Search Results

Search found 25225 results on 1009 pages for 'default constructor'.

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 16/1009 | < Previous Page | 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23  | Next Page >

  • Using new to allocate an array of class elements with an overloaded constructor in C++.

    - by GordoN
    As an example say I have a class foo that does not have a default constructor but one that looks like this foo:foo(int _varA,int _varB) { m_VarA = _varA; m_VarB = _varB; } How would I allocate an array of these. I seem to remember trying somthing like this unsuccessfully. foo* MyArray = new foo[100](25,14). I don't think this will work either. foo* MyArray = new foo[100](25,14) Can this be done? I typically do this by writing the default constructor using some preset values for _varA and _varB. Then adding a function to reset _varA and _varB for each element but that will not work for this case. Thanks for the help.

    Read the article

  • class classname(value); & class classname=value; difference when constructor is explicit

    - by Mahesh
    When constructor is explicit, it isn't used for implicit conversions. In the given snippet, constructor is marked as explicit. Then why in case foo obj1(10.25); it is working and in foo obj2=10.25; it isn't working ? #include <iostream> class foo { int x; public: explicit foo( int x ):x(x) {} }; int main() { foo obj(10.25); // Not an error. Why ? foo obj2 = 10.25; // Error getchar(); return 0; } error: error C2440: 'initializing' : cannot convert from 'double' to 'foo'

    Read the article

  • SQL SERVER – Changing Default Installation Path for SQL Server

    - by pinaldave
    Earlier I wrote a blog post about SQL SERVER – Move Database Files MDF and LDF to Another Location and in the blog post we discussed how we can change the location of the MDF and LDF files after database is already created. I had mentioned that we will discuss how to change the default location of the database. This way we do not have to change the location of the database after it is created at different locations. The ideal scenario would be to specify this default location of the database files when SQL Server Installation was performed. If you have already installed SQL Server there is an easy way to solve this problem. This will not impact any database created before the change, it will only affect the default location of the database created after the change. To change the default location of the SQL Server Installation follow the steps mentioned below: Go to Right Click on Servers >> Click on Properties >> Go to the Database Settings screen You can change the default location of the database files. All the future database created after the setting is changed will go to this new location. You can also do the same with T-SQL and here is the T-SQL code to do the same. USE [master] GO EXEC xp_instance_regwrite N'HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE', N'Software\Microsoft\MSSQLServer\MSSQLServer', N'DefaultData', REG_SZ, N'F:\DATA' GO EXEC xp_instance_regwrite N'HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE', N'Software\Microsoft\MSSQLServer\MSSQLServer', N'DefaultLog', REG_SZ, N'F:\DATA' GO What are the best practices do you follow with regards to default file location for your database? I am interested to know them. Reference : Pinal Dave (http://blog.SQLAuthority.com) Filed under: PostADay, SQL, SQL Authority, SQL Query, SQL Server, SQL Server Management Studio, SQL Tips and Tricks, T SQL, Technology

    Read the article

  • When is the default storage rule not really the default storage rule?

    - by Kevin Smith
    In 11g WebCenter Content (WCC) introduced dispersion rules in the vault and weblayout directory paths to better distribute content across the directories. The dispersion rule was based on dRevClassID. The only problem with this is that dRevClassID did not remain the same when you copied content from one WCC instance to another using Archiver like in a contribution-consumption scenario. This could cause problems because the web-viewable path would not be the same between the contribution and consumption instances. In the PS5 (11.1.1.6.0) release of WCC they addressed this by configuring the File Store Provider (FSP) so that all new content would use a storage rule with a dispersion rule based on dDocName, which would stay the same when content was copied to another WCC instance. To support migration from older versions of WCC they left the default storage rule unchanged and created a new storage rule called DispByContentId and made that the default storage rule for all new content. I only stumbled upon this a while back when I was trying to change the FSP configuration so that all content used a webless storage rule. I changed the default storage rule, restarted WCC, and checked in a new content item. To my surprise the new content was not created as webless. I struggled with this for a while until I noticed there were multiple storage rules defined in the FSP configuration. When I looked at the default value for the xStorageRule field in Configuration Manager, sure enough it was no longer default, but was now DispByContentId. Once I updated the DispByContentId storage rule to webless and restarted WCC all my new content was now created using the webless storage rule, just like I wanted. I noticed when I was creating this blog post that the default storage rule is also listed on the File Store Provider Information page, but I guess I didn't see that when I originally did this.

    Read the article

  • How to Assign a Default Signature in Outlook 2013

    - by Lori Kaufman
    If you sign most of your emails the same way, you can easily specify a default signature to automatically insert into new email messages and replies and forwards. This can be done directly in the Signature editor in Outlook 2013. We recently showed you how to create a new signature. You can also create multiple signatures for each email account and define a different default signature for each account. When you change your sending account when composing a new email message, the signature would change automatically as well. NOTE: To have a signature added automatically to new email messages and replies and forwards, you must have a default signature assigned in each email account. If you don’t want a signature in every account, you can create a signature with just a space, a full stop, dashes, or other generic characters. To assign a default signature, open Outlook and click the File tab. Click Options in the menu list on the left side of the Account Information screen. On the Outlook Options dialog box, click Mail in the list of options on the left side of the dialog box. On the Mail screen, click Signatures in the Compose messages section. To change the default signature for an email account, select the account from the E-mail account drop-down list on the top, right side of the dialog box under Choose default signature. Then, select the signature you want to use by default for New messages and for Replies/forwards from the other two drop-down lists. Click OK to accept your changes and close the dialog box. Click OK on the Outlook Options dialog box to close it. You can also access the Signatures and Stationery dialog box from the Message window for new emails and drafts. Click New Email on the Home tab or double-click an email in the Drafts folder to access the Message window. Click Signature in the Include section of the New Mail Message window and select Signatures from the drop-down menu. In the next few days, we will be covering how to use the features of the signature editor next, and then how to insert and change signatures manually, backup and restore your signatures, and modify a signature for use in plain text emails.     

    Read the article

  • Performing user authentication in a CodeIgniter controller constructor?

    - by msanford
    In "The Clean Code Talks -- Unit Testing" (http://youtu.be/wEhu57pih5w), Miško Hevery mentions that "as little work as possible should be done in constructors [to make classes more easily testable]'. It got me thinking about the way I have implemented my user authentication mechanism. Having delved into MVC development through CodeIgniter, I designed my first web application to perform user authentication for protected resources in controllers' constructors in cases where every public function in that controller requires the user to be authenticated. For controllers with public methods having mixed authentication requirements, I would naturally move the authentication from the constructor to each method requiring authentication (though I don't currently have a need for this). I made this choice primarily to keep the controller tight, and to ensure that all resources in the controller are always covered. As for code longevity and maintainability: given the application structure, I can't foresee a situation in which one of the affected controllers would need a public method that didn't require user authentication, but I can see this as a potential drawback in general with this implementation (i.e., requiring future refactoring). Is this a good idea?

    Read the article

  • constructor should not call methods

    - by Stefano Borini
    I described to a colleague why a constructor calling a method is an antipattern. example (in my rusty C++) class C { public : C(int foo); void setFoo(int foo); private: int foo; } C::C(int foo) { setFoo(foo); } void C::setFoo(int foo) { this->foo = foo } I would like to motivate better this fact through your additional contribute. If you have examples, book references, blog pages, or names of principles, they would be very welcome. Edit: I'm talking in general, but we are coding in python.

    Read the article

  • Constructor should generally not call methods

    - by Stefano Borini
    I described to a colleague why a constructor calling a method can be an antipattern. example (in my rusty C++) class C { public : C(int foo); void setFoo(int foo); private: int foo; } C::C(int foo) { setFoo(foo); } void C::setFoo(int foo) { this->foo = foo } I would like to motivate better this fact through your additional contribute. If you have examples, book references, blog pages, or names of principles, they would be very welcome. Edit: I'm talking in general, but we are coding in python.

    Read the article

  • Linq To SQL: Behaviour for table field which is NotNull and having Default value or binding

    - by kaushalparik27
    I found this something interesting while wandering over community which I would like to share. The post is whole about: DBML is not considering the table field's "Default value or Binding" setting which is a NotNull. I mean the field which can not be null but having default value set needs to be set IsDbGenerated = true in DBML file explicitly.Consider this situation: There is a simple tblEmployee table with below structure: The fields are simple. EmployeeID is a Primary Key with Identity Specification = True with Identity Seed = 1 to autogenerate numeric value for this field. EmployeeName and their EmailAddress to store in rest of 2 fields. And the last one is "DateAdded" with DateTime datatype which doesn't allow NULL but having Default Value/Binding with "GetDate()". That means if we don't pass any value to this field then SQL will insert current date in "DateAdded" field.So, I start with a new website, add a DBML file and dropped the said table to generate LINQ To SQL context class. Finally, I write a simple code snippet to insert data into the tblEmployee table; BUT, I am not passing any value to "DateAdded" field. Because I am considering SQL Server's "Default Value or Binding (GetDate())" setting to this field and understand that SQL will insert current date to this field.        using (TestDatabaseDataContext context = new TestDatabaseDataContext())        {            tblEmployee tblEmpObjet = new tblEmployee();            tblEmpObjet.EmployeeName = "KaushaL";            tblEmpObjet.EmployeeEmailAddress = "[email protected]";            context.tblEmployees.InsertOnSubmit(tblEmpObjet);            context.SubmitChanges();        }Here comes the twist when application give me below error:  This is something not expecting! From the error it clearly depicts that LINQ is passing NULL value to "DateAdded" Field while according to my understanding it should respect Sql Server's "Default value or Binding" setting for this field. A bit googling and I found very interesting related to this problem.When we set Primary Key to any field with "Identity Specification" Property set to true; DBML set one important property "IsDbGenerated=true" for this field. BUT, when we set "Default Value or Biding" property for some field; we need to explicitly tell the DBML/LINQ to let it know that this field is having default binding at DB side that needs to be respected if I don't pass any value. So, the solution is: You need to explicitly set "IsDbGenerated=true" for such field to tell the LINQ that the field is having default value or binding at Sql Server side so, please don't worry if i don't pass any value for it.You can select the field and set this property from property window in DBML Designer file or write the property in DBML.Designer.cs file directly. I have attached a working example with required table script with this post here. I hope this would be helpful for someone hunting for the same. Happy Discovery!

    Read the article

  • Is std::move really needed on initialization list of constructor for heavy members passed by value?

    - by PiotrNycz
    Recently I read an example from cppreference.../vector/emplace_back: struct President { std::string name; std::string country; int year; President(std::string p_name, std::string p_country, int p_year) : name(std::move(p_name)), country(std::move(p_country)), year(p_year) { std::cout << "I am being constructed.\n"; } My question: is this std::move really needed? My point is that compiler sees that this p_name is not used in the body of constructor, so, maybe, there is some rule to use move semantics for it by default? That would be really annoying to add std::move on initialization list to every heavy member (like std::string, std::vector). Imagine hundreds of KLOC project written in C++03 - shall we add everywhere this std::move? This question: move-constructor-and-initialization-list answer says: As a golden rule, whenever you take something by rvalue reference, you need to use it inside std::move, and whenever you take something by universal reference (i.e. deduced templated type with &&), you need to use it inside std::forward But I am not sure: passing by value is rather not universal reference?

    Read the article

  • Constructor vs setter validations

    - by Jimmy
    I have the following class : public class Project { private int id; private String name; public Project(int id, String name, Date creationDate, int fps, List<String> frames) { if(name == null ){ throw new NullPointerException("Name can't be null"); } if(id == 0 ){ throw new IllegalArgumentException("id can't be zero"); } this.name = name; this.id = id; } public int getId() { return id; } public void setId(int id) { this.id = id; } public String getName() { return name; } public void setName(String name) { this.name = name; } } I have three questions: Do I use the class setters instead of setting the fields directly. One of the reason that I set it directly, is that in the code the setters are not final and they could be overridden. If the right way is to set it directly and I want to make sure that the name filed is not null always. Should I provide two checks, one in the constructor and one in the setter. I read in effective java that I should use NullPointerException for null parameters. Should I use IllegalArgumentException for other checks, like id in the example.

    Read the article

  • Initializing entities vs having a constructor parameter

    - by Vee
    I'm working on a turn-based tile-based puzzle game, and to create new entities, I use this code: Field.CreateEntity(10, 5, Factory.Player()); This creates a new Player at [10; 5]. I'm using a factory-like class to create entities via composition. This is what the CreateEntity method looks like: public void CreateEntity(int mX, int mY, Entity mEntity) { mEntity.Field = this; TileManager.AddEntity(mEntity, true); GetTile(mX, mY).AddEntity(mEntity); mEntity.Initialize(); InvokeOnEntityCreated(mEntity); } Since many of the components (and also logic) of the entities require to know what the tile they're in is, or what the field they belong to is, I need to have mEntity.Initialize(); to know when the entity knows its own field and tile. The Initialize(); method contains a call to an event handler, so that I can do stuff like this in the factory class: result.OnInitialize += () => result.AddTags(TDLibConstants.GroundWalkableTag, TDLibConstants.TrapdoorTag); result.OnInitialize += () => result.AddComponents(new RenderComponent(), new ElementComponent(), new DirectionComponent()); This works so far, but it is not elegant and it's very open to bugs. I'm also using the same idea with components: they have a parameterless constructor, and when you call the AddComponent(mComponent); method in an entity, it is the entity's job to set the component's entity to itself. The alternative would be having a Field, int, int parameters in the factory class, to do stuff like: new Entity(Field, 10, 5); But I also don't like the fact that I have to create new entities like this. I would prefer creating entities via the Field object itself. How can I make entity/component creation more elegant and less prone to bugs?

    Read the article

  • 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

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 | 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23  | Next Page >