Search Results

Search found 3096 results on 124 pages for 'scope creep'.

Page 14/124 | < Previous Page | 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21  | Next Page >

  • Scope of Nested Classes

    - by Vaccano
    If I have a nested class, does anything from the owning class exist in the owned class? for example: public class OwningClass { int randomVariable = 1; public void MakingMethod() { OwnedClass owned = new OwnedClass(); owned.SomeMethod(); } private class OwnedClass { public void SomeMethod() { // Is anything from OwningClass available here? } } }

    Read the article

  • Is it possible to destroy a CDI scope?

    - by Matt Ball
    I'm working on a Java EE application, primarily JAX-RS with a JSF admin console, that uses CDI/Weld for dependency injection with @ApplicationScoped objects. Minor debugging issues aside, CDI has worked beautifully for this project. Now I need some very coarse-grained control over CDI-injected object lifecycles. I need the ability to: Remove an injected object from the application context, or Destroy/delete/clear/reset/remove the entire application context, or Define my own @ScopeType and implementing Context in which I could provide methods to perform one of the two above tasks. I'm fully aware that this is across, if not against, the grain of CDI and dependency injection in general. I just want to know Is this remotely possible? If yes, what is the easiest/simplest/quickest/foolproofiest way to get the job done?

    Read the article

  • Using named_scope with counts of child models

    - by Joe Cairns
    Hi, I have a simple parent object having many children. I'm trying to figure out how to use a named scope for bringing back just parents with specific numbers of children. Is this possible? class Foo < ActiveRecord::Base has_many :bars named_scope :with_no_bars, ... # count of bars == 0 named_scope :with_one_bar, ... # count of bars == 1 named_scope :with_more_than_one_bar, ... # count of bars > 1 end class Bar < ActiveRecord::Base belongs_to :foo end I'm hoping to do something like Foo.with_one_bar I could write methods on the parent class for something like this, but I'd rather have the power of the named scope

    Read the article

  • JSP application scope objects in Java library

    - by FrontierPsycho
    I am working on a preexisting web application built with JSP, which uses an external Java library. I want to make some JavaBeans that were instantiated with jsp:useBean tags available to the Java code. What would be a good practice to do that? I suppose I can pass the objects in question to every function call that requires them, but I'd like to avoid that.

    Read the article

  • Javascript scope problem with object and setTimeout

    - by Shabbyrobe
    I'm trying to make a jQuery plugin that executes a method on a timer. I'd like it to work on multiple elements on a page independently. I've reached a point where the timer executes for each element, but the method called in the setTimeout seems to only know about the last instance of the plugin. I know I'm doing something fundamentally stupid here, but I'm danged if I know what. I know stuff like this has been asked 8 million times on here before, but I've not managed to find an answer that relates to my specific problem. Here's a script that demonstrates the structure of what I'm doing. <html> <head> <script type="text/javascript" src="assets/jquery.min.js"></script> <script type="text/javascript"> var crap = 0; (function($) { jQuery.fn.pants = function(options) { var trousers = { id: null, current: 0, waitTimeMs: 1000, begin: function() { var d = new Date(); this.id = crap++; console.log(this.id); // do a bunch of stuff window.setTimeout(function(self) {return function() {self.next();}}(this), this.waitTimeMs); }, next: function() { this.current ++; console.log(this.id); window.setTimeout(function(self) {return function() {self.next();}}(this), this.waitTimeMs); }, }; options = options || {}; $.extend(trousers, options); this.each(function(index, element) { trousers.begin(); }); return this; }; } )(jQuery); jQuery(document).ready(function() { jQuery("div.wahey").pants(); }); </script> </head> <body> <div class="wahey"></div> <div class="wahey"></div> </body> </html> The output I get is this: 0 1 1 1 1 1 The output I expect to get is this: 0 1 0 1 0 1

    Read the article

  • Autofac: Reference from a SingleInstance'd type to a HttpRequestScoped

    - by Michael Wagner
    I've got an application where a shared object needs a reference to a per-request object. Shared: Engine | Per Req: IExtensions() | Request If i try to inject the IExtensions directly into the constructor of Engine, even as Lazy(Of IExtension), I get a "No scope matching [Request] is visible from the scope in which the instance was requested." exception when it tries to instantiate each IExtension. How can I create a HttpRequestScoped instance and then inject it into a shared instance? Would it be considered good practice to set it in the Request's factory (and therefore inject Engine into RequestFactory)?

    Read the article

  • Handling user security scope with nHibernate or other ORM

    - by Schotime
    How should one handle the situation where you may need to filter by a group of users. Here is the scenario. I have an administrator role in my company. I should be able to see all the data belonging to me plus all the other users who I have control over. A plain old user however should only be able to access their own data. If you are writing regular sql statements then you can have a security table with every user and who they have access too but i'm not sure how to handle this situation in the OO and ORM world. Any one dealt with this scenario in a web application using an ORM? Would love to hear your thoughts!

    Read the article

  • What is the scope of JS variables in anonymous functions

    - by smorhaim
    Why does this code returns $products empty? If I test for $products inside the function it does show data... but once it finishes I can't seem to get the data. var $products = new Array(); connection.query($sql, function(err, rows, fields) { if (err) throw err; for(i=0; i< rows.length; i++) { $products[rows[i].source_identifier] = "xyz"; } }); connection.end(); console.log($products); // Shows empty.

    Read the article

  • scope of variables in JavaScript callback functions

    - by Ethan
    I expected the code below to alert "0" and "1", but it alert "2" twice. I don't the reason. Don't know if it is a problem of jQuery. Also, please help me to edit title and tags of this post if they are inaccurate. <html> <head> <script type="text/javascript" src="http://ajax.googleapis.com/ajax/libs/jquery/1.4.2/jquery.min.js"></script> <script type="text/javascript"> $(function() { for (var i=0; i<2; i++) { $.get('http://www.google.com/', function() { alert(i); }); } }); </script> </head> <body> </body> </html>

    Read the article

  • php pdo connection scope

    - by Scarface
    Hey guys I have a connection class I found for pdo. I am calling the connection method on the page that the file is included on. The problem is that within functions the $conn variable is not defined even though I stated the method was public (bare with me I am very new to OOP), and I was wondering if anyone had an elegant solution other then using global in every function. Any suggestions are greatly appreciated. CONNECTION class PDOConnectionFactory{ // receives the connection public $con = null; // swich database? public $dbType = "mysql"; // connection parameters // when it will not be necessary leaves blank only with the double quotations marks "" public $host = "localhost"; public $user = "user"; public $senha = "password"; public $db = "database"; // arrow the persistence of the connection public $persistent = false; // new PDOConnectionFactory( true ) <--- persistent connection // new PDOConnectionFactory() <--- no persistent connection public function PDOConnectionFactory( $persistent=false ){ // it verifies the persistence of the connection if( $persistent != false){ $this->persistent = true; } } public function getConnection(){ try{ // it carries through the connection $this->con = new PDO($this->dbType.":host=".$this->host.";dbname=".$this->db, $this->user, $this->senha, array( PDO::ATTR_PERSISTENT => $this->persistent ) ); // carried through successfully, it returns connected return $this->con; // in case that an error occurs, it returns the error; }catch ( PDOException $ex ){ echo "We are currently experiencing technical difficulties. We have a bunch of monkies working really hard to fix the problem. Check back soon: ".$ex->getMessage(); } } // close connection public function Close(){ if( $this->con != null ) $this->con = null; } } PAGE USED ON include("includes/connection.php"); $db = new PDOConnectionFactory(); $conn = $db->getConnection(); function test(){ try{ $sql = 'SELECT * FROM topic'; $stmt = $conn->prepare($sql); $result=$stmt->execute(); } catch(PDOException $e){ echo $e->getMessage(); } } test();

    Read the article

  • Python scope problems only when _assigning_ to a variable

    - by wallacoloo
    So I'm having a very strange error right now. I found where it happens, and here's the simplest code that can reproduce it. def parse_ops(str_in): c_type = "operator" def c_dat_check_type(t): print c_type #c_type = t c_dat_check_type("number") >>> parse_ops("12+a*2.5") If you run it as-is, it prints "operator". But if you uncomment that line, it gives an error: Traceback (most recent call last): File "<pyshell#212>", line 1, in <module> parse_ops("12+a*2.5") File "<pyshell#211>", line 7, in parse_ops c_dat_check_type("number") File "<pyshell#211>", line 4, in c_dat_check_type print c_type UnboundLocalError: local variable 'c_type' referenced before assignment Notice the error occurs on the line that worked just fine before. Any ideas what causes this and how I can fix this? I'm using Python 2.6.1.

    Read the article

  • Python __setattr__ and __getattr__ for global scope?

    - by KT
    Suppose I need to create my own small DSL that would use Python to describe a certain data structure. E.g. I'd like to be able to write something like f(x) = some_stuff(a,b,c) and have Python, instead of complaining about undeclared identifiers or attempting to invoke the function some_stuff, convert it to a literal expression for my further convenience. It is possible to get a reasonable approximation to this by creating a class with properly redefined __getattr__ and __setattr__ methods and use it as follows: e = Expression() e.f[e.x] = e.some_stuff(e.a, e.b, e.c) It would be cool though, if it were possible to get rid of the annoying "e." prefixes and maybe even avoid the use of []. So I was wondering, is it possible to somehow temporarily "redefine" global name lookups and assignments? On a related note, maybe there are good packages for easily achieving such "quoting" functionality for Python expressions?

    Read the article

  • How does scope in Javascript work?

    - by Jim
    I can not understand how scoping works in Javascript. E.g. <html> <head> <script>var userName = "George"; </script> </head> <body> ...... <script> document.write('Name = ' + userName); </script> </body> </html> The variable userName is declared in another "section" of a script. As I understand it the browser renders html and executes code in the order it finds it. So how does userName in the second script tag gets resolved? Does it go to a global setting? Anything I declare earlier is global? I noticed the same happens if I do something like: <html> <head> <script> do { var userName = "George"; //bla } while (someCondition); </script> </head> <body> ...... <script> document.write('Name = ' + userName); </script> </body> </html> Even when userName is declared inside {} it is still resolved in the second script. How is that possible?

    Read the article

  • Python function argument scope (Dictionaries v. Strings)

    - by Shaun Meyer
    Hello, given: foo = "foo" def bar(foo): foo = "bar" bar(foo) print foo # foo is still "foo"... foo = {'foo':"foo"} def bar(foo): foo['foo'] = "bar" bar(foo) print foo['foo'] # foo['foo'] is now "bar"? I have a function that has been inadvertently over-writing my function parameters when I pass a dictionary. Is there a clean way to declare my parameters as constant or am I stuck making a copy of the dictionary within the function? Thanks!

    Read the article

  • jquery ajax callback out of the function scope

    - by vasion
    function checkauth(){ jQuery.getJSON("/users/checkauthjson", null, function(xhr){ if(xhr.success){ return true;}else{ return false;} }); } Obviously, that does not work, but it illustrates what i want to achieve. I want checkauth to return a value which is checked against an ajax server script. How do i do this?

    Read the article

  • Variable scope in javascript

    - by Rich Bradshaw
    This is a simple question, but I can't work it out. The specifics aren't important, but here's the gist. I have some code like this: var lat = 0; var lon = 0; if (navigator.geolocation) { navigator.geolocation.getCurrentPosition(function(position) { lat = position.coords.latitude; lon = position.coords.longitude; }); } What I think it's doing is: Set lat and lon to 0 If the browser has geolocation, overwrite those variables with real values However, at the end of that chunk, lat and lon are still 0. I've tried adding vars, passing lat and lon to the function etc but with no success... How do I make this work?

    Read the article

  • XPath: limit scope of result set

    - by Laramie
    Given the XML <a> <c> <b id="1" value="noob"/> </c> <b id="2" value="tube"/> <a> <c> <b id="3" value="foo"/> </c> <b id="4" value="goo"/> <b id="5" value="noob"/> <a> <b id="6" value="near"/> <b id="7" value="bar"/> </a> </a> </a> and the Xpath 1.0 query //b[@id=2]/ancestor::a[1]//b[@value="noob"] is there some way to limit the result set to the <b> elements that are ONLY the children of the immediate <a> element of the start node (//b[@id=2])? For example the Xpath above returns both node ids 1 and 5. The goal is to limit the result to just node id=1 since it is the only @value="noob" element in the same <c> group as our start node (//b[@id=2]). In English, "Starting at a node whose id is equal to 2, find all the elements whose value is "noob" that are descendants of the immediate parent c element without passing through another c element".

    Read the article

  • Linq Scope Problem + Reduce Repeated Code

    - by Tom Gullen
    If the parameter is -1, it needs to run a different query as to if an ID was specified... how do I do this? I've tried initialising var q; outside the If block but no luck! // Loads by Entry ID, or if -1, by latest entry private void LoadEntryByID(int EntryID) { IEnumerable<tblBlogEntry> q; if (EntryID == -1) { q = ( from Blog in db.tblBlogEntries orderby Blog.date descending select new { Blog.ID, Blog.title, Blog.entry, Blog.date, Blog.userID, Comments = ( from BlogComments in db.tblBlogComments where BlogComments.blogID == Blog.ID select BlogComments).Count(), Username = ( from Users in db.yaf_Users where Users.UserID == Blog.userID select new { Users.DisplayName }) }).FirstOrDefault(); } else { q = ( from Blog in db.tblBlogEntries where Blog.ID == EntryID select new { Blog.ID, Blog.title, Blog.entry, Blog.date, Blog.userID, Comments = ( from BlogComments in db.tblBlogComments where BlogComments.blogID == Blog.ID select BlogComments).Count(), Username = ( from Users in db.yaf_Users where Users.UserID == Blog.userID select new { Users.DisplayName }) }).SingleOrDefault(); } if (q == null) { this.Loaded = false; } else { this.ID = q.ID; this.Title = q.title; this.Entry = q.entry; this.Date = (DateTime)q.date; this.UserID = (int)q.userID; this.Loaded = true; this.AuthorUsername = q.Username; } } My main aim is to reduce repeating code

    Read the article

  • Javascript: variable scope & the evils of globals

    - by Nick
    I'm trying to be good, I really am, but I can't see how to do it :) Any advice on how to not use a global here would be greatly appreciated. Let's call the global G. Function A Builds G by AJAX Function B Uses G Function C Calls B Called by numerous event handlers attached to DOM elements (type 1) Function D Calls B Called by numerous event handlers attached to DOM elements (type 2) I can't see how I can get around using a global here. The DOM elements (types 1 & 2) are created in other functions (E&F) which are unconnected with A. I don't want to add G to each event handler (because it's large and there's lots of these event handlers), and doing so would require the same kind of solution as I'm seeking here (i.e., getting G to E&F). The global G, BTW, is an array that is necessary to build other elements as they, in turn, are built by AJAX. I'm not convinced that a singleton is real solution, either. Thanks.

    Read the article

  • Setting precision on std::cout in entire file scope - C++ iomanip

    - by Ivan
    Hi all, I'm doing some calculations, and the results are being save in a file. I have to output very precise results, near the precision of the double variable, and I'm using the iomanip setprecision(int) for that. The problem is that I have to put the setprecision everywhere in the output, like that: func1() { cout<<setprecision(12)<<value; cout<<setprecision(10)<<value2; } func2() { cout<<setprecision(17)<<value4; cout<<setprecision(3)<<value42; } And that is very cumbersome. Is there a way to set more generally the cout fixed modifier? Thanks

    Read the article

  • binding an object to the global scope

    - by elduderino
    I have the following code: var myVar = (function (window) { myobj = {}; myobj.boo = function() { alert('hi'); }; window.myVar = myobj; })(window); myVar.boo(); Why don't I get back the alert when I call myVar.boo() ? I've created an anonymous self-executing function and fed in the window object. Inside that I have another object with a method assigned to it. I then assign the global myVar variable to this obj. This should provide an alias to the my myobj object. However when I call the function I get an Cannot call method 'boo' of undefined error

    Read the article

  • Push a variable into global scope?

    - by Spot
    We use instantiate and put system critical objects in $GLOBALS for easy access from anywhere (e.g. DB, Cache, User, etc.). We use $GLOBALS so much that it would (yes, really) drop the amount of code quite a bit if I could reference it like $G = &$GLOBALS for a shorthand call. The problem is that, per my experience and several hours of Googling, I have not found any construct in PHP which allows you to 'flag' a var as global, making $GLOBALS first class, and everything else second class. Am I missing something? Is this possible?

    Read the article

  • Variable scope and the 'using' statement in .NET

    - by pete the pagan-gerbil
    If a variable is at class level (ie, private MyDataAccessClass _dataAccess;, can it be used as part of a using statement within the methods of that class to dispose of it correctly? Is it wise to use this method, or is it better to always declare a new variable with a using statement (ie, using (MyDataAccessClass dataAccess = new MyDataAccessClass()) instead of using (_dataAccess = new MyDataAccessClass()))?

    Read the article

  • variable scope when adding a value to a vector in class constructor

    - by TheFuzz
    I have a level class and a Enemy_control class that is based off an vector that takes in Enemys as values. in my level constructor I have: Enemy tmp( 1200 ); enemys.Add_enemy( tmp ); // this adds tmp to the vector in Enemy_control enemys being a variable of type Enemy_control. My program crashes after these statements complaining about some destructor problem in level and enemy_control and enemy. Any ideas?

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21  | Next Page >