different parameters its called method overloading. From what I've learned so far in OOP is that if I want different behaviors from an object via methods, I should use different method names that best indicate the behavior, so why should I bother with method overloading in the first place?

  Read the article

• constructor function's object literal returns toString() method but no other method

  - by JohnMerlino

  I'm very confused with javascript methods defined in objects and the "this" keyword. In the below example, the toString() method is invoked when Mammal object instantiated: function Mammal(name){ this.name=name; this.toString = function(){ return '[Mammal "'+this.name+'"]'; } } var someAnimal = new Mammal('Mr. Biggles'); alert('someAnimal is '+someAnimal); Despite the fact that the toString() method is not invoked on the object someAnimal like this: alert('someAnimal is '+someAnimal.toString()); It still returns 'someAnimal is [Mammal "Mr. Biggles"]' . That doesn't make sense to me because the toString() function is not being called anywhere. Then to add even more confusion, if I change the toString() method to a method I make up such as random(): function Mammal(name){ this.name=name; this.random = function(){ return Math.floor(Math.random() * 15); } } var someAnimal = new Mammal('Mr. Biggles'); alert(someAnimal); It completely ignores the random method (despite the fact that it is defined the same way was the toString() method was) and returns: [object object] Another issue I'm having trouble understanding with inheritance is the value of "this". For example, in the below example function person(w,h){ width.width = w; width.height = h; } function man(w,h,s) { person.call(this, w, h); this.sex = s; } "this" keyword is being send to the person object clearly. However, does "this" refer to the subclass (man) or the super class (person) when the person object receives it? Thanks for clearing up any of the confusion I have with inheritance and object literals in javascript.

  Read the article

• Method chaining and exceptions in C#

  - by devoured elysium

  If I have a method chain like the following: var abc = new ABC(); abc.method1() .method2() .methodThrowsException() .method3() ; assuming I've defined method1(), method2() and method3() as public ABC method1() { return this; } and methodThrowsException() as public ABC method3() { throw new ArgumentException(); } When running the code, is it possible to know which specific line of code has thrown the Exception, or will it just consider all the method chaining as just one line? I've done a simple test and it seems it considers them all as just one line but Method Chaining says Putting methods on separate lines also makes debugging easier as error messages and debugger control is usually on a line by line basis. Am I missing something, or does that just not apply to C#? Thanks

  Read the article

• alias_attribute and creating and method with the original attribute name causes a loop

  - by Tiago

  Im trying to dynamically create a method chain in one attribute in my model. By now I have this function: def create_filtered_attribute(attribute_name) alias_attribute "#{attribute_name}_without_filter", attribute_name define_method "#{attribute_name}" do filter_words(self.send("#{attribute_name}_without_filter")) end end so I receive a string with the attribute name, alias it for '*_without_filter*' (alias_method or alias_method_chain fails here, because the attribute isnt there when the class is created), and I create a new method with the attribute name, where I filter its contents. But somehow, when I call *"#{attribute_name}_without_filter"* it calls my new method (i think because the alias_attribute some how), and the program goes into a stack loop. Can someone please enlighten me on this.

  Read the article

• Why does a looser specification in an overriding method compile after the exception specification fo

  - by Everyone

  The code below has an overridden method with a looser exception specification as compared to the method being overridden. //AnotherMain.java public class AnotherMain { public void dummyMethod( String args[] ) throws IOException{ throw new IOException(); } } //SubAnotherMain.java public class SubAnotherMain extends AnotherMain{ @Override public void dummyMethod( String[] args ) throws Exception { // To get this to compile, change the above - throws IOException, Exception super.dummyMethod(args); throw new Exception("This will not compile unless the exception specification has IOException too"); } } Afaik, the overriding method should not compile at all as the looser specification might break substitutability. Why does it compile after the original exception specification is included in the override? What have I misunderstood?

  Read the article

• Overriding Equals method in Structs

  - by devoured elysium

  I've looked for overriding guidelines for structs, but all I can find is for classes. At first I thought I wouldn't have to check to see if the passed object was null, as structs are value types and can't be null. But now that I come to think of it, as equals signature is public bool Equals(object obj) it seems there is nothing preventing the user of my struct to be trying to compare it with an arbitrary reference type. My second point concerns the casting I (think I) have to make before I compare my private fields in my struct. How am I supposed to cast the object to my struct's type? C#'s as keyword seems only suitable for reference types. Thanks

  Read the article

• Can Eclipse generate method-chaining setters

  - by Chris R

  I'd like to generate method-chaining setters (setters that return the object being set), like so: public MyObject setField (Object value) { this.field = value; return this; } This makes it easier to do one-liner instantiations, which I find easier to read: myMethod (new MyObject ().setField (someValue).setOtherField (someOtherValue)); Can Eclipse's templates be modified to do this? I've changed the content to include return this; but the signature is not changed.

  Read the article

• Override ActiveRecord#save, Method Alias? Trying to mixin functionality into save method...

  - by viatropos

  Here's the situation: I have a User model, and two modules for authentication: Oauth and Openid. Both of them override ActiveRecord#save, and have a fair share of implementation logic. Given that I can tell when the user is trying to login via Oauth vs. Openid, but that both of them have overridden save, how do "finally" override save such that I can conditionally call one of the modules' implementations of it? Here is the base structure of what I'm describing: module UsesOauth def self.included(base) base.class_eval do def save puts "Saving with Oauth!" end def save_with_oauth save end end end end module UsesOpenid def self.included(base) base.class_eval do def save puts "Saving with OpenID!" end def save_with_openid save end end end end module Sequencer def save if using_oauth? save_with_oauth elsif using_openid? save_with_openid else super end end end class User < ActiveRecord::Base include UsesOauth include UsesOpenid include Sequencer end I was thinking about using alias_method like so, but that got too complicated, because I might have 1 or 2 more similar modules. I also tried using those save_with_oauth methods (shown above), which almost works. The only thing that's missing is that I also need to call ActiveRecord::Base#save (the super method), so something like this: def save_with_oauth # do this and that super.save # the rest end But I'm not allowed to do that in ruby. Any ideas for a clever solution to this?

  Read the article

• Why does Java's invokevirtual need to resolve the called method's compile-time class?

  - by Chris

  Consider this simple Java class: class MyClass { public void bar(MyClass c) { c.foo(); } } I want to discuss what happens on the line c.foo(). At the bytecode level, the meat of c.foo() will be the invokevirtual opcode, and, according to the documentation for invokevirtual, more or less the following will happen: Look up the foo method defined in compile-time class MyClass. (This involves first resolving MyClass.) Do some checks, including: Verify that c is not an initialization method, and verify that calling MyClass.foo wouldn't violate any protected modifiers. Figure out which method to actually call. In particular, look up c's runtime type. If that type has foo(), call that method and return. If not, look up c's runtime type's superclass; if that type has foo, call that method and return. If not, look up c's runtime type's superclass's superclass; if that type has foo, call that method and return. Etc.. If no suitable method can be found, then error. Step #3 alone seems adequate for figuring out which method to call and verifying that said method has the correct argument/return types. So my question is why step #1 gets performed in the first place. Possible answers seem to be: You don't have enough information to perform step #3 until step #1 is complete. (This seems implausible at first glance, so please explain.) The linking or access modifier checks done in #1 and #2 are essential to prevent certain bad things from happening, and those checks must be performed based on the compile-time type, rather than the run-time type hierarchy. (Please explain.)

  Read the article

• Naming Suggestions For A Function Providing Method Chaining In A Different Way

  - by sid3k

  I've coded an experimental function which makes passed objects chainable by using high order functions. It's name is "chain" for now, and here is a usage example; chain("Hello World") (print) // evaluates print function by passing "Hello World" object. (console.log,"Optional","Parameters") (returnfrom) // returns "Hello World" It looks lispy but behaves very different since it's coded in a C based language, I don't know if there is a name for this idiom and I couldn't any name more suitable than "chain". Any ideas, suggestions?

  Read the article

• Static method , Abstract method , Interface method comparision ?

  - by programmerist

  When i choose these methods? i can not decide which one i must prefer or when will i use one of them?which one give best performance? First Type Usage public abstract class _AccessorForSQL { public virtual bool Save(string sp, ListDictionary ld, CommandType cmdType); public virtual bool Update(); public virtual bool Delete(); public virtual DataSet Select(); } class GenAccessor : _AccessorForSQL { DataSet ds; DataTable dt; public override bool Save(string sp, ListDictionary ld, CommandType cmdType) { } public override bool Update() { return true; } public override bool Delete() { return true; } public override DataSet Select() { DataSet dst = new DataSet(); return dst; } Second Type Usage Also i can write it below codes: public class GenAccessor { public Static bool Save() { } public Static bool Update() { } public Static bool Delete() { } } Third Type Usage Also i can write it below codes: public interface IAccessorForSQL { bool Delete(); bool Save(string sp, ListDictionary ld, CommandType cmdType); DataSet Select(); bool Update(); } public class _AccessorForSQL : IAccessorForSQL { private DataSet ds; private DataTable dt; public virtual bool Save(string sp, ListDictionary ld, CommandType cmdType) { } } } I can use first one below usage: GenAccessor gen = New GenAccessor(); gen.Save(); I can use second one below usage: GenAccessor.Save(); Which one do you prefer? When will i use them? which time i need override method ? which time i need static method?

  Read the article

• The Template Method Design Pattern using C# .Net

  - by nijhawan.saurabh

  First of all I'll just put this pattern in context and describe its intent as in the GOF book:   Template Method: Define the skeleton of an algorithm in an operation, deferring some steps to Subclasses. Template Method lets subclasses redefine certain steps of an algorithm without changing the Algorithm's Structure.    Usage: When you are certain about the High Level steps involved in an Algorithm/Work flow you can use the Template Pattern which allows the Base Class to define the Sequence of the Steps but permits the Sub classes to alter the implementation of any/all steps.   Example in the .Net framework: The most common example is the Asp.Net Page Life Cycle. The Page Life Cycle has a few methods which are called in a sequence but we have the liberty to modify the functionality of any of the methods by overriding them.   Sample implementation of Template Method Pattern:   Let's see the class diagram first:            Normal 0 false false false EN-US X-NONE X-NONE /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-priority:99; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin-top:0in; mso-para-margin-right:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:8.0pt; mso-para-margin-left:0in; line-height:107%; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi; mso-font-kerning:1.0pt; mso-ligatures:standard;}   And here goes the code:EmailBase.cs     1 using System;     2 using System.Collections.Generic;     3 using System.Linq;     4 using System.Text;     5 using System.Threading.Tasks;     6      7 namespace TemplateMethod     8 {     9     public abstract class EmailBase    10     {    11     12         public bool SendEmail()    13         {    14             if (CheckEmailAddress() == true) // Method1 in the sequence    15             {    16                 if (ValidateMessage() == true) // Method2 in the sequence    17                 {    18                     if (SendMail() == true) // Method3 in the sequence    19                     {    20                         return true;    21                     }    22                     else    23                     {    24                         return false;    25                     }    26     27                 }    28                 else    29                 {    30                     return false;    31                 }    32     33             }    34             else    35             {    36                 return false;    37     38             }    39     40     41         }    42     43         protected abstract bool CheckEmailAddress();    44         protected abstract bool ValidateMessage();    45         protected abstract bool SendMail();    46     47     48     }    49 }    50    EmailYahoo.cs      1 using System;     2 using System.Collections.Generic;     3 using System.Linq;     4 using System.Text;     5 using System.Threading.Tasks;     6      7 namespace TemplateMethod     8 {     9     public class EmailYahoo:EmailBase    10     {    11     12         protected override bool CheckEmailAddress()    13         {    14             Console.WriteLine("Checking Email Address : YahooEmail");    15             return true;    16         }    17         protected override bool ValidateMessage()    18         {    19             Console.WriteLine("Validating Email Message : YahooEmail");    20             return true;    21         }    22     23     24         protected override bool SendMail()    25         {    26             Console.WriteLine("Semding Email : YahooEmail");    27             return true;    28         }    29     30     31     }    32 }    33   EmailGoogle.cs      1 using System;     2 using System.Collections.Generic;     3 using System.Linq;     4 using System.Text;     5 using System.Threading.Tasks;     6      7 namespace TemplateMethod     8 {     9     public class EmailGoogle:EmailBase    10     {    11     12         protected override bool CheckEmailAddress()    13         {    14             Console.WriteLine("Checking Email Address : GoogleEmail");    15             return true;    16         }    17         protected override bool ValidateMessage()    18         {    19             Console.WriteLine("Validating Email Message : GoogleEmail");    20             return true;    21         }    22     23     24         protected override bool SendMail()    25         {    26             Console.WriteLine("Semding Email : GoogleEmail");    27             return true;    28         }    29     30     31     }    32 }    33   Program.cs      1 using System;     2 using System.Collections.Generic;     3 using System.Linq;     4 using System.Text;     5 using System.Threading.Tasks;     6      7 namespace TemplateMethod     8 {     9     class Program    10     {    11         static void Main(string[] args)    12         {    13             Console.WriteLine("Please choose an Email Account to send an Email:");    14             Console.WriteLine("Choose 1 for Google");    15             Console.WriteLine("Choose 2 for Yahoo");    16             string choice = Console.ReadLine();    17     18             if (choice == "1")    19             {    20                 EmailBase email = new EmailGoogle(); // Rather than newing it up here, you may use a factory to do so.    21                 email.SendEmail();    22     23             }    24             if (choice == "2")    25             {    26                 EmailBase email = new EmailYahoo(); // Rather than newing it up here, you may use a factory to do so.    27                 email.SendEmail();    28             }    29         }    30     }    31 }    32    Final Words: It's very obvious that why the Template Method Pattern is a popular pattern, everything at last revolves around Algorithms and if you are clear with the steps involved it makes real sense to delegate the duty of implementing the step's functionality to the sub classes. Normal 0 false false false EN-US X-NONE X-NONE /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-priority:99; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin-top:0in; mso-para-margin-right:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:8.0pt; mso-para-margin-left:0in; line-height:107%; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi; mso-font-kerning:1.0pt; mso-ligatures:standard;}

  Read the article

• Ajax method within a added method in jQuery validator

  - by nikospkrk

  Hi, I'm kind of stuck with this pretty simple (I'm sure) jQuery/Javascript issue. Here's the code : jQuery.validator.addMethod("emailExists", function(value, element, param) { var email = value || ''; var valid = 0; $.ajax({ type: "POST", url: param, data: "email=" + email, success: function(msg) { if (msg != '' && msg) { valid = 0; } else { valid = 1; } } }); return valid; }, "* Email address already registered, please login."); This function is called where a user type his email address in a registration form, and everything seems to work perfectly, except that my valid variable returned isn't updated, whereas when I use an alert box it is properly done! It looks like it return the value before the AJAX is done, any idea? Cheers, Nicolas.

  Read the article

• Static and overriding in Java

  - by Abhishek Jain

  public class B { static int i =1; public static int multiply(int a,int b) { return i; } public int multiply1(int a,int b) { return i; } public static void main(String args[]) { B b = new A(); System.out.println(b.multiply(5,2)); System.out.println(b.multiply1(5,2)); } } class A extends B { static int i =8; public static int multiply(int a,int b) { return 5*i; } public int multiply1(int a,int b) { return 5*i; } } Output: 1 40 Why is it so? Please explain.

  Read the article

• Overriding Django Admin's main page? - Django

  - by RadiantHex

  Hi folks, I'm trying to add features to Django admin's main page. I've been playing with index.html, but features added to this page affect all app pages. Any ideas on what template I'm supposed to use? Thanks loads!!

  Read the article

• Few Basic Questions in Overriding

  - by Dahlia

  I have few problems with my basic and would be thankful if someone can clear this. What does it mean when I say base *b = new derived; Why would one go for this? We very well separately can create objects for class base and class derived and then call the functions accordingly. I know that this base *b = new derived; is called as Object Slicing but why and when would one go for this? I know why it is not advisable to convert the base class object to derived class object (because base class is not aware of the derived class members and methods). I even read in other StackOverflow threads that if this is gonna be the case then we have to change/re-visit our design. I understand all that, however, I am just curious, Is there any way to do this? class base { public: void f(){cout << "In Base";} }; class derived:public base { public: void f(){cout << "In Derived";} }; int _tmain(int argc, _TCHAR* argv[]) { base b1, b2; derived d1, d2; b2 = d1; d2 = reinterpret_cast<derived*>(b1); //gives error C2440 b1.f(); // Prints In Base d1.f(); // Prints In Derived b2.f(); // Prints In Base d1.base::f(); //Prints In Base d2.f(); getch(); return 0; } In case of my above example, is there any way I could call the base class f() using derived class object? I used d1.base()::f() I just want to know if there any way without using scope resolution operator? Thanks a lot for your time in helping me out!

  Read the article

• Access specifier while overriding methods

  - by Pradyot

  Assume you have a class that defines virtual methods with the access specifier public. Can you change the access specifier on your overriden methods? I am assuming no. Looking for an explanation.

  Read the article

• Overriding Built-in Classes (Python)

  - by Yipeng

  How can I view and override the full definition for built in classes? I have seen the library docs but am looking for something more. For e.g. is it possible to override the Array Class such that the base index starts from 1 instead of 0, or to override .sort() of list to a sorting algorithm of my own liking?

  Read the article

• C# String.format extension method

  - by Paul Roe

  With the addtion of Extension methods to C# we've seen a lot of them crop up in our group. One debate revolves around extension methods like this one: public static class StringExt { /// <summary> /// Shortcut for string.Format. /// </summary> /// <param name="str"></param> /// <param name="args"></param> /// <returns></returns> public static string Format(this string str, params object[] args) { if (str == null) return null; return string.Format(str, args); } } Does this extension method break any programming best practices that you can name? Would you use it anyway, if not why? If I renamed the function to "F" but left the xml comments would that be epic fail or just a wonderful savings of keystrokes?

  Read the article

• Why setter method when getter method enough in PHP OOP

  - by phphunger

  I am practicing OOP with PHP, and I am struck at setter and getter methods. I can directly access the class properties and methods with getter method then what's the use of setter method? See my example. <?php class MyClass{ public $classVar = "Its a class variable"; public function Getter(){ return $this -> classVar; } } $obj = new MyClass; echo $obj -> Getter(); ?>

  Read the article

• Better solution then simple factory method when concrete implementations have different attributes

  - by danip

  abstract class Animal { function eat() {..} function sleep() {..} function isSmart() } class Dog extends Animal { public $blnCanBark; function isSmart() { return $this->blnCanBark; } } class Cat extends Animal { public $blnCanJumpHigh; function isSmart() { return $this->blnCanJumpHigh; } } .. and so on up to 10-20 animals. Now I created a factory using simple factory method and try to create instances like this: class AnimalFactory { public static function create($strName) { switch($strName) { case 'Dog': return new Dog(); case 'Cat': return new Cat(); default: break; } } } The problem is I can't set the specific attributes like blnCanBark, blnCanJumpHigh in an efficient way. I can send all of them as extra params to create but this will not scale to more then a few classes. Also I can't break the inheritance because a lot of the basic functionality is the same. Is there a better pattern to solve this?

  Read the article

• Java overloading and overriding

  - by Padmanabh

  We always say that method overloading is static polymorphism and overriding is runtime polymorphism. What exactly do we mean by static here? Is the call to a method resolved on compiling the code? So whats the difference between normal method call and calling a final method? Which one is linked at compile time?

  Read the article

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >