Search Results

Search found 3956 results on 159 pages for 'constructor overloading'.

Page 13/159 | < Previous Page | 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20  | Next Page >

  • Use constructor or setter method?

    - by user633600
    I am working on a UI code where I have an Action class, something like this - public class MyAction extends Action { public MyAction() { setText("My Action Text"); setToolTip("My Action Tool tip"); setImage("Some Image"); } } When this Action class was created it was pretty much assumed that the Action class wont be customizable (in a sense- its text, tooltip or image will be not be changed anywhere in the code). Of late, now we are in need of changing the action text at some location in code. So I suggested my co-worker to remove the hardcoded action text from the constructor and accept it as an argument, so that everybody is forced to pass the action text. Something like this code below - public class MyAction extends Action { public MyAction(String actionText) { setText(actionText); setTooltip("My Action tool tip); setImage("My Image"); } } He however thinks that since setText() method belongs to base class. It can be flexibly used to pass the action text wherever action instance is created. That way, there is no need to change the existing MyAction class. So his code would look something like this. MyAction action = new MyAction(); //this creates action instance with the hardcoded text action.setText("User required new action text"); //overwrite the exisitng text. I am not sure if that is a correct way to deal with problem. I think in above mentioned case user is anyway going to change the text, so why not force him while constructing the action. The only benefit I see with the original code is that user can create Action class without much thinking about setting text.

    Read the article

  • WCF Runtime Error while using Constructor

    - by Pranesh Nair
    Hi all, I am new to WCF i am using constructor in my WCF service.svc.cs file....It throws this error when i use the constructor The service type provided could not be loaded as a service because it does not have a default (parameter-less) constructor. To fix the problem, add a default constructor to the type, or pass an instance of the type to the host. When i remove the constructor its working fine....But its compulsory that i have to use constructor... This is my code namespace UserAuthentication { [ServiceBehavior(InstanceContextMode=System.ServiceModel.InstanceContextMode.Single)] public class UserAuthentication : UserRepository,IUserAuthentication { private ISqlMapper _mapper; private IRoleRepository _roleRepository; public UserAuthentication(ISqlMapper mapper): base(mapper) { _mapper = mapper; _roleRepository = new RoleRepository(_mapper); } public string EduvisionLogin(EduvisionUser aUser, int SchoolID) { UserRepository sampleCode= new UserRepository(_mapper); sampleCode.Login(aUser); return "Login Success"; } } } can anyone provide ideas or suggestions or sample code hw to resolve this issue...

    Read the article

  • Generic Abstract Singleton with Custom Constructor in C#

    - by Heka
    I want to write a generic singleton with an external constructor. In other words the constructor can be modified. I have 2 designs in my mind but I don't know whether they are practical or not. First one is to enforce derived class' constructor to be non-public but I do not know if there is a way of it? Second one is to use a delegate and call it inside the constructor? It isn't necessarily to be a constructor. The reason I chose custom constructor is doing some custom initializations. Any suggestions would be appreciated :)

    Read the article

  • How is a constructor executed?

    - by simion
    I am doing some reviison from the lecture slides and it says a constructor is executed in the following way; If the constructor starts with this, recursively execute the indicated constructor, then go to step 4. Invoke the explicitly or implicitly indicated superclass constructor (unless this class is java.lang.Object) Initialise the fields of the object in the order in which they were declared in this class Execute the rest of the body of this constructor. What i dont undertsand is that, a constructor can never "start" with this, because even if it forms no class heirarchy/relationship then super() is inserted by default. How would this fit in with the description above? Thanks

    Read the article

  • What is the meaning of ": base" in the constructor definition ?

    - by DotNetBeginner
    What is the meaning of ": base" in the costructor of following class(MyClass) ? Please explain the concept behind constructor definition given below for class MyClass. public class MyClass: WorkerThread { public MyClass(object data): base(data) { // some code } } public abstract class WorkerThread { private object ThreadData; private Thread thisThread; public WorkerThread(object data) { this.ThreadData = data; } public WorkerThread() { ThreadData = null; } }

    Read the article

  • Passing parameter to base class constructor or using instance variable?

    - by deamon
    All classes derived from a certain base class have to define an attribute called "path". In the sense of duck typing I could rely upon definition in the subclasses: class Base: pass # no "path" variable here def Sub(Base): def __init__(self): self.path = "something/" Another possiblity would be to use the base class constructor: class Base: def __init__(self, path): self.path = path def Sub(Base): def __init__(self): super().__init__("something/") What would you prefer and why? Is there a better way?

    Read the article

  • Is it a good or bad practice to call instance methods from a java constructor?

    - by Steve
    There are several different ways I can initialize complex objects (with injected dependencies and required set-up of injected members), are all seem reasonable, but have various advantages and disadvantages. I'll give a concrete example: final class MyClass { private final Dependency dependency; @Inject public MyClass(Dependency dependency) { this.dependency = dependency; dependency.addHandler(new Handler() { @Override void handle(int foo) { MyClass.this.doSomething(foo); } }); doSomething(0); } private void doSomething(int foo) { dependency.doSomethingElse(foo+1); } } As you can see, the constructor does 3 things, including calling an instance method. I've been told that calling instance methods from a constructor is unsafe because it circumvents the compiler's checks for uninitialized members. I.e. I could have called doSomething(0) before setting this.dependency, which would have compiled but not worked. What is the best way to refactor this? Make doSomething static and pass in the dependency explicitly? In my actual case I have three instance methods and three member fields that all depend on one another, so this seems like a lot of extra boilerplate to make all three of these static. Move the addHandler and doSomething into an @Inject public void init() method. While use with Guice will be transparent, it requires any manual construction to be sure to call init() or else the object won't be fully-functional if someone forgets. Also, this exposes more of the API, both of which seem like bad ideas. Wrap a nested class to keep the dependency to make sure it behaves properly without exposing additional API:class DependencyManager { private final Dependency dependency; public DependecyManager(Dependency dependency) { ... } public doSomething(int foo) { ... } } @Inject public MyClass(Dependency dependency) { DependencyManager manager = new DependencyManager(dependency); manager.doSomething(0); } This pulls instance methods out of all constructors, but generates an extra layer of classes, and when I already had inner and anonymous classes (e.g. that handler) it can become confusing - when I tried this I was told to move the DependencyManager to a separate file, which is also distasteful because it's now multiple files to do a single thing. So what is the preferred way to deal with this sort of situation?

    Read the article

  • Does binding temporary to a reference require a copy constructor in C++?

    - by vitaut
    Consider the following code: class A { A(const A&); public: A() {} }; int main() { const A &a = A(); } This code compiles fine with GCC, but fails to compile with Visual C++ with the following error: test.cc(8) : error C2248: 'A::A' : cannot access private member declared in class 'A' test.cc(2) : see declaration of 'A::A' test.cc(1) : see declaration of 'A' So is it necessary to have a copy constructor accessible when binding a temporary to a reference?

    Read the article

  • How can I define a constructor in an open generic type?

    - by Cort
    I am trying to create on open generic type that has a constructor to be used by derived types, but I either don't know how to do it or it is not possible -- not sure which. public struct DataType<T> : IDataType { private T myValue; private TypeState myState; private DataType<T>(T initialValue, TypeState state) { myValue = initialValue; myState = state; } } Any help much appreciated! Cort

    Read the article

  • When should method overloads be refactored?

    - by Ben Heley
    When should code that looks like: DoThing(string foo, string bar); DoThing(string foo, string bar, int baz, bool qux); ... DoThing(string foo, string bar, int baz, bool qux, string more, string andMore); Be refactored into something that can be called like so: var doThing = new DoThing(foo, bar); doThing.more = value; doThing.andMore = otherValue; doThing.Go(); Or should it be refactored into something else entirely? In the particular case that inspired this question, it's a public interface for an XSLT templating DLL where we've had to add various flags (of various types) that can't be embedded into the string XML input.

    Read the article

  • Should we rename overloaded methods?

    - by Mik378
    Assume an interface containing these methods : Car find(long id); List<Car> find(String model); Is it better to rename them like this? Car findById(long id); List findByModel(String model); Indeed, any developer who use this API won't need to look at the interface for knowing possible arguments of initial find() methods. So my question is more general : What is the benefit of using overloaded methods in code since it reduce readability?

    Read the article

  • How to prevent duplicate data access methods that retrieve similar data?

    - by Ronald Wildenberg
    In almost every project I work on with a team, the same problem seems to creep in. Someone writes UI code that needs data and writes a data access method: AssetDto GetAssetById(int assetId) A week later someone else is working on another part of the application and also needs an AssetDto but now including 'approvers' and writes the following: AssetDto GetAssetWithApproversById(int assetId) A month later someone needs an asset but now including the 'questions' (or the 'owners' or the 'running requests', etc): AssetDto GetAssetWithQuestionsById(int assetId) AssetDto GetAssetWithOwnersById(int assetId) AssetDto GetAssetWithRunningRequestsById(int assetId) And it gets even worse when methods like GetAssetWithOwnerAndQuestionsById start to appear. You see the pattern that emerges: an object is attached to a large object graph and you need different parts of this graph in different locations. Of course, I'd like to prevent having a large number of methods that do almost the same. Is it simply a matter of team discipline or is there some pattern I can use to prevent this? In some cases it might make sense to have separate methods, i.e. getting an asset with running requests may be expensive so I do not want to include these all the time. How to handle such cases?

    Read the article

  • Move constructor and assignment operator: why no default for derived classes?

    - by doublep
    Why there is default move constructor or assignment operator not created for derived classes? To demonstrate what I mean; having this setup code: #include <utility> struct A { A () { } A (A&&) { throw 0; } A& operator= (A&&) { throw 0; } }; struct B : A { }; either of the following lines throws: A x (std::move (A ()); A x; x = A (); but neither of the following does: B x (std::move (B ()); B x; x = B (); In case it matters, I tested with GCC 4.4.

    Read the article

  • spring - constructor injection and overriding parent definition of nested bean

    - by mdma
    I've read the Spring 3 reference on inheriting bean definitions, but I'm confused about what is possible and not possible. For example, a bean that takes a collaborator bean, configured with the value 12 <bean name="beanService12" class="SomeSevice"> <constructor-arg index="0"> <bean name="beanBaseNested" class="SomeCollaborator"> <constructor-arg index="0" value="12"/> </bean> </constructor-arg> </bean> I'd then like to be able to create similar beans, with slightly different configured collaborators. Can I do something like <bean name="beanService13" parent="beanService12"> <constructor-arg index="0"> <bean> <constructor-arg index="0" value="13"/> </bean> </constructor> </bean> I'm not sure this is possible and, if it were, it feels a bit clunky. Is there a nicer way to override small parts of a large nested bean definition? It seems the child bean has to know quite a lot about the parent, e.g. constructor index. I'd prefer not to change the structure - the parent beans use collaborators to perform their function, but I can add properties and use property injection if that helps. This is a repeated pattern, would creating a custom schema help? Thanks for any advice!

    Read the article

  • Why must "stride" in the System.Drawing.Bitmap constructor be a multiple of 4?

    - by Gorchestopher H
    I am writing an application that requires me to take a proprietary bitmap format (an MVTec Halcon HImage) and convert it into a System.Drawing.Bitmap in C#. The only proprietary functions given to me to help me do this involve me writing to file, except for the use of a "get pointer" function. This function is great, it gives me a pointer to the pixel data, the width, the height, and the type of the image. My issue is that when I create my System.Drawing.Bitmap using the constructor: new System.Drawing.Bitmap(width, height, stride, format, scan) I need to specify a "stride" that is a multiple of 4. This may be a problem as I am unsure what size bitmap my function will be hit with. Supposing I end up with a bitmap that is 111x111 pixels, I have no way to run this function other than adding a bogus column to my image or subtracting 3 columns. Is there a way I can sneak around this limitation?

    Read the article

  • Can an interface define the signature of a c#-constructor

    - by happyclicker
    I have a .net-app that provides a mechanism to extend the app with plugins. Each plugin must implement a plugin-interface and must provide furthermore a constructor that receives one parameter (a resource context). During the instantiation of the plugin-class I look via reflection, if the needed constructor exists and if yes, I instantiate the class (via Reflection). If the constructor does not exists, I throw an exception that says that the plugin not could be created, because the desired constructor is not available. My question is, if there is a way to declare the signature of a constructor in the plugin-interface so that everyone that implements the plugin-interface must also provide a constructor with the desired signature. This would ease the creation of plugins. I don’t think that such a possibility exists because I think such a feature falls not in the main purpose for what interfaces were designed for but perhaps someone knows a statement that does this, something like: public interface IPlugin { ctor(IResourceContext resourceContext); int AnotherPluginFunction(); } I want to add that I don't want to change the constructor to be parameterless and then set the resource-context through a property, because this will make the creation of plugins much more complicated. The persons that write plugins are not persons with deep programming experience. The plugins are used to calculate statistical data that will be visualized by the app.

    Read the article

  • [C#] How to create a constructor of a class that return a collection of instances of that class?

    - by codemonkie
    My program has the following class definition: public sealed class Subscriber { private subscription; public Subscriber(int id) { using (DataContext dc = new DataContext()) { this.subscription = dc._GetSubscription(id).SingleOrDefault(); } } } ,where _GetSubscription() is a sproc which returns a value of type ISingleResult<_GetSubscriptionResult> Say, I have a list of type List<int> full of 1000 ids and I want to create a collection of subscribers of type List<Subscriber>. How can I do that without calling the constructor in a loop for 1000 times? Since I am trying to avoid switching the DataContext on/off so frequently that may stress the database. TIA.

    Read the article

  • C# Struct No Parameterless Constructor? See what I need to accomplish

    - by Changeling
    I am using a struct to pass to an unmanaged DLL as so - [StructLayout(LayoutKind.Sequential)] public struct valTable { public byte type; public byte map; public byte spare1; public byte spare2; public int par; public int min; public byte[] name; public valTable() { name = new byte[24]; } } The code above will not compile because VS 2005 will complain that "Structs cannot contain explicit parameterless constructors". In order to pass this struct to my DLL, I have to pass an array of struct's like so valTable[] val = new valTable[281]; What I would like to do is when I say new, the constructor is called and it creates an array of bytes like I am trying to demonstrate because the DLL is looking for that byte array of size 24 in each dimension. How can I accomplish this?

    Read the article

  • Why my object sees variables which were not given to it in the constructor?

    - by Roman
    I have the following code. Which is "correct" and which I do not understand: private static void updateGUI(final int i, final JLabel label) { SwingUtilities.invokeLater( new Runnable() { public void run() { label.setText("You have " + i + " seconds."); } } ); } I create a new instance of the Runnable class and then in the run method of this instance I use variables label and i. It works, but I do not understand why it work. Why the considered object sees values of these variables. According to my understanding the code should look like that (and its wrong): private static void updateGUI(final int i, final JLabel label) { SwingUtilities.invokeLater(new Runnable(i,label) { public Runnable(int i, JLabel label) { this.i = i; this.label = label; } public void run() { label.setText("You have " + i + " seconds."); } }); } So, I would give the i and label variables to the constructor so the object can access them... By the way, in the updateGUI I use final before the i and label. I think I used final because compiler wanted that. But I do not understand why.

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20  | Next Page >