Search Results

Search found 2390 results on 96 pages for 'concrete inheritance'.

Page 18/96 | < Previous Page | 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25  | Next Page >

  • Duplicate column name by JPA with @ElementCollection and @Inheritance

    - by gerry
    I've created the following scenario: @javax.persistence.Entity @Inheritance(strategy = InheritanceType.TABLE_PER_CLASS) public class MyEntity implements Serializable{ @Id @GeneratedValue protected Long id; ... @ElementCollection @CollectionTable(name="ENTITY_PARAMS") @MapKeyColumn (name = "ENTITY_KEY") @Column(name = "ENTITY_VALUE") protected Map<String, String> parameters; ... } As well as: @javax.persistence.Entity public class Sensor extends MyEntity{ @Id @GeneratedValue protected Long id; ... // so here "protected Map<String, String> parameters;" is inherited !!!! ... } So running this example, no tables are created and i get the following message: WARNUNG: Got SQLException executing statement "CREATE TABLE ENTITY_PARAMS (Entity_ID BIGINT NOT NULL, ENTITY_VALUE VARCHAR(255), ENTITY_KEY VARCHAR(255), Sensor_ID BIGINT NOT NULL, ENTITY_VALUE VARCHAR(255))": com.mysql.jdbc.exceptions.jdbc4.MySQLSyntaxErrorException: Duplicate column name 'ENTITY_VALUE' I also tried overriding the attributes on the Sensor class... @AttributeOverrides({ @AttributeOverride(name = "ENTITY_KEY", column = @Column(name = "SENSOR_KEY")), @AttributeOverride(name = "ENTITY_VALUE", column = @Column(name = "SENSOR_VALUE")) }) ... but the same error. Can anybody help me?

    Read the article

  • System.AccessViolationException when using TPT inheritance in Entity Framework CTP5

    - by Ben
    Hi, I'm using TPT inheritance in EF CTP5 with SQL CE 4. I have an abstract base class "Widget" with common properties like "Title". I can successfully save concrete Widget implementations e.g. "TwitterWidget". However, I have a problem retrieving all widgets (or rather ALL widget implementations). My repository exposes the following: public IQueryable<Widget> GetAll(); This effectively returns the IDbSet from the DbContext. The following queries work fine: repo.GetAll().ToList(); repo.GetAll().Where(w => w.Title == "Test").ToList(); repo.GetAll().SingleOrDefault(w => w.Title == "Test"); repo.GetAll().Where(w => w.Title == "Test").OrderBy(x => x.Title).ToList(); However, if I write the following query: repo.GetAll().OrderBy(w => w.Title); I get the following error: Test 'PlanetCloud.Portfolio.Tests.Data.PersistenceTestFixture.Can_get_widgets' failed: System.AccessViolationException : Attempted to read or write protected memory. This is often an indication that other memory is corrupt. at System.Data.SqlServerCe.NativeMethodsHelper.GetValues(IntPtr pSeCursor, Int32 seGetColumn, IntPtr prgBinding, Int32 cDbBinding, IntPtr pData, IntPtr pError) at System.Data.SqlServerCe.NativeMethods.GetValues(IntPtr pSeCursor, Int32 seGetColumn, IntPtr prgBinding, Int32 cDbBinding, IntPtr pData, IntPtr pError) at System.Data.SqlServerCe.SqlCeDataReader.FetchValue(Int32 index) at System.Data.SqlServerCe.SqlCeDataReader.IsDBNull(Int32 ordinal) at lambda_method(Closure , Shaper ) at System.Data.Common.Internal.Materialization.Shaper.HandleEntityAppendOnly[TEntity](Func`2 constructEntityDelegate, EntityKey entityKey, EntitySet entitySet) at lambda_method(Closure , Shaper ) at System.Data.Common.Internal.Materialization.Coordinator`1.ReadNextElement(Shaper shaper) at System.Data.Common.Internal.Materialization.Shaper`1.SimpleEnumerator.MoveNext() at System.Collections.Generic.List`1..ctor(IEnumerable`1 collection) at System.Linq.Enumerable.ToList[TSource](IEnumerable`1 source) However, I can execute the following query without problems: var widgets = repo.GetAll().OfType<Widget>().OrderBy(w => w.Title).ToList(); So if I specify the type as the base class prior to my orderby clause it works. The question is why?

    Read the article

  • C++ struct, public data members and inheritance

    - by Marius
    Is it ok to have public data members in a C++ class/struct in certain particular situations? How would that go along with inheritance? I've read opinions on the matter, some stated already here http://stackoverflow.com/questions/952907/practices-on-when-to-implement-accessors-on-private-member-variables-rather-than http://stackoverflow.com/questions/670958/accessors-vs-public-members or in books/articles (Stroustrup, Meyers) but I'm still a little bit in the shade. I have some configuration blocks that I read from a file (integers, bools, floats) and I need to place them into a structure for later use. I don't want to expose these externally just use them inside another class (I actually do want to pass these config parameters to another class but don't want to expose them through a public API). The fact is that I have many such config parameters (15 or so) and writing getters and setters seems an unnecessary overhead. Also I have more than one configuration block and these are sharing some of the parameters. Making a struct with all the data members public and then subclassing does not feel right. What's the best way to tackle that situation? Does making a big struct to cover all parameters provide an acceptable compromise (I would have to leave some of these set to their default values for blocks that do not use them)?

    Read the article

  • Enums and inheritance

    - by devoured elysium
    I will use (again) the following class hierarchy: Event and all the following classes inherit from Event: SportEventType1 SportEventType2 SportEventType3 SportEventType4 I have originally designed the Event class like this: public abstract class Event { public abstract EventType EventType { get; } public DateTime Time { get; protected set; } protected Event(DateTime time) { Time = time; } } with EventType being defined as: public enum EventType { Sport1, Sport2, Sport3, Sport4 } The original idea would be that each SportEventTypeX class would set its correct EventType. Now that I think of it, I think this approach is totally incorrect for two reasons: If I want to later add a new SportEventType class I will have to modify the enum If I later decide to remove one SportEventType that I feel I won't use I'm also in big trouble with the enum. I have a class variable in the Event class that makes, afterall, assumptions about the kind of classes that will inherit from it, which kinda defeats the purpose of inheritance. How would you solve this kind of situation? Define in the Event class an abstract "Description" property, having each child class implement it? Having an Attribute(Annotation in Java!) set its Description variable instead? What would be the pros/cons of having a class variable instead of attribute/annotation in this case? Is there any other more elegant solution out there? Thanks

    Read the article

  • Adding custom methods to a subclassed NSManagedObject

    - by CJ
    I have a Core Data model where I have an entity A, which is an abstract. Entities B, C, and D inherit from entity A. There are several properties defined in entity A which are used by B, C, and D. I would like to leverage this inheritance in my model code. In addition to properties, I am wondering if I can add methods to entity A, which are implemented in it's sub-entities. For example: I add a method to the interface for entity A which returns a value and takes one argument I add implementations of this method to A, B, C, D Then, I call executeFetchRequest: to retrieve all instances of B I call the method on the objects retrieved, which should call the implementation of the method contained in B's implementation I have tried this, but when calling the method, I receive: [NSManagedObject methodName:]: unrecognized selector sent to instance I presume this is because the objects returned by executeFetchRequest: are proxy objects of some sort. Is there any way to leverage inheritance using subclassed NSManagedObjects? I would really like to be able to do this, otherwise my model code would be responsible for determining what type of NSManagedObject it's dealing with and perform special logic according to the type, which is undesirable. Any help is appreciated, thanks in advance.

    Read the article

  • constructor function's object literal returns toString() method but no other method

    - by JohnMerlino
    I'm very confused with javascript methods defined in objects and the "this" keyword. In the below example, the toString() method is invoked when Mammal object instantiated: function Mammal(name){ this.name=name; this.toString = function(){ return '[Mammal "'+this.name+'"]'; } } var someAnimal = new Mammal('Mr. Biggles'); alert('someAnimal is '+someAnimal); Despite the fact that the toString() method is not invoked on the object someAnimal like this: alert('someAnimal is '+someAnimal.toString()); It still returns 'someAnimal is [Mammal "Mr. Biggles"]' . That doesn't make sense to me because the toString() function is not being called anywhere. Then to add even more confusion, if I change the toString() method to a method I make up such as random(): function Mammal(name){ this.name=name; this.random = function(){ return Math.floor(Math.random() * 15); } } var someAnimal = new Mammal('Mr. Biggles'); alert(someAnimal); It completely ignores the random method (despite the fact that it is defined the same way was the toString() method was) and returns: [object object] Another issue I'm having trouble understanding with inheritance is the value of "this". For example, in the below example function person(w,h){ width.width = w; width.height = h; } function man(w,h,s) { person.call(this, w, h); this.sex = s; } "this" keyword is being send to the person object clearly. However, does "this" refer to the subclass (man) or the super class (person) when the person object receives it? Thanks for clearing up any of the confusion I have with inheritance and object literals in javascript.

    Read the article

  • Inereritance of clousure objects and overriding of methods

    - by bobikk
    I need to extend a class, which is encapsulated in a closure. This base class is following: var PageController = (function(){ // private static variable var _current_view; return function(request, new_view) { ... // priveleged public function, which has access to the _current_view this.execute = function() { alert("PageController::execute"); } } })();` Inheritance is realised using the following function: function extend(subClass, superClass){ var F = function(){ }; F.prototype = superClass.prototype; subClass.prototype = new F(); subClass.prototype.constructor = subClass; subClass.superclass = superClass.prototype; StartController.cache = ''; if (superClass.prototype.constructor == Object.prototype.constructor) { superClass.prototype.constructor = superClass; } } I subclass the PageController: var StartController = function(request){ // calling the constructor of the super class StartController.superclass.constructor.call(this, request, 'start-view'); } // extending the objects extend(StartController, PageController); // overriding the PageController::execute StartController.prototype.execute = function() { alert('StartController::execute'); } Inheritance is working. I can call every PageController's method from StartController's instance. However, method overriding doesn't work: var startCont = new StartController(); startCont.execute(); alerts "PageController::execute". How should I override this method?

    Read the article

  • How to copy generically superclass instances to subclass instances?

    - by gerry
    Hi @all, I have a class hierarchy / inheritance like this: public class A { private String name; // with getters & setters public void doAWithName(){ ... } } public class B extends A { public void doBWithName(){ // a differnt implementation to what I do in class A } } public class C extends B { public void doCWithName(){ // a differnt implementation to what I do in class A and B } } So at one time there is a instance of class A with the initialized field "name". Later I want this instance of A get wrapped into instance of B or C. So the superclasses should be get wrapped with a subclass! How can I make this most efficent with respect to DRY? I've thought about a constructor that does some copying with the getters/setters. But in this case I have to repeat myself - and this doesn't respect anymore to my initial requirement of DRY! So, how can I warp A to B by just initializing B's new fields (with default values) and delegating the rest to a method in A (which knows more than B about which fields of A should be accessed...). In the same way: If A should be wrapped into C only a method in c should init C's 'new' fields, delegate to B's wrap method (which therefore inits B's 'new' fields in C) and at last B delegates to A which copies it's fields to the fields of C). So in the end I have a new instance of C which has the values of A wrapped (and some default init values to the fields which the inheritance hierarchy has added).

    Read the article

  • Is `List<Dog>` a subclass of `List<Animal>`? Why aren't Java's generics implicitly polymorphic?

    - by froadie
    I'm a bit confused about how Java generics handle inheritance / polymorphism. Assume the following hierarchy - Animal (Parent) Dog - Cat (Children) So suppose I have a method doSomething(List<Animal> animals). By all the rules of inheritance and polymorphism, I would assume that a List<Dog> is a List<Animal> and a List<Cat> is a List<Animal> - and so either one could be passed to this method. Not so. If I want to achieve this behavior, I have to explicitly tell the method to accept a list of any subset of Animal by saying doSomething(List<? extends Animal> animals). I understand that this is Java's behavior. My question is why? Why is polymorphism generally implicit, but when it comes to generics it must be specified?

    Read the article

  • C++ Implicit Conversion Operators

    - by Imbue
    I'm trying to find a nice inheritance solution in C++. I have a Rectangle class and a Square class. The Square class can't publicly inherit from Rectangle, because it cannot completely fulfill the rectangle's requirements. For example, a Rectangle can have it's width and height each set separately, and this of course is impossible with a Square. So, my dilemma. Square obviously will share a lot of code with Rectangle; they are quite similar. For examlpe, if I have a function like: bool IsPointInRectangle(const Rectangle& rect); it should work for a square too. In fact, I have a ton of such functions. So in making my Square class, I figured I would use private inheritance with a publicly accessible Rectangle conversion operator. So my square class looks like: class Square : private Rectangle { public: operator const Rectangle&() const; }; However, when I try to pass a Square to the IsPointInRectangle function, my compiler just complains that "Rectangle is an inaccessible base" in that context. I expect it to notice the Rectangle operator and use that instead. Is what I'm trying to do even possible? If this can't work I'm probably going to refactor part of Rectangle into MutableRectangle class. Thanks.

    Read the article

  • Setting the type of a field in a superclass from a subclass (Java)

    - by Ibolit
    Hi. I am writing a project on Google App Engine, within it I have a number of abstract classes that I hope I will be able to use in my future projects, and a number of concrete classes inheriting from them. Among other abstract classes I have an abstract servlet that does user management, and I hava an abstract user. The AbstractUser has all the necessary fields and methods for storing it in the datastore and telling whether the user is registered with my service or not. It does not implement any project specific functionality. The abstract servlet that manages users, refers only to the methods declared in the AbstractUser class, which allows it to generate links for logging in, logging out and registering (for unregistered users). In order to implement the project-specific user functionality I need to subclass the Abstract user. The servlets I use in my project are all indirect descendants from that abstract user management servlet, and the user is a protected field in it, so the descendant servlets can use it as their own field. However, whenever i want to access any project specific method of the concrete user, i need to cast it to that type. i.e. (abstract user managing servlet) ... AbstractUser user = getUser(); ... abstract protected AbstractUser getUser(); (project-specific abstract servlet) @Override protected AbstractUser getUser() { return MyUserFactory.getUser(); } any other project specific servlet: int a = ((ConcreteUser) user).getA(); Well, what i'd like to do is to somehow make the type of “user” in the superclass depend on something in the project-specific abstract class. Is it at all possible? And i don't want to move all the user-management stuff into a project-specific layer, for i would like to have it for my future projects already written :) Thank you for your help.

    Read the article

  • Why aren't Java's generics implicitly polymorphic?

    - by froadie
    I'm a bit confused about how Java generics handle inheritance / polymorphism. Assume the following hierarchy - Animal (Parent) Dog - Cat (Children) So suppose I have a method doSomething(List<Animal> animals). By all the rules of inheritance and polymorphism, I would assume that a List<Dog> is a List<Animal> and a List<Cat> is a List<Animal> - and so either one could be passed to this method. Not so. If I want to achieve this behavior, I have to explicitly tell the method to accept a list of any subset of Animal by saying doSomething(List<? extends Animal> animals). I understand that this is Java's behavior. My question is why? Why is polymorphism generally implicit, but when it comes to generics it must be specified?

    Read the article

  • Using JAXB to unmarshal/marshal a List<String> - Inheritance

    - by gerry
    I've build the following case. An interface for all JAXBLists: public interface JaxbList<T> { public abstract List<T> getList(); } And an base implementation: @XmlRootElement(name="list") public class JaxbBaseList<T> implements JaxbList<T>{ protected List<T> list; public JaxbBaseList(){} public JaxbBaseList(List<T> list){ this.list=list; } @XmlElement(name="item" ) public List<T> getList(){ return list; } } As well as an implementation for a list of URIs: @XmlRootElement(name="uris") public class JaxbUriList2 extends JaxbBaseList<String> { public JaxbUriList2() { super(); } public JaxbUriList2(List<String> list){ super(list); } @Override @XmlElement(name="uri") public List<String> getList() { return list; } } And I'm using the List in the following way: public JaxbList<String> init(@QueryParam("amount") int amount){ List<String> entityList = new Vector<String>(); ... enityList.add("http://uri"); ... return new JaxbUriList2(entityList); } I thought the output should be: <uris> <uri> http://uri </uri> ... </uris> But it is something like this: <uris> <item xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xmlns:xs="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema" xsi:type="xs:string"> http://uri </item> ... <uri> http://uri </uri> ... </uris> I think it has something to do with the inheritance, but I don't get it... What's the problem? - How can I fix it? Thanks in advance!

    Read the article

  • Handling Model Inheritance in ASP.NET MVC2 & NHibernate

    - by enth
    I've gotten myself stuck on how to handle inheritance in my model when it comes to my controllers/views. Basic Model: public class Procedure : Entity { public Procedure() { } public int Id { get; set; } public DateTime ProcedureDate { get; set; } public ProcedureType Type { get; set; } } public ProcedureA : Procedure { public double VariableA { get; set; } public int VariableB { get; set; } public int Total { get; set; } } public ProcedureB : Procedure { public int Score { get; set; } } etc... many of different procedures eventually. So, I do things like list all the procedures: public class ProcedureController : Controller { public virtual ActionResult List() { IEnumerable<Procedure> procedures = _repository.GetAll(); return View(procedures); } } but now I'm kinda stuck. Basically, from the list page, I need to link to pages where the specific subclass details can be viewed/edited and I'm not sure what the best strategy is. I thought I could add an action on the ProcedureController that would conjure up the right subclass by dynamically figuring out what repository to use and loading the subclass to pass to the view. I had to store the class in the ProcedureType object. I had to create/implement a non-generic IRepository since I can't dynamically cast to a generic one. public virtual ActionResult Details(int procedureID) { Procedure procedure = _repository.GetById(procedureID, false); string className = procedure.Type.Class; Type type = Type.GetType(className, true); Type repositoryType = typeof (IRepository<>).MakeGenericType(type); var repository = (IRepository)DependencyRegistrar.Resolve(repositoryType); Entity procedure = repository.GetById(procedureID, false); return View(procedure); } I haven't even started sorting out how the view is going to determine which partial to load to display the subclass details. I'm wondering if this is a good approach? This makes determining the URL easy. It makes reusing the Procedure display code easy. Another approach is specific controllers for each subclass. It simplifies the controller code, but also means many simple controllers for the many procedure subclasses. Can work out the shared Procedure details with a partial view. How to get to construct the URL to get to the controller/action in the first place? Time to not think about it. Hopefully someone can show me the light. Thanks in advance.

    Read the article

  • Fluent | Nhibernate multiple inheritance mapping?

    - by Broken Pipe
    I'm trying to map this classes: public interface IBusinessObject { Guid Id { get; set; } } public class Product { public virtual Guid Id { get; set; } public virtual int ProductTypeId { get; set; } } public class ProductWeSell : Product, IBusinessObject { } public class ProductWeDontSell : Product { } Using this Fluent mapping code: public class IBusinessObjectMap : ClassMap<IBusinessObject> { public IBusinessObjectMap() { Id(t => t.Id).GeneratedBy.Guid(); Table("BusinessObject"); } } public class ProductMap : ClassMap<Product> { public ProductMap() { Id(t => t.Id); DiscriminateSubClassesOnColumn("ProductTypeId", "null").Nullable(); } } public class ProductWeSellMap : SubclassMap<ProductWeSell> { public ProductWeSellMap() { DiscriminatorValue(1); KeyColumn("Id"); } } public class ProductWeDontSellMap : SubclassMap<ProductWeDontSell> { public ProductWeDontSellMap() { DiscriminatorValue(2); KeyColumn("Id"); } } But I get {"Duplicate class/entity mapping ProductWeSell"} error. And if we take a look at generated HBM, indeed it's duplicated, but i have no idea how to write this mapping without duplicating it if it's possible at all. Produced hbm: <hibernate-mapping xmlns="urn:nhibernate-mapping-2.2"> <class xmlns="urn:nhibernate-mapping-2.2" name="IBusinessObject" table="BusinessObject"> <joined-subclass name="ProductWeSell" table="ProductWeSell"/> </class> </hibernate-mapping> <hibernate-mapping xmlns="urn:nhibernate-mapping-2.2"> <class xmlns="urn:nhibernate-mapping-2.2" discriminator-value="null" name="Product" table="Product"> <discriminator type="String"> <column name="ProductTypeId" not-null="false" /> </discriminator> <subclass name="ProductWeDontSell" discriminator-value="2" /> <subclass name="ProductWeSell" discriminator-value="1" /> </class> </hibernate-mapping> So far I was unable to figure out how to map this using fluent Nhibernate (i haven't tried mapping this using hmb files). Any help appreciated Fluent or HBM files. The thing I'm trying to solve look identical to this topic: NHibernate inheritance mapping question

    Read the article

  • Design pattern question: encapsulation or inheritance

    - by Matt
    Hey all, I have a question I have been toiling over for quite a while. I am building a templating engine with two main classes Template.php and Tag.php, with a bunch of extension classes like Img.php and String.php. The program works like this: A Template object creates a Tag objects. Each tag object determines which extension class (img, string, etc.) to implement. The point of the Tag class is to provide helper functions for each extension class such as wrap('div'), addClass('slideshow'), etc. Each Img or String class is used to render code specific to what is required, so $Img->render() would give something like <img src='blah.jpg' /> My Question is: Should I encapsulate all extension functionality within the Tag object like so: Tag.php function __construct($namespace, $args) { // Sort out namespace to determine which extension to call $this->extension = new $namespace($this); // Pass in Tag object so it can be used within extension return $this; // Tag object } function render() { return $this->extension->render(); } Img.php function __construct(Tag $T) { $args = $T->getArgs(); $T->addClass('img'); } function render() { return '<img src="blah.jpg" />'; } Usage: $T = new Tag("img", array(...); $T->render(); .... or should I create more of an inheritance structure because "Img is a Tag" Tag.php public static create($namespace, $args) { // Sort out namespace to determine which extension to call return new $namespace($args); } Img.php class Img extends Tag { function __construct($args) { // Determine namespace then call create tag $T = parent::__construct($namespace, $args); } function render() { return '<img src="blah.jpg" />'; } } Usage: $Img = Tag::create('img', array(...)); $Img->render(); One thing I do need is a common interface for creating custom tags, ie I can instantiate Img(...) then instantiate String(...), I do need to instantiate each extension using Tag. I know this is somewhat vague of a question, I'm hoping some of you have dealt with this in the past and can foresee certain issues with choosing each design pattern. If you have any other suggestions I would love to hear them. Thanks! Matt Mueller

    Read the article

  • Handling Model Inheritance in ASP.NET MVC2

    - by enth
    I've gotten myself stuck on how to handle inheritance in my model when it comes to my controllers/views. Basic Model: public class Procedure : Entity { public Procedure() { } public int Id { get; set; } public DateTime ProcedureDate { get; set; } public ProcedureType Type { get; set; } } public ProcedureA : Procedure { public double VariableA { get; set; } public int VariableB { get; set; } public int Total { get; set; } } public ProcedureB : Procedure { public int Score { get; set; } } etc... many of different procedures eventually. So, I do things like list all the procedures: public class ProcedureController : Controller { public virtual ActionResult List() { IEnumerable<Procedure> procedures = _repository.GetAll(); return View(procedures); } } but now I'm kinda stuck. Basically, from the list page, I need to link to pages where the specific subclass details can be viewed/edited and I'm not sure what the best strategy is. I thought I could add an action on the ProcedureController that would conjure up the right subclass by dynamically figuring out what repository to use and loading the subclass to pass to the view. I had to store the class in the ProcedureType object. I had to create/implement a non-generic IRepository since I can't dynamically cast to a generic one. public virtual ActionResult Details(int procedureID) { Procedure procedure = _repository.GetById(procedureID, false); string className = procedure.Type.Class; Type type = Type.GetType(className, true); Type repositoryType = typeof (IRepository<>).MakeGenericType(type); var repository = (IRepository)DependencyRegistrar.Resolve(repositoryType); Entity procedure = repository.GetById(procedureID, false); return View(procedure); } I haven't even started sorting out how the view is going to determine which partial to load to display the subclass details. I'm wondering if this is a good approach? This makes determining the URL easy. It makes reusing the Procedure display code easy. Another approach is specific controllers for each subclass. It simplifies the controller code, but also means many simple controllers for the many procedure subclasses. Can work out the shared Procedure details with a partial view. How to get to construct the URL to get to the controller/action in the first place? Time to not think about it. Hopefully someone can show me the light. Thanks in advance.

    Read the article

  • Is Inheritance in Struts2 Model-Driven Action possible?

    - by mryan
    Hello, I have a Model-Driven Struts2 action that provides correct JSON response. When I re-structure the action I get an empty JSON response back. Has anyone got inheritance working with Struts2 Model-Driven actions? Ive tried explicitly setting include properties in struts config: <result name="json" type="json"> <param name="includeProperties"> jsonResponse </param> </result> Code for all actions below - not actual code in use - I have edited and stripped down for clarity. Thanks in advance. Action providing correct response: public class Bike extends ActionSupport implements ModelDriven, Preparable { @Autowired private Service bikeService; private JsonResponse jsonResponse; private com.ets.model.Vehicle bike; private int id; public Bike() { jsonResponse = new JsonResponse("Bike"); } @Override public void prepare() throws Exception { if (id == 0) { bike = new com.ets.model.Bike(); } else { bike = bikeService.find(id); } } @Override public Object getModel() { return bike; } public void setId(int id) { this.id = id; } public void setBikeService(@Qualifier("bikeService") Service bikeService) { this.bikeService = bikeService; } public JsonResponse getJsonResponse() { return jsonResponse; } public String delete() { try { bike.setDeleted(new Date(System.currentTimeMillis())); bikeService.updateOrSave(bike); jsonResponse.addActionedId(id); jsonResponse.setAction("delete"); jsonResponse.setValid(true); } catch (Exception exception) { jsonResponse.setMessage(exception.toString()); } return "json"; } } Re-structured Actions providing incorrect response: public abstract class Vehicle extends ActionSupport implements ModelDriven { @Autowired protected Service bikeService; @Autowired protected Service carService; protected JsonResponse jsonResponse; protected com.ets.model.Vehicle vehicle; protected int id; protected abstract Service service(); @Override public Object getModel() { return bike; } public void setId(int id) { this.id = id; } public void setBikeService(@Qualifier("bikeService") Service bikeService) { this.bikeService = bikeService; } public void setCarService(@Qualifier("carService") Service carService) { this.carService = carService; } public JsonResponse getJsonResponse() { return jsonResponse; } public String delete() { try { vehicle.setDeleted(new Date(System.currentTimeMillis())); service().updateOrSave(vehicle); jsonResponse.addActionedId(id); jsonResponse.setAction("delete"); jsonResponse.setValid(true); } catch (Exception exception) { jsonResponse.setMessage(exception.toString()); } return "json"; } } public class Bike extends Vehicle implements Preparable { public Bike() { jsonResponse = new JsonResponse("Bike"); } @Override public void prepare() throws Exception { if (id == 0) { vehicle = new com.ets.model.Bike(); } else { vehicle = bikeService.find(id); } } @Override protected Service service() { return bikeService; } } public class Car extends Vehicle implements Preparable { public Car() { jsonResponse = new JsonResponse("Car"); } @Override public void prepare() throws Exception { if (id == 0) { vehicle = new com.ets.model.Car(); } else { vehicle = carService.find(id); } } @Override protected Service service() { return carService; } }

    Read the article

  • Templates and inheritance

    - by mariusz
    Hello, I have a big problem. I use additional controls for Wpf. One of them is Telerik RadWindow This control is already templated. Now I want to create custom Window with will inherit from RadWindow, and make custom template, eg. One base window will contains grid and two buttons, second base window will contain two grids (master - detail). The problem is that templates do not support inheritance. Perhaps is another way to template only the content of Winodow? My code, that doesn't work (empty window appears, so template doesn't apply) <Style TargetType="{x:Type local:TBaseRjWindow}"> <Setter Property="Template"> <Setter.Value> <ControlTemplate TargetType="{x:Type local:TBaseRjContent}"> <Border Background="{TemplateBinding Background}" BorderBrush="{TemplateBinding BorderBrush}" BorderThickness="{TemplateBinding BorderThickness}"> <Grid Name="mGrid"> <Grid.ColumnDefinitions> <ColumnDefinition /> </Grid.ColumnDefinitions> <Grid.RowDefinitions> <RowDefinition /> <RowDefinition MaxHeight="40" MinHeight="30" /> <RowDefinition MaxHeight="40" MinHeight="30" /> <RowDefinition Height="Auto" /> <RowDefinition MaxHeight="40" MinHeight="30" /> </Grid.RowDefinitions> <telerik:RadGridView Margin="10,10,10,10" Name="grid" Grid.Row="0" Grid.Column="0" VerticalAlignment="Stretch" HorizontalAlignment="Stretch" ScrollMode="Deferred" AutoGenerateColumns="False" Width="Auto" > </telerik:RadGridView> <telerik:RadDataPager Grid.Row="1" Grid.Column="0" x:Name="radDataPager" PageSize="50" AutoEllipsisMode="None" DisplayMode="First, Previous, Next, Text" Margin="10,0,10,0"/> <StackPanel Grid.Row="1" Grid.Column="0" Margin="5 5 5 5" HorizontalAlignment="Left" Orientation="Horizontal" Height="20" Width="Auto" VerticalAlignment="Center" > <telerik:RadButton x:Name="btAdd" Margin="5 0 5 0" Content="Dodaj" /> <telerik:RadButton x:Name="btEdit" Margin="5 0 5 0" Content="Edytuj" /> <telerik:RadButton x:Name="btDelete" Margin="5 0 5 0" Content="Usun" /> </StackPanel> <StackPanel Name="addFields" Background="LightGray" Visibility="Collapsed" VerticalAlignment="Top" Grid.Row="2" Grid.Column="0" Width="Auto" Height="Auto" Orientation="Horizontal"> <GroupBox Header="Szczegoly" Margin="2 2 2 2" > <Grid VerticalAlignment="Top" DataContext="{Binding SelectedItem, ElementName=grid}" Name="_gAddFields" Margin="0 0 0 0" Width="Auto" Height="Auto" > </Grid> </GroupBox> </StackPanel> <StackPanel Grid.Row="3" Grid.Column="0" Margin="5 5 5 5" HorizontalAlignment="Right" Orientation="Horizontal" Height="25" Width="Auto" VerticalAlignment="Center" > <telerik:RadButton x:Name="btSave" IsDefault="True" Width="60" Margin="5 0 5 0" Content="Zapisz" /> <telerik:RadButton x:Name="btOK" IsDefault="True" Width="60" Margin="5 0 5 0" Content="Akceptuj" /> <telerik:RadButton x:Name="btCancel" IsCancel="True" Width="60" Margin="5 0 5 0" Content="Anuluj" /> </StackPanel> </Grid> </Border> </ControlTemplate> </Setter.Value> </Setter> </Style> Please help

    Read the article

  • Mixing inheritance mapping strategies in NHibernate

    - by MylesRip
    I have a rather large inheritance hierarchy in which some of the subclasses add very little and others add quite a bit. I don't want to map the entire hierarchy using either "table per class hierarchy" or "table per subclass" due to the size and complexity of the hierarchy. Ideally I'd like to mix mapping strategies such that portions of the hierarchy where the subclasses add very little are combined into a common table a la "table per class hierarchy" and subclasses that add a lot are broken out into a separate table. Using this approach, I would expect to have 2 or 3 tables with very little wasted space instead of either 1 table with lots of fields that don't apply to most of the objects, or 20+ tables, several of which would have only a couple of columns. In the NHibernate Reference Documentation version 2.1.0, I found section 8.1.4 "Mixing table per class hierarchy with table per subclass". This approach switches strategies partway down the hierarchy by using: ... <subclass ...> <join ...> <property ...> ... </join> </subclass> ... This is great in theory. In practice, though, I found that the schema was too restrictive in what was allowed inside the "join" element for me to be able to accomplish what I needed. Here is the related part of the schema definition: <xs:element name="join"> <xs:complexType> <xs:sequence> <xs:element ref="subselect" minOccurs="0" /> <xs:element ref="comment" minOccurs="0" /> <xs:element ref="key" /> <xs:choice minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="unbounded"> <xs:element ref="property" /> <xs:element ref="many-to-one" /> <xs:element ref="component" /> <xs:element ref="dynamic-component" /> <xs:element ref="any" /> <xs:element ref="map" /> <xs:element ref="set" /> <xs:element ref="list" /> <xs:element ref="bag" /> <xs:element ref="idbag" /> <xs:element ref="array" /> <xs:element ref="primitive-array" /> </xs:choice> <xs:element ref="sql-insert" minOccurs="0" /> <xs:element ref="sql-update" minOccurs="0" /> <xs:element ref="sql-delete" minOccurs="0" /> </xs:sequence> <xs:attribute name="table" use="required" type="xs:string" /> <xs:attribute name="schema" type="xs:string" /> <xs:attribute name="catalog" type="xs:string" /> <xs:attribute name="subselect" type="xs:string" /> <xs:attribute name="fetch" default="join"> <xs:simpleType> <xs:restriction base="xs:string"> <xs:enumeration value="join" /> <xs:enumeration value="select" /> </xs:restriction> </xs:simpleType> </xs:attribute> <xs:attribute name="inverse" default="false" type="xs:boolean"> </xs:attribute> <xs:attribute name="optional" default="false" type="xs:boolean"> </xs:attribute> </xs:complexType> </xs:element> As you can see, this allows the use of "property" child elements or "component" child elements, but not both. It also doesn't allow for "subclass" child elements to continue the hierarchy below the point at which the strategy was changed. Is there a way to accomplish this?

    Read the article

  • Are there any concrete examples of where a paralellizing compiler would provide a value-adding benefit?

    - by jamie
    Paul Graham argues that: It would be great if a startup could give us something of the old Moore's Law back, by writing software that could make a large number of CPUs look to the developer like one very fast CPU. ... The most ambitious is to try to do it automatically: to write a compiler that will parallelize our code for us. There's a name for this compiler, the sufficiently smart compiler, and it is a byword for impossibility. But is it really impossible? Can someone provide a concrete example where a paralellizing compiler would solve a pain point? Web-apps don't appear to be a problem: just run a bunch of Node processes. Real-time raytracing isn't a problem: the programmers are writing multi-threaded, SIMD assembly language quite happily (indeed, some might complain if we make it easier!). The holy grail is to be able to accelerate any program, be it MySQL, Garage Band, or Quicken. I'm looking for a middle ground: is there a real-world problem that you have experienced where a "smart-enough" compiler would have provided a real benefit, i.e that someone would pay for? A good answer is one where there is a process where the computer runs at 100% CPU on a single core for a painful period of time. That time might be 10 seconds, if the task is meant to be quick. It might be 500ms if the task is meant to be interactive. It might be 10 hours. Please describe such a problem. Really, that's all I'm looking for: candidate areas for further investigation. (Hence, raytracing is off the list because all the low-hanging fruit have been feasted upon.) I am not interested in why it cannot be done. There are a million people willing to point to the sound reasons why it cannot be done. Such answers are not useful.

    Read the article

  • What's wrong performing unit test against concrete implementation if your frameworks are not going to change?

    - by palm snow
    First a bit of background: We are re-architecting our product suite that was written 10 years ago and served its purpose. One thing that we cannot change is the database schema as we have 500+ client base using this system. Our db schema has over 150+ tables. We have decided on using Entity Framework 4.1 as DAL and still evaluating various frameworks for storing our business logic. I am investigation to bring unit testing into the mix but I also confused as to how far I need to go with setting up a full blown TDD environment. One aspect of setting up unit testing is by getting into implementing Repository, unit of work and mocking frameworks etc. This mean there will be cost and investment on the code-bloat associated with all these frameworks. I understand some of this could be auto-generated but when it comes to things like behaviors, that will be mostly hand written. Just to be clear, I am not questioning the important of unit testing your code. I am just not sure we need all its components (like repository, mocking etc.) when we are fairly certain of storage mechanism/framework (SQL Server/Entity Framework). All that code bloat with generic repositories make sense when you need a generic layers with ability to change this whenever you like however its very likely a YAGNI in our case. What we need is more of integration testing where we can unit-test our code with concrete repository objects and test data in database. In this scenario, just running integration test seem to be more beneficial in our case. Any thoughts if I am missing any thing here?

    Read the article

  • How are the conceptual pairs Abstract/Concrete, Generic/Specific, and Complex/Simple related to one another in software architecture?

    - by tjb1982
    (= 2 (+ 1 1)) take the above. The requirement of the '=' predicate is that its arguments be comparable. Any two structures are comparable in this case, and so the contract/requirement is pretty generic. The '+' predicate requires that its arguments be numbers. That's more specific. (socket domain type protocol) the arguments here are much more specific (even though the arguments are still just numbers and the function itself returns a file descriptor, which is itself an int), but the arguments are more abstract, and the implementation is built up from other functions whose abstractions are less abstract, which are themselves built from less and less abstract abstractions. To the point where the requirements are something like move from one location to another, observe whether the switch at that location is on or off, turn the switch on or off, or leave it the same, etc. But are functions also less and less complex the less abstract they are? And is there a relationship between the number and range of arguments of a function and the complexity of its implementation, as you go from more abstract to less abstract, and vice versa? (= 2 (+ 1 1) 2r10) the '=' predicate is more generic than the '+' predicate, and thus could be more complex in its implementation. The '+' predicate's contract is less generic, and so could be less complex in its implementation. Is this even a little correct? What about the 'socket' function? Each of those arguments is a number of some kind. What they represent, though, is something more elaborate. It also returns a number (just like the others do), which is also a representation of something conceptually much more elaborate than a number. To boil it down, I'm asking if there is a relationship between the following dimensions, and why: Abstract/Concrete Complex/Simple Generic/Specific And more specifically, do different configurations of these dimensions have a specific, measurable impact on the number and range of the arguments (i.e., the contract) of a function?

    Read the article

  • Python: unable to inherit from a C extension.

    - by celil
    I am trying to add a few extra methods to a matrix type from the pysparse library. Apart from that I want the new class to behave exactly like the original, so I chose to implement the changes using inheritance. However, when I try from pysparse import spmatrix class ll_mat(spmatrix.ll_mat): pass this results in the following error TypeError: Error when calling the metaclass bases cannot create 'builtin_function_or_method' instances What is this causing this error? Is there a way to use delegation so that my new class behaves exactly the same way as the original?

    Read the article

  • Unique ID Defined by Most-Derived Class accessible through Base Class

    - by Narfanator
    Okay, so, the idea is that I have a map of "components", which inherit from componentBase, and are keyed on an ID unique to the most-derived*. Only, I can't think of a good way to get this to work. I tried it with the constructor, but that doesn't work (Maybe I did it wrong). The problem with any virtual, etc, inheritance tricks are that the user has to impliment them at the bottom, which can be forgotten and makes it less... clean. *Right phrase? If - is inheritance; foo is most-derived: foo-foo1-foo2-componentBase Here's some code showing the problem, and why CRTP can't cut it: (No, it's not legit code, but I'm trying to get my thoughts down) #include<map> class componentBase { public: virtual static char idFunction() = 0; }; template <class T> class component : public virtual componentBase { public: static char idFunction(){ return reinterpret_cast<char>(&idFunction); } }; class intermediateDerivations1 : public virtual component<intermediateDerivations1> { }; class intermediateDerivations2 : public virtual component<intermediateDerivations2> { }; class derived1 : public intermediateDerivations1 { }; class derived2 : public intermediateDerivations1 { }; //How the unique ID gets used (more or less) std::map<char, componentBase*> TheMap; template<class T> void addToMap(componentBase * c) { TheMap[T::idFunction()] = c; } template<class T> T * getFromMap() { return TheMap[T::idFunction()]; } int main() { //In each case, the key needs to be different. //For these, the CRTP should do it: getFromMap<intermediateDerivations1>(); getFromMap<intermediateDerivations2>(); //But not for these. getFromMap<derived1>(); getFromMap<derived2>(); return 0; } More or less, I need something that is always there, no matter what the user does, and has a sortable value that's unique to the most-derived class. Also, I realize this isn't the best-asked question, I'm actually having some unexpected difficultly wrapping my head around it in words, so ask questions if/when you need clarification.

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25  | Next Page >