Search Results

Search found 41934 results on 1678 pages for 'outlook object model'.

facebook twitter digg google delicious technorati stumbleupon myspace wordpress linkedin gmail igoogle windows live tumblr viadeo yahoo buzz yahoo mail yahoo bookmarks favorites email print

Page 105/1678 | < Previous Page | 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112  | Next Page >

  • deleting an object

    - by Nima
    Hi, First, when you want to free the memory assigned to an object in C++, which one is preferred? Explicitly calling deconstructor or using delete? Object* object = new Object(...); ... delete object; OR object->~Object(); Second, does the delete operator call the deconstructor implicitly? Thanks,

    Read the article

  • Javascript expression to define object's property name?

    - by Kirzilla
    Hello, I'd like to create this object... object = { 'object[1][var_name_1]' : 'value1', 'object[1][var_name_2]' : 'value2', }; I'm trying to it this way, but I'm getting error missing : after property id... function getPrefix() { return 'object[1]'; } object = { getPrefix() + '[var_name_1]' : 'value1', getPrefix() + '[var_name_2]' : 'value2', } What am I doing wrong? Or maybbe it is impossible to set object property name using js experession? Thank you

    Read the article

  • How to load cascading style sheet into C# object?

    - by Krishnaraj
    Hello, I am developing a web application, where i want to give freedom of changing style elements of css linked to a page via an admin screen. So I am wondering is there any way I can load CSS file into a C# object or into XML passable formate and update it from the admin screen inputs? Thank you, Krishnaraj

    Read the article

  • What is best practice in converting XML to Java object?

    - by newbie
    I need to convert XML data to Java objects. What would be best practice to convert this XML data to object? Idea is to fetch data via a web service (it doesn't use WSDL, just HTTP GET queries, so I cannot use any framework) and answers are in XML. What would be best practice to handle this situation?

    Read the article

  • Is possible to initialize an object in javascript in this way?

    - by Kucebe
    I'd like to initialize an object in javascript calling directly a method that belongs to it: var obj = (function(){ return{ init: function(){ console.log("initialized!"); }, uninit: function(x){ console.log("uninitialized!"); } }; }).init(); //later obj.uninit(); obj.init(); This specific example doesn't work, is there something similar?

    Read the article

  • Displaying individual elements of an object in an Arraylist through a for loop?

    - by user1180888
    I'm trying to Display individual elements of an Object I have created. It is a simple Java program that allows users to add and keep track of Player Details. I'm just stumped when it comes to displaying the details after they have been added already. here is what my code looks like I can create the object and input it into the arraylist no problem using the case 2, but when I try to print it out I want to do something like System.out.println("Player Name" + myPlayersArrayList.PlayerName + "Player Position" + myPlayerArrayList.PlayerPosition + "Player Age" + "Player Age"); I know that is not correct, but I dont really know what to do, if anyone can be of any help it would be greatly appreciated. Thanks System.out.println("Welcome to the Football Player database"); System.out.print(System.getProperty("line.separator")); UserInput myFirstUserInput = new UserInput(); int selection; ArrayList<Player> myPlayersArrayList = new ArrayList<Player>(); while (true) { System.out.println("1. View The Players"); System.out.println("2. Add A Player"); System.out.println("3. Edit A Player"); System.out.println("4. Delete A Player"); System.out.println("5. Exit ") ; System.out.print(System.getProperty("line.separator")); selection = myFirstUserInput.getInt("Please select an option"); System.out.print(System.getProperty("line.separator")); switch(selection){ case 1: if (myPlayersArrayList.isEmpty()) { System.out.println("No Players Have Been Entered Yet"); System.out.print(System.getProperty("line.separator")); break;} else {for(int i = 0; i < myPlayersArrayList.size(); i++){ System.out.println(myPlayersArrayList); } break; case 2: { String playerName,playerPos; int playerAge; playerName = (myFirstUserInput.getString("Enter Player name")); playerPos = (myFirstUserInput.getString("Enter Player Position")); playerAge = (myFirstUserInput.getInt("Enter Player Age")); myPlayersArrayList.add(new Player(playerName, playerPos, playerAge)); ; break; }

    Read the article

  • What are some useful things you can do with Mvc Modelbinders?

    - by George Mauer
    It occurs to me that the ModelBinder mechanism in ASP MVC public interface IModelBinder { object BindModel(System.Web.Mvc.ControllerContext controllerContext, System.Web.Mvc.ModelBindingContext bindingContext); } Is insanely powerful. What are some cool uses of this mechanism that you've done/seen? I guess since the concept is similar in other frameworks there's no reason to limit it to Asp Mvc

    Read the article

  • How might one teach OO without referencing physical real-world objects?

    - by hal10001
    I remember reading somewhere that the original concepts behind OO were to find a better architecture for handling the messaging of data between multiple systems in a way that protected the state of that data. Now that is probably a poor paraphrase, but it made me wonder if there is a way of teaching OO without the (Bike, Car, Person, etc.) object analogies, and that instead focuses on the messaging aspects. If you have articles, links, books, etc., that would be helpful.

    Read the article

  • Why is it a good practice to wrap all primitives and Strings?

    - by Amogh Talpallikar
    According to Jeff Bay's Essay on Object Callisthenics, One of the practices is set to be "Wrap all primitives and Strings" Can anyone elaborate on this ? In languages where we already have wrappers for primitives like C# and Java. and In languages where Collections can have generics where you are sure of what type goes into the collection, do we need to wrap string's inside their own classes ? Does it have any other advantage ?

    Read the article

  • Is it a good practice to wrap all primitives and Strings?

    - by Amogh Talpallikar
    According to Jeff Bay's Essay on Object Callisthenics, One of the practices is set to be "Wrap all primitives and Strings" Can anyone elaborate on this ? In languages where we already have wrappers for primitives like C# and Java. and In languages where Collections can have generics where you are sure of what type goes into the collection, do we need to wrap string's inside their own classes ? Does it have any other advantage ?

    Read the article

  • What is the diffference between "data hiding" and "encapsulation"?

    - by john smith optional
    I'm reading "Java concurrency in practice" and there is said: "Fortunately, the same object-oriented techniques that help you write well-organized, maintainable classes - such as encapsulation and data hiding -can also help you crate thread-safe classes." The problem #1 - I never heard about data hiding and don't know what it is. The problem #2 - I always thought that encapsulation is using private vs public, and is actually the data hiding. Can you please explain what data hiding is and how it differs from encapsulation?

    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

  • Super constructor must be a first statement in Java constructor [closed]

    - by Val
    I know the answer: "we need rules to prevent shooting into your own foot". Ok, I make millions of programming mistakes every day. To be prevented, we need one simple rule: prohibit all JLS and do not use Java. If we explain everything by "not shooting your foot", this is reasonable. But there is not much reason is such reason. When I programmed in Delphy, I always wanted the compiler to check me if I read uninitializable. I have discovered myself that is is stupid to read uncertain variable because it leads unpredictable result and is errorenous obviously. By just looking at the code I could see if there is an error. I wished if compiler could do this job. It is also a reliable signal of programming error if function does not return any value. But I never wanted it do enforce me the super constructor first. Why? You say that constructors just initialize fields. Super fields are derived; extra fields are introduced. From the goal point of view, it does not matter in which order you initialize the variables. I have studied parallel architectures and can say that all the fields can even be assigned in parallel... What? Do you want to use the unitialized fields? Stupid people always want to take away our freedoms and break the JLS rules the God gives to us! Please, policeman, take away that person! Where do I say so? I'm just saying only about initializing/assigning, not using the fields. Java compiler already defends me from the mistake of accessing notinitialized. Some cases sneak but this example shows how this stupid rule does not save us from the read-accessing incompletely initialized in construction: public class BadSuper { String field; public String toString() { return "field = " + field; } public BadSuper(String val) { field = val; // yea, superfirst does not protect from accessing // inconstructed subclass fields. Subclass constr // must be called before super()! System.err.println(this); } } public class BadPost extends BadSuper { Object o; public BadPost(Object o) { super("str"); this. o = o; } public String toString() { // superconstructor will boom here, because o is not initialized! return super.toString() + ", obj = " + o.toString(); } public static void main(String[] args) { new BadSuper("test 1"); new BadPost(new Object()); } } It shows that actually, subfields have to be inilialized before the supreclass! Meantime, java requirement "saves" us from writing specializing the class by specializing what the super constructor argument is, public class MyKryo extends Kryo { class MyClassResolver extends DefaultClassResolver { public Registration register(Registration registration) { System.out.println(MyKryo.this.getDepth()); return super.register(registration); } } MyKryo() { // cannot instantiate MyClassResolver in super super(new MyClassResolver(), new MapReferenceResolver()); } } Try to make it compilable. It is always pain. Especially, when you cannot assign the argument later. Initialization order is not important for initialization in general. I could understand that you should not use super methods before initializing super. But, the requirement for super to be the first statement is different. It only saves you from the code that does useful things simply. I do not see how this adds safety. Actually, safety is degraded because we need to use ugly workarounds. Doing post-initialization, outside the constructors also degrades safety (otherwise, why do we need constructors?) and defeats the java final safety reenforcer. To conclude Reading not initialized is a bug. Initialization order is not important from the computer science point of view. Doing initalization or computations in different order is not a bug. Reenforcing read-access to not initialized is good but compilers fail to detect all such bugs Making super the first does not solve the problem as it "Prevents" shooting into right things but not into the foot It requires to invent workarounds, where, because of complexity of analysis, it is easier to shoot into the foot doing post-initialization outside the constructors degrades safety (otherwise, why do we need constructors?) and that degrade safety by defeating final access modifier When there was java forum alive, java bigots attecked me for these thoughts. Particularly, they dislaked that fields can be initialized in parallel, saying that natural development ensures correctness. When I replied that you could use an advanced engineering to create a human right away, without "developing" any ape first, and it still be an ape, they stopped to listen me. Cos modern technology cannot afford it. Ok, Take something simpler. How do you produce a Renault? Should you construct an Automobile first? No, you start by producing a Renault and, once completed, you'll see that this is an automobile. So, the requirement to produce fields in "natural order" is unnatural. In case of alarmclock or armchair, which are still chair and clock, you may need first develop the base (clock and chair) and then add extra. So, I can have examples where superfields must be initialized first and, oppositely, when they need to be initialized later. The order does not exist in advance. So, the compiler cannot be aware of the proper order. Only programmer/constructor knows is. Compiler should not take more responsibility and enforce the wrong order onto programmer. Saying that I cannot initialize some fields because I did not ininialized the others is like "you cannot initialize the thing because it is not initialized". This is a kind of argument we have. So, to conclude once more, the feature that "protects" me from doing things in simple and right way in order to enforce something that does not add noticeably to the bug elimination at that is a strongly negative thing and it pisses me off, altogether with the all the arguments to support it I've seen so far. It is "a conceptual question about software development" Should there be the requirement to call super() first or not. I do not know. If you do or have an idea, you have place to answer. I think that I have provided enough arguments against this feature. Lets appreciate the ones who benefit form it. Let it just be something more than simple abstract and stupid "write your own language" or "protection" kind of argument. Why do we need it in the language that I am going to develop?

    Read the article

  • Making a design for a Problem [closed]

    - by Vaibhav Agarwal
    I have written many codes using OOPS and I am still to understand when is a code good enough to be accepted by experts. The thought procedure of every man is different and so is the design. My question is should I do something in particular to design my programs in such a way that they are good enough to be accepted by people. Other thing I have also read Head First Object Oriented Design but at last I feel that the way they design the problems is much different I would have designed them.

    Read the article

facebook twitter digg google delicious technorati stumbleupon myspace wordpress linkedin gmail igoogle windows live tumblr viadeo yahoo buzz yahoo mail yahoo bookmarks favorites email print

< Previous Page | 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112  | Next Page >