Search Results

Search found 37902 results on 1517 pages for 'object methods'.

Page 10/1517 | < Previous Page | 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17  | Next Page >

  • Associating an object with another object for GC clearup

    - by thecoop
    Is there any way of associating an object instance (object A) with a second object (object B) in a generalised way, so that when B gets collected A becomes eligable for collection? The same behaviour that would happen if B had an instance variable pointing to A, but without explicitly changing the class definition of B, and being able to do this in a dynamic way? The same sort of effect could be done by using the Component.Disposed event in a funky way, but I don't want to make B disposable EDIT I'm basically creating a cache of objects that are associated with a single 'root' object, and I don't want the cache to be static, as there can be lots of root objects using different caches, so lots of memory will be used up when a root object is no longer used but the cached objects are still around. So, I want a collection of cached objects to be associated with each 'root' object, without changing the root object definition. Sort of like metadata of an extra object reference attached to each root object instance. That way, each collection will get collected when the root object is collected, and not hang around like they would if a static cache was used.

    Read the article

  • Alternatives to static methods on interfaces for enforcing consistency

    - by jayshao
    In Java, I'd like to be able to define marker interfaces, that forced implementations to provide static methods. For example, for simple text-serialization/deserialization I'd like to be able to define an interface that looked something like this: public interface TextTransformable<T>{ public static T fromText(String text); public String toText(); Since interfaces in Java can't contain static methods though (as noted in a number of other posts/threads: here, here, and here this code doesn't work. What I'm looking for however is some reasonable paradigm to express the same intent, namely symmetric methods, one of which is static, and enforced by the compiler. Right now the best we can come up with is some kind of static factory object or generic factory, neither of which is really satisfactory. Note: in our case our primary use-case is we have many, many "value-object" types - enums, or other objects that have a limited number of values, typically carry no state beyond their value, and which we parse/de-parse thousands of time a second, so actually do care about reusing instances (like Float, Integer, etc.) and its impact on memory consumption/g.c. Any thoughts?

    Read the article

  • Should I use an interface when methods are only similar?

    - by Joshua Harris
    I was posed with the idea of creating an object that checks if a point will collide with a line: public class PointAndLineSegmentCollisionDetector { public void Collides(Point p, LineSegment s) { // ... } } This made me think that if I decided to create a Box object, then I would need a PointAndBoxCollisionDetector and a LineSegmentAndBoxCollisionDetector. I might even realize that I should have a BoxAndBoxCollisionDetector and a LineSegmentAndLineSegmentCollisionDetector. And, when I add new objects that can collide I would need to add even more of these. But, they all have a Collides method, so everything I learned about abstraction is telling me, "Make an interface." public interface CollisionDetector { public void Collides(Spatial s1, Spatial s2); } But now I have a function that only detects some abstract class or interface that is used by Point, LineSegment, Box, etc.. So if I did this then each implementation would have to to a type check to make sure that the types are the appropriate type because the collision algorithm is different for each different type match up. Another solution could be this: public class CollisionDetector { public void Collides(Point p, LineSegment s) { ... } public void Collides(LineSegment s, Box b) { ... } public void Collides(Point p, Box b) { ... } // ... } But, this could end up being a huge class that seems unwieldy, although it would have simplicity in that it is only a bunch of Collide methods. This is similar to C#'s Convert class. Which is nice because it is large, but it is simple to understand how it works. This seems to be the better solution, but I thought I should open it for discussion as a wiki to get other opinions.

    Read the article

  • Why does python use 'magic methods'?

    - by Greg Beech
    I've been playing around with Python recently, and one thing I'm finding a bit odd is the extensive use of 'magic methods', e.g. to make its length available an object implements a method def __len__(self) and then it is called when you write len(obj). I was just wondering why objects don't simply define a len(self) method and have it called directly as a member of the object, e.g. obj.len()? I'm sure there must be good reasons for Python doing it the way it does, but as a newbie I haven't worked out what they are yet.

    Read the article

  • Go - Methods of an interface

    - by nevalu
    Would be correct the next way to implement the methods attached to an interface? (getKey, getData) type reader interface { getKey(ver uint) string getData() string } type location struct { reader fileLocation string err os.Error } func (self *location) getKey(ver uint) string {...} func (self *location) getData() string {...} func NewReader(fileLocation string) *location { _location := new(location) _location.fileLocation = fileLocation return _location }

    Read the article

  • Javascript: selfmade methods not working correctly

    - by hdr
    Hi everyone, I tried to figure this out for some days now, I tried to use my own object to sort of replace the global object to reduce problems with other scripts (userscripts, chrome extensions... that kind of stuff). However I can't get things to work for some reason. I tried some debugging with JSLint, the developer tools included in Google Chrome, Firebug and the integrated schript debugger in IE8 but there is no error that explains why it doesn't work at all in any browser I tried. I tried IE 8, Google Chrome 10.0.612.3 dev, Firefox 3.6.13, Safari 5.0.3 and Opera 11. So... here is the code: HTML: <!DOCTYPE HTML> <html manifest="c.manifest"> <head> <meta http-equiv="X-UA-Compatible" content="IE=edge,chrome=1"> <meta charset="utf-8"> <!--[if IE]> <script type="text/javascript" src="http://ajax.googleapis.com/ajax/libs/chrome-frame/1/CFInstall.min.js"></script> <script src="https://ie7-js.googlecode.com/svn/version/2.1(beta4)/IE9.js">IE7_PNG_SUFFIX=".png";</script> <![endif]--> <!--[if lt IE 9]> <script src="js/lib/excanvas.js"></script> <script src="https://html5shiv.googlecode.com/svn/trunk/html5.js"></script> <![endif]--> <script src="js/data.js"></script> </head> <body> <div id="controls"> <button onclick="MYOBJECTis.next()">Next</button> </div> <div id="textfield"></div> <canvas id="game"></canvas> </body> </html> Javascript: var that = window, it = document, k = Math.floor; var MYOBJECTis = { aresizer: function(){ // This method looks like it doesn't work. // It should automatically resize all the div elements and the body. // JSLint: no error (execpt for "'window' is not defined." which is normal since // JSLint does nor recognize references to the global object like "window" or "self" // even if you assume a browser) // Firebug: no error // Chrome dev tools: no error // IE8: that.documentElement.clientWidth is null or not an object "use strict"; var a = that.innerWidth || that.documentElement.clientWidth, d = that.innerHeight || that.documentElement.clientHeight; (function() { for(var b = 0, c = it.getElementsByTagName("div");b < c.length;b++) { c.style.width = k(c.offsetWidth) / 100 * k(a); c.style.height = k(c.offsetHight) / 100 * k(d); } }()); (function() { var b = it.getElementsByTagName("body"); b.width = a; b.height = d; }()); }, next: function(){ // This method looks like it doesn't work. // It should change the text inside a div element // JSLint: no error (execpt for "'window' is not defined.") // Firebug: no error // Chrome dev tools: no error // IE8: no error (execpt for being painfully slow) "use strict"; var b = it.getElementById("textfield"), a = [], c; switch(c !== typeof Number){ case true: a[1] = ["HI"]; c = 0; break; case false: return Error; default: b.innerHtml = a[c]; c+=1; } } }; // auto events (function(){ "use strict"; that.onresize = MYOBJECTis.aresizer(); }()); If anyone can help me out with this I would very much appreciate it. EDIT: To answer the question what's not working I can just say that no method I showed here is working at all and I don't know the cause of the problem. I also tried to clean up some of the code that has most likely nothing to do with it. Additional information is in the comments inside the code.

    Read the article

  • About extension methods

    - by Srinivas Reddy Thatiparthy
    Shall i always need to throw ArgumentNullException(well,extension methods in Enumerable throw ArgumentNullException) when an extension method is called on null?I would like to have a clarification on this?If the answer is an Yes and No please present both the cases.

    Read the article

  • Generate set/get methods for a c++ class

    - by Narek
    Is there any tool that generates set and get methods for a class. Just I create classes very frequently and would like to have a tool which for each class-member wil generate following functions: Member_Type getMemberName() const; void setMemberName(const Member_Type & val);

    Read the article

  • conventions for friend methods in Perl

    - by xenoterracide
    Perl doesn't support a friend relationship between objects, nor does it support private or protected methods. What is usually done for private methods is to prefix the name with an underscore. I occasionally have methods that I think of as friend methods. Meaning that I expect them to be used by a specific object, or an object with a specific responsibility, but I'm not sure if I should make that method public (meaning foo ) or private ( _foo ) or if there's a better convention? is there a convention for friend methods?

    Read the article

  • C#/.NET Little Wonders: Static Char Methods

    - by James Michael Hare
    Once again, in this series of posts I look at the parts of the .NET Framework that may seem trivial, but can help improve your code by making it easier to write and maintain. The index of all my past little wonders posts can be found here. Often times in our code we deal with the bigger classes and types in the BCL, and occasionally forgot that there are some nice methods on the primitive types as well.  Today we will discuss some of the handy static methods that exist on the char (the C# alias of System.Char) type. The Background I was examining a piece of code this week where I saw the following: 1: // need to get the 5th (offset 4) character in upper case 2: var type = symbol.Substring(4, 1).ToUpper(); 3:  4: // test to see if the type is P 5: if (type == "P") 6: { 7: // ... do something with P type... 8: } Is there really any error in this code?  No, but it still struck me wrong because it is allocating two very short-lived throw-away strings, just to store and manipulate a single char: The call to Substring() generates a new string of length 1 The call to ToUpper() generates a new upper-case version of the string from Step 1. In my mind this is similar to using ToUpper() to do a case-insensitive compare: it isn’t wrong, it’s just much heavier than it needs to be (for more info on case-insensitive compares, see #2 in 5 More Little Wonders). One of my favorite books is the C++ Coding Standards: 101 Rules, Guidelines, and Best Practices by Sutter and Alexandrescu.  True, it’s about C++ standards, but there’s also some great general programming advice in there, including two rules I love:         8. Don’t Optimize Prematurely         9. Don’t Pessimize Prematurely We all know what #8 means: don’t optimize when there is no immediate need, especially at the expense of readability and maintainability.  I firmly believe this and in the axiom: it’s easier to make correct code fast than to make fast code correct.  Optimizing code to the point that it becomes difficult to maintain often gains little and often gives you little bang for the buck. But what about #9?  Well, for that they state: “All other things being equal, notably code complexity and readability, certain efficient design patterns and coding idioms should just flow naturally from your fingertips and are no harder to write then the pessimized alternatives. This is not premature optimization; it is avoiding gratuitous pessimization.” Or, if I may paraphrase: “where it doesn’t increase the code complexity and readability, prefer the more efficient option”. The example code above was one of those times I feel where we are violating a tacit C# coding idiom: avoid creating unnecessary temporary strings.  The code creates temporary strings to hold one char, which is just unnecessary.  I think the original coder thought he had to do this because ToUpper() is an instance method on string but not on char.  What he didn’t know, however, is that ToUpper() does exist on char, it’s just a static method instead (though you could write an extension method to make it look instance-ish). This leads me (in a long-winded way) to my Little Wonders for the day… Static Methods of System.Char So let’s look at some of these handy, and often overlooked, static methods on the char type: IsDigit(), IsLetter(), IsLetterOrDigit(), IsPunctuation(), IsWhiteSpace() Methods to tell you whether a char (or position in a string) belongs to a category of characters. IsLower(), IsUpper() Methods that check if a char (or position in a string) is lower or upper case ToLower(), ToUpper() Methods that convert a single char to the lower or upper equivalent. For example, if you wanted to see if a string contained any lower case characters, you could do the following: 1: if (symbol.Any(c => char.IsLower(c))) 2: { 3: // ... 4: } Which, incidentally, we could use a method group to shorten the expression to: 1: if (symbol.Any(char.IsLower)) 2: { 3: // ... 4: } Or, if you wanted to verify that all of the characters in a string are digits: 1: if (symbol.All(char.IsDigit)) 2: { 3: // ... 4: } Also, for the IsXxx() methods, there are overloads that take either a char, or a string and an index, this means that these two calls are logically identical: 1: // check given a character 2: if (char.IsUpper(symbol[0])) { ... } 3:  4: // check given a string and index 5: if (char.IsUpper(symbol, 0)) { ... } Obviously, if you just have a char, then you’d just use the first form.  But if you have a string you can use either form equally well. As a side note, care should be taken when examining all the available static methods on the System.Char type, as some seem to be redundant but actually have very different purposes.  For example, there are IsDigit() and IsNumeric() methods, which sound the same on the surface, but give you different results. IsDigit() returns true if it is a base-10 digit character (‘0’, ‘1’, … ‘9’) where IsNumeric() returns true if it’s any numeric character including the characters for ½, ¼, etc. Summary To come full circle back to our opening example, I would have preferred the code be written like this: 1: // grab 5th char and take upper case version of it 2: var type = char.ToUpper(symbol[4]); 3:  4: if (type == 'P') 5: { 6: // ... do something with P type... 7: } Not only is it just as readable (if not more so), but it performs over 3x faster on my machine:    1,000,000 iterations of char method took: 30 ms, 0.000050 ms/item.    1,000,000 iterations of string method took: 101 ms, 0.000101 ms/item. It’s not only immediately faster because we don’t allocate temporary strings, but as an added bonus there less garbage to collect later as well.  To me this qualifies as a case where we are using a common C# performance idiom (don’t create unnecessary temporary strings) to make our code better. Technorati Tags: C#,CSharp,.NET,Little Wonders,char,string

    Read the article

  • Use a custom value object or a Guid as an entity identifier in a distributed system?

    - by Kazark
    tl;dr I've been told that in domain-driven design, an identifier for an entity could be a custom value object, i.e. something other than Guid, string, int, etc. Can this really be advisable in a distributed system? Long version I will invent an situation analogous to the one I am currently facing. Say I have a distributed system in which a central concept is an egg. The system allows you to order eggs and see spending reports and inventory-centric data such as quantity on hand, usage, valuation and what have you. There area variety of services backing these behaviors. And say there is also another app which allows you to compose recipes that link to a particular egg type. Now egg type is broken down by the species—ostrich, goose, duck, chicken, quail. This is fine and dandy because it means that users don't end up with ostrich eggs when they wanted quail eggs and whatnot. However, we've been getting complaints because jumbo chicken eggs are not even close to equivalent to small ones. The price is different, and they really aren't substitutable in recipes. And here we thought we were doing users a favor by not overwhelming them with too many options. Currently each of the services (say, OrderSubmitter, EggTypeDefiner, SpendingReportsGenerator, InventoryTracker, RecipeCreator, RecipeTracker, or whatever) are identifying egg types with an industry-standard integer representation the species (let's call it speciesCode). We realize we've goofed up because this change could effect every service. There are two basic proposed solutions: Use a predefined identifier type like Guid as the eggTypeID throughout all the services, but make EggTypeDefiner the only service that knows that this maps to a speciesCode and eggSizeCode (and potentially to an isOrganic flag in the future, or whatever). Use an EggTypeID value object which is a combination of speciesCode and eggSizeCode in every service. I've proposed the first solution because I'm hoping it better encapsulates the definition of what an egg type is in the EggTypeDefiner and will be more resilient to changes, say if some people now want to differentiate eggs by whether or not they are "organic". The second solution is being suggested by some people who understand DDD better than I do in the hopes that less enrichment and lookup will be necessary that way, with the justification that in DDD using a value object as an ID is fine. Also, they are saying that EggTypeDefiner is not a domain and EggType is not an entity and as such should not have a Guid for an ID. However, I'm not sure the second solution is viable. This "value object" is going to have to be serialized into JSON and URLs for GET requests and used with a variety of technologies (C#, JavaScript...) which breaks encapsulation and thus removes any behavior of the identifier value object (is either of the fields optional? etc.) Is this a case where we want to avoid something that would normally be fine in DDD because we are trying to do DDD in a distributed fashion? Summary Can it be a good idea to use a custom value object as an identifier in a distributed system (solution #2)?

    Read the article

  • JavaScriptSerializer deserialize object "collection" as property in object failing

    - by bill
    Hi All, I have a js object structured like: object.property1 = "some string"; object.property2 = "some string"; object.property3.property1 = "some string"; object.property3.property2 = "some string"; object.property3.property2 = "some string"; i'm using JSON.stringify(object) to pass this with ajax request. When i try to deserialize this using JavaScriptSerializer.Deserialize as a Dictionary i get the following error: No parameterless constructor defined for type of 'System.String'. This exact same process is working for regular object with non "collection" properties.. thanks for any help!

    Read the article

  • Object mapping in objective-c (iphone) from JSON

    - by freshfunk
    For my iPhone app, I'm consuming a RESTful service and getting JSON. I've found libraries to deserialize this into an NSDictionary. However, I'm wondering if there are any libraries to deserialize the JSON/NSDictionary/Property List into my object (an arbitrary one on my side). The java equivalent would be the object-relational mappers although the sort of object mapping I'm looking for is relatively straightforward (simple data types, no complex relationships, etc.). I noticed that Objective-C does have introspection so it seems theoretically possible but I haven't found a library to do it. Or is there a simple way to load an object from an NSDictionary/Property List object that doesn't require modification every time the object changes? For example: { "id" : "user1", "name" : "mister foobar" "age" : 20 } gets loaded into object @interface User : NSObject { NSString *id; NSString *name; int *age; }

    Read the article

  • Size of Objects in Java Heap w/ Regards to Methods

    - by Eric
    I know about primitives and objects living on the heap, but how does the number of methods effect heap size of the object? For example: public class A { int x; public getX() { return x; } } public class B { int x; public getX() { return x; } public getXString() { return String.valueOf(x); } public doMoreInterestingStuff() { return x * 42; } //etc } When instantiated, both objects live on the heap, both have memory allocated to their primitive x, but is B allocated more heap space due to having more method signatures? Or are those ONLY on the classLoader? In this example its trivial, but when there are 100,000+ of these objects in memory at any given time I imagine it could add up.

    Read the article

  • using an existing object in ajax-called php files?

    - by noname
    i have in my index.php created an object and set some property values. then i use jquery ajax to call some php files and i want to use the object created. i tried this one but it didn´t work: ---- in index.php ---- // Create a new object session_start(); $object = new stdClass(); $object->value = 'something'; $object->other_value = 'something else'; // Save the object in the user's session $_SESSION['object'] = $object; ---- Then in the next page that loads from AJAX ---- // Start the session saved from last time session_start(); // Get the object out $object = $_SESSION['object']; // Prints "something" print $object->value; how do i accomplish this. cause i dont want to recreate the object in every ajaxcalled php script. thanks in advance!

    Read the article

  • How can I pass methods in javascript?

    - by peterjwest
    I often need to pass methods from objects into other objects. However I usually want the method to be attached to the original object (by attached I mean 'this' should refer to the original object). I know a few ways to do this: a) In the object constructor: ObjectA = function() { var that = this; var method = function(a,b,c) { that.abc = a+b+c }} b) In objectA which has been passed objectB: objectB.assign(function(a,b,c) { that.method(a,b,c) }) c) Outside both objects: objectB.assign(function(a,b,c) { objectA.method(a,b,c) }) I want to know if there is a simpler way to pass methods attached to their original objects.

    Read the article

  • How extension methods work in background ?

    - by Freshblood
    I am just cuirous about behind of extension method mechanism.Some questions and answer appear in my mind. MyClass.OrderBy(x=>x.a).OrderBy(x=>x.b); I was guessing that mechanism was first orderby method works and order them by a member then returns sorted items in IEnumarable interface then next Orderby method of IEnumarable Order them for b paramater.But i am wrong when i look at this linq query. MyClass.Orderby(x=>x.a).ThenOrderBy(x=>x.b); this is slightly different and tells me that i am wrong.Because this is not ordering by a then b and not possible to have such result if i was right.This get me confuse enough... Similiar structure is possible to write withot extension methods as first query but second is not possible.This prove i am wrong . Can u explain it ?

    Read the article

  • Call methods on native Javascript types without wrapping with ()

    - by Anurag
    In Javascript, we can call methods on string literals directly without enclosing it within round brackets. But not for other types such as numbers, or functions. It is a syntax error, but is there a reason as to why the Javascript lexer needs these other types to be enclosed in round brackets? For example, if we extend Number, String, and Function with an alert method and try calling this method on the literals, it's a SyntaxError for Number and Function, while it works for a String. function alertValue() { alert(this); } Number.prototype.alert = alertValue; String.prototype.alert = alertValue; Function.prototype.alert = alertValue; We can call alert directly on a string object: "someStringLiteral".alert() // alerts someStringLiteral but it's a SyntaxError on numbers, and functions. 7.alert(); function() {}.alert(); To work with these types, we have to enclose it within brackets: (7).alert(); // alerts "7" (function() {}).alert(); // alerts "function() {}"

    Read the article

  • Ruby Methods: return an usage string when insufficient arguments are given

    - by Shyam
    Hi, After creating a serious bunch of classes, with initialize methods, loading them in IRb requires to look back at the code. However, I think it should be easy enough to return a usage message, instead of: ArgumentError: wrong number of arguments (0 for 9) So I prefer to return a string with the human readable arguments, by example using "puts" or just a return of a string. Now I have seen the rescue keyword inside begin-end code, but I wonder how I could catch the ArgumentError when the initialize method is called. Thank you for your answers, feedback and comments!

    Read the article

  • Differences between extension methods in C#3 & 4

    - by Buh Buh
    I think I remember reading a long time ago that in C#3 extension methods could only be applied to primitive types and interfaces; and that in C#4 they could be used to extend any type. This doesn't seam to match up with what I am seeing now and I am finding it difficult to find this documented. Is there any truth to this or did my memory make it all up? What are the rules relating to which types can be extended? Are there any differences between C# 3 and 4?

    Read the article

  • Question on Virtual Methods

    - by bobber205
    IF both methods are declared as virtual, shouldn't both instances of Method1() that are called be the derived class's Method1()? I am seeing BASE then DERIVED called each time. I am doing some review for an interview and I want to make sure I have this straight. xD class BaseClass { public: virtual void Method1() { cout << "Method 1 BASE" << endl; } }; class DerClass: public BaseClass { public: virtual void Method1() { cout << "Method 1 DERVIED" << endl; } }; DerClass myClass; ((BaseClass)myClass).Method1(); myClass.Method1(); Method 1 BASE Method 1 DERVIED

    Read the article

  • Extension methods on a static object

    - by Max Malygin
    I know (or so I hear) that writing extension methods for a single stand alone .net class (not an implementation of IEnumerable) is potential code smell. However, for the sake of making the life easier I need to attach a method to the ConfigurationManager class in asp.net. It's a static object so this won't work: public static List<string> GetSupportedDomains(this ConfigurationManager manager) { //the manager needs to be static. } So the question is - is it possible to write an extension method for a static class in .net?

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17  | Next Page >