Search Results

Search found 1026 results on 42 pages for 'func'.

Page 12/42 | < Previous Page | 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19  | Next Page >

  • Unification of TPL TaskScheduler and RX IScheduler

    - by JoshReuben
    using System; using System.Collections.Generic; using System.Reactive.Concurrency; using System.Security; using System.Threading; using System.Threading.Tasks; using System.Windows.Threading; namespace TPLRXSchedulerIntegration { public class MyScheduler :TaskScheduler, IScheduler     { private readonly Dispatcher _dispatcher; private readonly DispatcherScheduler _rxDispatcherScheduler; //private readonly TaskScheduler _tplDispatcherScheduler; private readonly SynchronizationContext _synchronizationContext; public MyScheduler(Dispatcher dispatcher)         {             _dispatcher = dispatcher;             _rxDispatcherScheduler = new DispatcherScheduler(dispatcher); //_tplDispatcherScheduler = FromCurrentSynchronizationContext();             _synchronizationContext = SynchronizationContext.Current;         }         #region RX public DateTimeOffset Now         { get { return _rxDispatcherScheduler.Now; }         } public IDisposable Schedule<TState>(TState state, DateTimeOffset dueTime, Func<IScheduler, TState, IDisposable> action)         { return _rxDispatcherScheduler.Schedule(state, dueTime, action);         } public IDisposable Schedule<TState>(TState state, TimeSpan dueTime, Func<IScheduler, TState, IDisposable> action)         { return _rxDispatcherScheduler.Schedule(state, dueTime, action);         } public IDisposable Schedule<TState>(TState state, Func<IScheduler, TState, IDisposable> action)         { return _rxDispatcherScheduler.Schedule(state, action);         }         #endregion         #region TPL /// Simply posts the tasks to be executed on the associated SynchronizationContext         [SecurityCritical] protected override void QueueTask(Task task)         {             _dispatcher.BeginInvoke((Action)(() => TryExecuteTask(task))); //TryExecuteTaskInline(task,false); //task.Start(_tplDispatcherScheduler); //m_synchronizationContext.Post(s_postCallback, (object)task);         } /// The task will be executed inline only if the call happens within the associated SynchronizationContext         [SecurityCritical] protected override bool TryExecuteTaskInline(Task task, bool taskWasPreviouslyQueued)         { if (SynchronizationContext.Current != _synchronizationContext)             { SynchronizationContext.SetSynchronizationContext(_synchronizationContext);             } return TryExecuteTask(task);         } // not implemented         [SecurityCritical] protected override IEnumerable<Task> GetScheduledTasks()         { return null;         } /// Implementes the MaximumConcurrencyLevel property for this scheduler class. /// By default it returns 1, because a <see cref="T:System.Threading.SynchronizationContext"/> based /// scheduler only supports execution on a single thread. public override Int32 MaximumConcurrencyLevel         { get             { return 1;             }         } //// preallocated SendOrPostCallback delegate //private static SendOrPostCallback s_postCallback = new SendOrPostCallback(PostCallback); //// this is where the actual task invocation occures //private static void PostCallback(object obj) //{ //    Task task = (Task) obj; //    // calling ExecuteEntry with double execute check enabled because a user implemented SynchronizationContext could be buggy //    task.ExecuteEntry(true); //}         #endregion     } }     What Design Pattern did I use here?

    Read the article

  • Convert Dynamic to Type and convert Type to Dynamic

    - by Jon Canning
    public static class DynamicExtensions     {         public static T FromDynamic<T>(this IDictionary<string, object> dictionary)         {             var bindings = new List<MemberBinding>();             foreach (var sourceProperty in typeof(T).GetProperties().Where(x => x.CanWrite))             {                 var key = dictionary.Keys.SingleOrDefault(x => x.Equals(sourceProperty.Name, StringComparison.OrdinalIgnoreCase));                 if (string.IsNullOrEmpty(key)) continue;                 var propertyValue = dictionary[key];                 bindings.Add(Expression.Bind(sourceProperty, Expression.Constant(propertyValue)));             }             Expression memberInit = Expression.MemberInit(Expression.New(typeof(T)), bindings);             return Expression.Lambda<Func<T>>(memberInit).Compile().Invoke();         }         public static dynamic ToDynamic<T>(this T obj)         {             IDictionary<string, object> expando = new ExpandoObject();             foreach (var propertyInfo in typeof(T).GetProperties())             {                 var propertyExpression = Expression.Property(Expression.Constant(obj), propertyInfo);                 var currentValue = Expression.Lambda<Func<string>>(propertyExpression).Compile().Invoke();                 expando.Add(propertyInfo.Name.ToLower(), currentValue);             }             return expando as ExpandoObject;         }     }

    Read the article

  • Python C API return more than one value / object

    - by Grisu
    I got the following problem. I have written a C-Extension to Python to interface a self written software library. Unfortunately I need to return two values from the C function where the last one is optional. In Python the equivalent is def func(x,y): return x+y, x-y test = func(13,4) #only the first value is used In my C extension I use return Py_BuildValue("ii",x+y,x-y); which results in a tuple. If I now try to access the return value from Python via test2 = cfunc(13,4) print(test2) I got a tuple instead of only the first return value. How is possible to build the same behavior as in Python from C Extension?

    Read the article

  • LINQ: Enhancing Distinct With The SelectorEqualityComparer

    - by Paulo Morgado
    On my last post, I introduced the PredicateEqualityComparer and a Distinct extension method that receives a predicate to internally create a PredicateEqualityComparer to filter elements. Using the predicate, greatly improves readability, conciseness and expressiveness of the queries, but it can be even better. Most of the times, we don’t want to provide a comparison method but just to extract the comaprison key for the elements. So, I developed a SelectorEqualityComparer that takes a method that extracts the key value for each element. Something like this: public class SelectorEqualityComparer<TSource, Tkey> : EqualityComparer<TSource> where Tkey : IEquatable<Tkey> { private Func<TSource, Tkey> selector; public SelectorEqualityComparer(Func<TSource, Tkey> selector) : base() { this.selector = selector; } public override bool Equals(TSource x, TSource y) { Tkey xKey = this.GetKey(x); Tkey yKey = this.GetKey(y); if (xKey != null) { return ((yKey != null) && xKey.Equals(yKey)); } return (yKey == null); } public override int GetHashCode(TSource obj) { Tkey key = this.GetKey(obj); return (key == null) ? 0 : key.GetHashCode(); } public override bool Equals(object obj) { SelectorEqualityComparer<TSource, Tkey> comparer = obj as SelectorEqualityComparer<TSource, Tkey>; return (comparer != null); } public override int GetHashCode() { return base.GetType().Name.GetHashCode(); } private Tkey GetKey(TSource obj) { return (obj == null) ? (Tkey)(object)null : this.selector(obj); } } Now I can write code like this: .Distinct(new SelectorEqualityComparer<Source, Key>(x => x.Field)) And, for improved readability, conciseness and expressiveness and support for anonymous types the corresponding Distinct extension method: public static IEnumerable<TSource> Distinct<TSource, TKey>(this IEnumerable<TSource> source, Func<TSource, TKey> selector) where TKey : IEquatable<TKey> { return source.Distinct(new SelectorEqualityComparer<TSource, TKey>(selector)); } And the query is now written like this: .Distinct(x => x.Field) For most usages, it’s simpler than using a predicate.

    Read the article

  • await, WhenAll, WaitAll, oh my!!

    - by cibrax
    If you are dealing with asynchronous work in .NET, you might know that the Task class has become the main driver for wrapping asynchronous calls. Although this class was officially introduced in .NET 4.0, the programming model for consuming tasks was much more simplified in C# 5.0 in .NET 4.5 with the addition of the new async/await keywords. In a nutshell, you can use these keywords to make asynchronous calls as if they were sequential, and avoiding in that way any fork or callback in the code. The compiler takes care of the rest. I was yesterday writing some code for making multiple asynchronous calls to backend services in parallel. The code looked as follow, var allResults = new List<Result>(); foreach(var provider in providers) { var results = await provider.GetResults(); allResults.AddRange(results); } return allResults; You see, I was using the await keyword to make multiple calls in parallel. Something I did not consider was the overhead this code implied after being compiled. I started an interesting discussion with some smart folks in twitter. One of them, Tugberk Ugurlu, had the brilliant idea of actually write some code to make a performance comparison with another approach using Task.WhenAll. There are two additional methods you can use to wait for the results of multiple calls in parallel, WhenAll and WaitAll. WhenAll creates a new task and waits for results in that new task, so it does not block the calling thread. WaitAll, on the other hand, blocks the calling thread. This is the code Tugberk initially wrote, and I modified afterwards to also show the results of WaitAll. class Program { private static Func<Stopwatch, Task>[] funcs = new Func<Stopwatch, Task>[] { async (watch) => { watch.Start(); await Task.Delay(1000); Console.WriteLine("1000 one has been completed."); }, async (watch) => { await Task.Delay(1500); Console.WriteLine("1500 one has been completed."); }, async (watch) => { await Task.Delay(2000); Console.WriteLine("2000 one has been completed."); watch.Stop(); Console.WriteLine(watch.ElapsedMilliseconds + "ms has been elapsed."); } }; static void Main(string[] args) { Console.WriteLine("Await in loop work starts..."); DoWorkAsync().ContinueWith(task => { Console.WriteLine("Parallel work starts..."); DoWorkInParallelAsync().ContinueWith(t => { Console.WriteLine("WaitAll work starts..."); WaitForAll(); }); }); Console.ReadLine(); } static async Task DoWorkAsync() { Stopwatch watch = new Stopwatch(); foreach (var func in funcs) { await func(watch); } } static async Task DoWorkInParallelAsync() { Stopwatch watch = new Stopwatch(); await Task.WhenAll(funcs[0](watch), funcs[1](watch), funcs[2](watch)); } static void WaitForAll() { Stopwatch watch = new Stopwatch(); Task.WaitAll(funcs[0](watch), funcs[1](watch), funcs[2](watch)); } } After running this code, the results were very concluding. Await in loop work starts... 1000 one has been completed. 1500 one has been completed. 2000 one has been completed. 4532ms has been elapsed. Parallel work starts... 1000 one has been completed. 1500 one has been completed. 2000 one has been completed. 2007ms has been elapsed. WaitAll work starts... 1000 one has been completed. 1500 one has been completed. 2000 one has been completed. 2009ms has been elapsed. The await keyword in a loop does not really make the calls in parallel.

    Read the article

  • Is There a Real Advantage to Generic Repository?

    - by Sam
    Was reading through some articles on the advantages of creating Generic Repositories for a new app (example). The idea seems nice because it lets me use the same repository to do several things for several different entity types at once: IRepository repo = new EfRepository(); // Would normally pass through IOC into constructor var c1 = new Country() { Name = "United States", CountryCode = "US" }; var c2 = new Country() { Name = "Canada", CountryCode = "CA" }; var c3 = new Country() { Name = "Mexico", CountryCode = "MX" }; var p1 = new Province() { Country = c1, Name = "Alabama", Abbreviation = "AL" }; var p2 = new Province() { Country = c1, Name = "Alaska", Abbreviation = "AK" }; var p3 = new Province() { Country = c2, Name = "Alberta", Abbreviation = "AB" }; repo.Add<Country>(c1); repo.Add<Country>(c2); repo.Add<Country>(c3); repo.Add<Province>(p1); repo.Add<Province>(p2); repo.Add<Province>(p3); repo.Save(); However, the rest of the implementation of the Repository has a heavy reliance on Linq: IQueryable<T> Query(); IList<T> Find(Expression<Func<T,bool>> predicate); T Get(Expression<Func<T,bool>> predicate); T First(Expression<Func<T,bool>> predicate); //... and so on This repository pattern worked fantastic for Entity Framework, and pretty much offered a 1 to 1 mapping of the methods available on DbContext/DbSet. But given the slow uptake of Linq on other data access technologies outside of Entity Framework, what advantage does this provide over working directly with the DbContext? I attempted to write a PetaPoco version of the Repository, but PetaPoco doesn't support Linq Expressions, which makes creating a generic IRepository interface pretty much useless unless you only use it for the basic GetAll, GetById, Add, Update, Delete, and Save methods and utilize it as a base class. Then you have to create specific repositories with specialized methods to handle all the "where" clauses that I could previously pass in as a predicate. Is the Generic Repository pattern useful for anything outside of Entity Framework? If not, why would someone use it at all instead of working directly with Entity Framework? Edit: Original link doesn't reflect the pattern I was using in my sample code. Here is an (updated link).

    Read the article

  • I don't understand how work call_once

    - by SABROG
    Please help me understand how work call_once Here is thread-safe code. I don't understand why this need Thread Local Storage and global_epoch variables. Variable _fast_pthread_once_per_thread_epoch can be changed to constant/enum like {FAST_PTHREAD_ONCE_INIT, BEING_INITIALIZED, FINISH_INITIALIZED}. Why needed count calls in global_epoch? I think this code can be rewriting with logc: if flag FINISH_INITIALIZED do nothing, else go to block with mutexes and this all. #ifndef FAST_PTHREAD_ONCE_H #define FAST_PTHREAD_ONCE_H #include #include typedef sig_atomic_t fast_pthread_once_t; #define FAST_PTHREAD_ONCE_INIT SIG_ATOMIC_MAX extern __thread fast_pthread_once_t _fast_pthread_once_per_thread_epoch; #ifdef __cplusplus extern "C" { #endif extern void fast_pthread_once( pthread_once_t *once, void (*func)(void) ); inline static void fast_pthread_once_inline( fast_pthread_once_t *once, void (*func)(void) ) { fast_pthread_once_t x = *once; /* unprotected access */ if ( x _fast_pthread_once_per_thread_epoch ) { fast_pthread_once( once, func ); } } #ifdef __cplusplus } #endif #endif FAST_PTHREAD_ONCE_H Source fast_pthread_once.c The source is written in C. The lines of the primary function are numbered for reference in the subsequent correctness argument. #include "fast_pthread_once.h" #include static pthread_mutex_t mu = PTHREAD_MUTEX_INITIALIZER; /* protects global_epoch and all fast_pthread_once_t writes */ static pthread_cond_t cv = PTHREAD_COND_INITIALIZER; /* signalled whenever a fast_pthread_once_t is finalized */ #define BEING_INITIALIZED (FAST_PTHREAD_ONCE_INIT - 1) static fast_pthread_once_t global_epoch = 0; /* under mu */ __thread fast_pthread_once_t _fast_pthread_once_per_thread_epoch; static void check( int x ) { if ( x == 0 ) abort(); } void fast_pthread_once( fast_pthread_once_t *once, void (*func)(void) ) { /*01*/ fast_pthread_once_t x = *once; /* unprotected access */ /*02*/ if ( x _fast_pthread_once_per_thread_epoch ) { /*03*/ check( pthread_mutex_lock(µ) == 0 ); /*04*/ if ( *once == FAST_PTHREAD_ONCE_INIT ) { /*05*/ *once = BEING_INITIALIZED; /*06*/ check( pthread_mutex_unlock(µ) == 0 ); /*07*/ (*func)(); /*08*/ check( pthread_mutex_lock(µ) == 0 ); /*09*/ global_epoch++; /*10*/ *once = global_epoch; /*11*/ check( pthread_cond_broadcast(&cv;) == 0 ); /*12*/ } else { /*13*/ while ( *once == BEING_INITIALIZED ) { /*14*/ check( pthread_cond_wait(&cv;, µ) == 0 ); /*15*/ } /*16*/ } /*17*/ _fast_pthread_once_per_thread_epoch = global_epoch; /*18*/ check (pthread_mutex_unlock(µ) == 0); } } This code from BOOST: #ifndef BOOST_THREAD_PTHREAD_ONCE_HPP #define BOOST_THREAD_PTHREAD_ONCE_HPP // once.hpp // // (C) Copyright 2007-8 Anthony Williams // // Distributed under the Boost Software License, Version 1.0. (See // accompanying file LICENSE_1_0.txt or copy at // http://www.boost.org/LICENSE_1_0.txt) #include #include #include #include "pthread_mutex_scoped_lock.hpp" #include #include #include namespace boost { struct once_flag { boost::uintmax_t epoch; }; namespace detail { BOOST_THREAD_DECL boost::uintmax_t& get_once_per_thread_epoch(); BOOST_THREAD_DECL extern boost::uintmax_t once_global_epoch; BOOST_THREAD_DECL extern pthread_mutex_t once_epoch_mutex; BOOST_THREAD_DECL extern pthread_cond_t once_epoch_cv; } #define BOOST_ONCE_INITIAL_FLAG_VALUE 0 #define BOOST_ONCE_INIT {BOOST_ONCE_INITIAL_FLAG_VALUE} // Based on Mike Burrows fast_pthread_once algorithm as described in // http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2007/n2444.html template void call_once(once_flag& flag,Function f) { static boost::uintmax_t const uninitialized_flag=BOOST_ONCE_INITIAL_FLAG_VALUE; static boost::uintmax_t const being_initialized=uninitialized_flag+1; boost::uintmax_t const epoch=flag.epoch; boost::uintmax_t& this_thread_epoch=detail::get_once_per_thread_epoch(); if(epoch #endif I right understand, boost don't use atomic operation, so code from boost not thread-safe?

    Read the article

  • How do I use constructor dependency injection to supply Models from a collection to their ViewModels

    - by GraemeF
    I'm using constructor dependency injection in my WPF application and I keep running into the following pattern, so would like to get other people's opinion on it and hear about alternative solutions. The goal is to wire up a hierarchy of ViewModels to a similar hierarchy of Models, so that the responsibility for presenting the information in each model lies with its own ViewModel implementation. (The pattern also crops up under other circumstances but MVVM should make for a good example.) Here's a simplified example. Given that I have a model that has a collection of further models: public interface IPerson { IEnumerable<IAddress> Addresses { get; } } public interface IAddress { } I would like to mirror this hierarchy in the ViewModels so that I can bind a ListBox (or whatever) to a collection in the Person ViewModel: public interface IPersonViewModel { ObservableCollection<IAddressViewModel> Addresses { get; } void Initialize(); } public interface IAddressViewModel { } The child ViewModel needs to present the information from the child Model, so it's injected via the constructor: public class AddressViewModel : IAddressViewModel { private readonly IAddress _address; public AddressViewModel(IAddress address) { _address = address; } } The question is, what is the best way to supply the child Model to the corresponding child ViewModel? The example is trivial, but in a typical real case the ViewModels have more dependencies - each of which has its own dependencies (and so on). I'm using Unity 1.2 (although I think the question is relevant across the other IoC containers), and I am using Caliburn's view strategies to automatically find and wire up the appropriate View to a ViewModel. Here is my current solution: The parent ViewModel needs to create a child ViewModel for each child Model, so it has a factory method added to its constructor which it uses during initialization: public class PersonViewModel : IPersonViewModel { private readonly Func<IAddress, IAddressViewModel> _addressViewModelFactory; private readonly IPerson _person; public PersonViewModel(IPerson person, Func<IAddress, IAddressViewModel> addressViewModelFactory) { _addressViewModelFactory = addressViewModelFactory; _person = person; Addresses = new ObservableCollection<IAddressViewModel>(); } public ObservableCollection<IAddressViewModel> Addresses { get; private set; } public void Initialize() { foreach (IAddress address in _person.Addresses) Addresses.Add(_addressViewModelFactory(address)); } } A factory method that satisfies the Func<IAddress, IAddressViewModel> interface is registered with the main UnityContainer. The factory method uses a child container to register the IAddress dependency that is required by the ViewModel and then resolves the child ViewModel: public class Factory { private readonly IUnityContainer _container; public Factory(IUnityContainer container) { _container = container; } public void RegisterStuff() { _container.RegisterInstance<Func<IAddress, IAddressViewModel>>(CreateAddressViewModel); } private IAddressViewModel CreateAddressViewModel(IAddress model) { IUnityContainer childContainer = _container.CreateChildContainer(); childContainer.RegisterInstance(model); return childContainer.Resolve<IAddressViewModel>(); } } Now, when the PersonViewModel is initialized, it loops through each Address in the Model and calls CreateAddressViewModel() (which was injected via the Func<IAddress, IAddressViewModel> argument). CreateAddressViewModel() creates a temporary child container and registers the IAddress model so that when it resolves the IAddressViewModel from the child container the AddressViewModel gets the correct instance injected via its constructor. This seems to be a good solution to me as the dependencies of the ViewModels are very clear and they are easily testable and unaware of the IoC container. On the other hand, performance is OK but not great as a lot of temporary child containers can be created. Also I end up with a lot of very similar factory methods. Is this the best way to inject the child Models into the child ViewModels with Unity? Is there a better (or faster) way to do it in other IoC containers, e.g. Autofac? How would this problem be tackled with MEF, given that it is not a traditional IoC container but is still used to compose objects?

    Read the article

  • Why one loop is performing better than other memory wise as well as performance wise?

    - by Mohit
    I have following two loops in C#, and I am running these loops for a collection with 10,000 records being downloaded with paging using "yield return" First foreach(var k in collection) { repo.Save(k); } Second var collectionEnum = collection.GetEnumerator(); while (collectionEnum.MoveNext()) { var k = collectionEnum.Current; repo.Save(k); k = null; } Seems like that the second loop consumes less memory and it faster than the first loop. Memory I understand may be because of k being set to null(Even though I am not sure). But how come it is faster than for each. Following is the actual code [Test] public void BechmarkForEach_Test() { bool isFirstTimeSync = true; Func<Contact, bool> afterProcessing = contactItem => { return true; }; var contactService = CreateSerivce("/administrator/components/com_civicrm"); var contactRepo = new ContactRepository(new Mock<ILogger>().Object); contactRepo.Drop(); contactRepo = new ContactRepository(new Mock<ILogger>().Object); Profile("For Each Profiling",1,()=>{ var localenumertaor=contactService.Download(); foreach (var item in localenumertaor) { if (isFirstTimeSync) item.StateFlag = 1; item.ClientTimeStamp = DateTime.UtcNow; if (item.StateFlag == 1) contactRepo.Insert(item); else contactRepo.Update(item); afterProcessing(item); } contactRepo.DeleteAll(); }); } [Test] public void BechmarkWhile_Test() { bool isFirstTimeSync = true; Func<Contact, bool> afterProcessing = contactItem => { return true; }; var contactService = CreateSerivce("/administrator/components/com_civicrm"); var contactRepo = new ContactRepository(new Mock<ILogger>().Object); contactRepo.Drop(); contactRepo = new ContactRepository(new Mock<ILogger>().Object); var itemsCollection = contactService.Download().GetEnumerator(); Profile("While Profiling", 1, () => { while (itemsCollection.MoveNext()) { var item = itemsCollection.Current; //if First time sync then ignore and overwrite the stateflag if (isFirstTimeSync) item.StateFlag = 1; item.ClientTimeStamp = DateTime.UtcNow; if (item.StateFlag == 1) contactRepo.Insert(item); else contactRepo.Update(item); afterProcessing(item); item = null; } contactRepo.DeleteAll(); }); } static void Profile(string description, int iterations, Action func) { // clean up GC.Collect(); GC.WaitForPendingFinalizers(); GC.Collect(); // warm up func(); var watch = Stopwatch.StartNew(); for (int i = 0; i < iterations; i++) { func(); } watch.Stop(); Console.Write(description); Console.WriteLine(" Time Elapsed {0} ms", watch.ElapsedMilliseconds); } I m using the micro bench marking, from a stackoverflow question itself benchmarking-small-code The time taken is For Each Profiling Time Elapsed 5249 ms While Profiling Time Elapsed 116 ms

    Read the article

  • C# searching for new Tool for the tool box, how to template this code

    - by Nix
    All i have something i have been trying to do for a while and have yet to find a good strategy to do it, i am not sure C# can even support what i am trying to do. Example imagine a template like this, repeated in manager code overarching cocept function Returns a result consisting of a success flag and error list. public Result<Boolean> RemoveLocation(LocationKey key) { List<Error> errorList = new List<Error>(); Boolean result = null; try{ result = locationDAO.RemoveLocation(key); }catch(UpdateException ue){ //Error happened less pass this back to the user! errorList = ue.ErrorList; } return new Result<Boolean>(result, errorList); } Looking to turn it into a template like the below where Do Something is some call (preferably not static) that returns a Boolean. I know i could do this in a stack sense, but i am really looking for a way to do it via object reference. public Result<Boolean> RemoveLocation(LocationKey key) { var magic = locationDAO.RemoveLocation(key); return ProtectedDAOCall(magic); } public Result<Boolean> CreateLocation(LocationKey key) { var magic = locationDAO.CreateLocation(key); return ProtectedDAOCall(magic); } public Result<Boolean> ProtectedDAOCall(Func<..., bool> doSomething) { List<Error> errorList = new List<Error>(); Boolean result = null; try{ result = doSomething(); }catch(UpdateException ue){ //Error happened less pass this back to the user! errorList = ue.ErrorList; } return new Result<Boolean>(result, errorList); } If there is any more information you may need let me know. I am interested to see what someone else can come up with. Marc solution applied to the code above public Result<Boolean> CreateLocation(LocationKey key) { LocationDAO locationDAO = new LocationDAO(); return WrapMethod(() => locationDAO.CreateLocation(key)); } public Result<Boolean> RemoveLocation(LocationKey key) { LocationDAO locationDAO = new LocationDAO(); return WrapMethod(() => locationDAO.RemoveLocation(key)); } static Result<T> WrapMethod<T>(Func<Result<T>> func) { try { return func(); } catch (UpdateException ue) { return new Result<T>(default(T), ue.Errors); } }

    Read the article

  • How can you do Co-routines using C#?

    - by WeNeedAnswers
    In python the yield keyword can be used in both push and pull contexts, I know how to do the pull context in c# but how would I achieve the push. I post the code I am trying to replicate in c# from python: def coroutine(func): def start(*args,**kwargs): cr = func(*args,**kwargs) cr.next() return cr return start @coroutine def grep(pattern): print "Looking for %s" % pattern try: while True: line = (yield) if pattern in line: print line, except GeneratorExit: print "Going away. Goodbye"

    Read the article

  • How to shorthand array declaration in a method call?

    - by Paul Sasik
    Hi all, This is hopefully a softball syntax question: I need to call a method with an empty Object array for evaluation and set initial state. In C# I would just do this: func(new Object[]{}); In VB.NET I am forced to do this: Dim ctrls() As Control = {} func(ctrls) Is there a way to shorthand the call in VB.NET and have everything happen in one line of code? P.S. VB-bashing will earn bonus points. ;-)

    Read the article

  • MIN() and MAX() in Swift and converting Int to CGFloat

    - by gotnull
    I'm getting some errors with the following methods: 1) How do I return screenHeight / cellCount as a CGFLoat for the first method? 2) How do I use the equivalent of ObjC's MIN() and MAX() in the second method? func tableView(tableView: UITableView!, heightForRowAtIndexPath indexPath: NSIndexPath!) -> CGFloat { var cellCount = Int(self.tableView.numberOfRowsInSection(indexPath.section)) return screenHeight / cellCount as CGFloat } // #pragma mark - UIScrollViewDelegate func scrollViewDidScroll(scrollView: UIScrollView) { let height = CGFloat(scrollView.bounds.size.height) let position = CGFloat(MAX(scrollView.contentOffset.y, 0.0)) let percent = CGFloat(MIN(position / height, 1.0)) blurredImageView.alpha = percent }

    Read the article

  • Advantage of creating a generic repository vs. specific repository for each object?

    - by LuckyLindy
    We are developing an ASP.NET MVC application, and are now building the repository/service classes. I'm wondering if there are any major advantages to creating a generic IRepository interface that all repositories implement, vs. each Repository having its own unique interface and set of methods. For example: a generic IRepository interface might look like (taken from this answer): public interface IRepository : IDisposable { T[] GetAll<T>(); T[] GetAll<T>(Expression<Func<T, bool>> filter); T GetSingle<T>(Expression<Func<T, bool>> filter); T GetSingle<T>(Expression<Func<T, bool>> filter, List<Expression<Func<T, object>>> subSelectors); void Delete<T>(T entity); void Add<T>(T entity); int SaveChanges(); DbTransaction BeginTransaction(); } Each Repository would implement this interface (e.g. CustomerRepository:IRepository, ProductRepository:IRepository, etc). The alternate that we've followed in prior projects would be: public interface IInvoiceRepository : IDisposable { EntityCollection<InvoiceEntity> GetAllInvoices(int accountId); EntityCollection<InvoiceEntity> GetAllInvoices(DateTime theDate); InvoiceEntity GetSingleInvoice(int id, bool doFetchRelated); InvoiceEntity GetSingleInvoice(DateTime invoiceDate, int accountId); //unique InvoiceEntity CreateInvoice(); InvoiceLineEntity CreateInvoiceLine(); void SaveChanges(InvoiceEntity); //handles inserts or updates void DeleteInvoice(InvoiceEntity); void DeleteInvoiceLine(InvoiceLineEntity); } In the second case, the expressions (LINQ or otherwise) would be entirely contained in the Repository implementation, whoever is implementing the service just needs to know which repository function to call. I guess I don't see the advantage of writing all the expression syntax in the service class and passing to the repository. Wouldn't this mean easy-to-messup LINQ code is being duplicated in many cases? For example, in our old invoicing system, we call InvoiceRepository.GetSingleInvoice(DateTime invoiceDate, int accountId) from a few different services (Customer, Invoice, Account, etc). That seems much cleaner than writing the following in multiple places: rep.GetSingle(x => x.AccountId = someId && x.InvoiceDate = someDate.Date); The only disadvantage I see to using the specific approach is that we could end up with many permutations of Get* functions, but this still seems preferable to pushing the expression logic up into the Service classes. What am I missing?

    Read the article

  • Binding functions of derived class with luabind

    - by Anamon
    I am currently developing a plugin-based system in C++ which provides a Lua scripting interface, for which I chose to use luabind. I'm using Lua 5 and luabind 0.9, both statically linked and compiled with MSVC++ 8. I am now having trouble binding functions with luabind when they are defined in a derived class, but not its parent class. More specifically, I have an abstract base class called 'IPlugin' from which all plugin classes inherit. When the plugin manager initialises, it registers that class and its functions like this: luabind::open(L); luabind::module(L) [ luabind::class_("IPlugin") .def("start", (void(IPlugin::*)())&IPlugin::start) ]; As it is only known at runtime what effective plugin classes are available, I had to solve loading plugins in a kind of roundabout way. The plugin manager exposes a factory function to Lua, which takes the name of a plugin class and a desired object name. The factory then creates the object, registers the plugin's class as inheriting from the 'IPlugin' base class, and immediately calls a function on the created object that registers itself as a global with the Lua state, like this: void PluginExample::registerLuaObject(lua_State *L, string a_name) { luabind::globals(L)[a_name] = (PluginExample*)this; } I initially did this because I had problems with Lua determining the most derived class of the object, as if I register it from the StreamManager it is only known as a subtype of 'IPlugin' and not the specific subtype. I'm not sure anymore if this is even necessary though, but it works and the created object is subsequently accessible from Lua under 'a_name'. The problem I have, though, is that functions defined in the derived class, which were not declared at all in the parent class, cannot be used. Virtual functions defined in the base class, such as 'start' above, work fine, and calling them from Lua on the new object runs the respective redefined code from the 'PluginExample' class. But if I add a new function to 'PluginExample', here for example a function taking no arguments and returning void, and register it like this: luabind::module(L) [ luabind::class_("PluginExample") .def(luabind::constructor()) .def("func", &PluginExample::func) ]; calling 'func' on the new object yields the following Lua runtime error: No matching overload found, candidates: void func(PluginExample&) I am correctly using the ':' syntax so the 'self' argument is not needed and it seems suddenly Lua cannot determine the derived type of the object anymore. I am sure I am doing something wrong, probably having to do with the two-step binding required by my system architecture, but I can't figure out where. I'd much appreciate some help =)

    Read the article

  • What is this conversion called?

    - by LoudNPossiblyRight
    Is there a name or a term for this type of conversion in the c++ community? Has anyone seen this conversion be referred to as "implicit conversion"? class ALPHA{}; class BETA{ public: operator ALPHA(){return alpha;} private: ALPHA alpha; }; void func(ALPHA alpha){} int main(){ BETA beta; func(beta); return 0; }

    Read the article

  • Continue executing with thrown exception?

    - by fsdfa
    There's something really weird, I have (in C++): func(); cout << "Heeey" << endl; And func, throws an exception: "throw string("ERROR");". But the cout is done, and the exception is successfully catched. Why it prints "Heeey" if there was an exception before?.

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19  | Next Page >