Search Results

Search found 33012 results on 1321 pages for 'method injection'.

Page 18/1321 | < Previous Page | 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25  | Next Page >

  • How to call a method in init method ?

    - by srikanth rongali
    My program looks like this: -(id)init { if ( (self = [super init]) ) { //TargetWithActions *targetActions= [[TargetWithActions alloc] init]; [self countDownSpeed123]; } return self; } -(void)countDownSpeed123 { countDownSpeed = 5.0f; } @end warning: 'TargetWithActions' may not respond to '-countDownSpeed123' I am getting the warning in this way. Where I am wrong in my program. Please explain ? Thank You.

    Read the article

  • setter injection guice + wicket

    - by chris-gr
    Hi, I have a Wicket Web Page where I create a new Object of class A: A a = new A(User u); In A I would like to have setter injection, however this is actually not done. I have heard that one must provide an empty constructor but how is it possible to have also a non - empty constructor with setter injection?

    Read the article

  • LINQ – SequenceEqual() method

    - by nmarun
    I have been looking at LINQ extension methods and have blogged about what I learned from them in my blog space. Next in line is the SequenceEqual() method. Here’s the description about this method: “Determines whether two sequences are equal by comparing the elements by using the default equality comparer for their type.” Let’s play with some code: 1: int[] numbers = { 5, 4, 1, 3, 9, 8, 6, 7, 2, 0 }; 2: // int[] numbersCopy = numbers; 3: int[] numbersCopy = { 5, 4, 1, 3, 9, 8, 6, 7, 2, 0 }; 4:  5: Console.WriteLine(numbers.SequenceEqual(numbersCopy)); This gives an output of ‘True’ – basically compares each of the elements in the two arrays and returns true in this case. The result is same even if you uncomment line 2 and comment line 3 (I didn’t need to say that now did I?). So then what happens for custom types? For this, I created a Product class with the following definition: 1: class Product 2: { 3: public int ProductId { get; set; } 4: public string Name { get; set; } 5: public string Category { get; set; } 6: public DateTime MfgDate { get; set; } 7: public Status Status { get; set; } 8: } 9:  10: public enum Status 11: { 12: Active = 1, 13: InActive = 2, 14: OffShelf = 3, 15: } In my calling code, I’m just adding a few product items: 1: private static List<Product> GetProducts() 2: { 3: return new List<Product> 4: { 5: new Product 6: { 7: ProductId = 1, 8: Name = "Laptop", 9: Category = "Computer", 10: MfgDate = new DateTime(2003, 4, 3), 11: Status = Status.Active, 12: }, 13: new Product 14: { 15: ProductId = 2, 16: Name = "Compact Disc", 17: Category = "Water Sport", 18: MfgDate = new DateTime(2009, 12, 3), 19: Status = Status.InActive, 20: }, 21: new Product 22: { 23: ProductId = 3, 24: Name = "Floppy", 25: Category = "Computer", 26: MfgDate = new DateTime(1993, 3, 7), 27: Status = Status.OffShelf, 28: }, 29: }; 30: } Now for the actual check: 1: List<Product> products1 = GetProducts(); 2: List<Product> products2 = GetProducts(); 3:  4: Console.WriteLine(products1.SequenceEqual(products2)); This one returns ‘False’ and the reason is simple – this one checks for reference equality and the products in the both the lists get different ‘memory addresses’ (sounds like I’m talking in ‘C’). In order to modify this behavior and return a ‘True’ result, we need to modify the Product class as follows: 1: class Product : IEquatable<Product> 2: { 3: public int ProductId { get; set; } 4: public string Name { get; set; } 5: public string Category { get; set; } 6: public DateTime MfgDate { get; set; } 7: public Status Status { get; set; } 8:  9: public override bool Equals(object obj) 10: { 11: return Equals(obj as Product); 12: } 13:  14: public bool Equals(Product other) 15: { 16: //Check whether the compared object is null. 17: if (ReferenceEquals(other, null)) return false; 18:  19: //Check whether the compared object references the same data. 20: if (ReferenceEquals(this, other)) return true; 21:  22: //Check whether the products' properties are equal. 23: return ProductId.Equals(other.ProductId) 24: && Name.Equals(other.Name) 25: && Category.Equals(other.Category) 26: && MfgDate.Equals(other.MfgDate) 27: && Status.Equals(other.Status); 28: } 29:  30: // If Equals() returns true for a pair of objects 31: // then GetHashCode() must return the same value for these objects. 32: // read why in the following articles: 33: // http://geekswithblogs.net/akraus1/archive/2010/02/28/138234.aspx 34: // http://stackoverflow.com/questions/371328/why-is-it-important-to-override-gethashcode-when-equals-method-is-overriden-in-c 35: public override int GetHashCode() 36: { 37: //Get hash code for the ProductId field. 38: int hashProductId = ProductId.GetHashCode(); 39:  40: //Get hash code for the Name field if it is not null. 41: int hashName = Name == null ? 0 : Name.GetHashCode(); 42:  43: //Get hash code for the ProductId field. 44: int hashCategory = Category.GetHashCode(); 45:  46: //Get hash code for the ProductId field. 47: int hashMfgDate = MfgDate.GetHashCode(); 48:  49: //Get hash code for the ProductId field. 50: int hashStatus = Status.GetHashCode(); 51: //Calculate the hash code for the product. 52: return hashProductId ^ hashName ^ hashCategory & hashMfgDate & hashStatus; 53: } 54:  55: public static bool operator ==(Product a, Product b) 56: { 57: // Enable a == b for null references to return the right value 58: if (ReferenceEquals(a, b)) 59: { 60: return true; 61: } 62: // If one is null and the other not. Remember a==null will lead to Stackoverflow! 63: if (ReferenceEquals(a, null)) 64: { 65: return false; 66: } 67: return a.Equals((object)b); 68: } 69:  70: public static bool operator !=(Product a, Product b) 71: { 72: return !(a == b); 73: } 74: } Now THAT kinda looks overwhelming. But lets take one simple step at a time. Ok first thing you’ve noticed is that the class implements IEquatable<Product> interface – the key step towards achieving our goal. This interface provides us with an ‘Equals’ method to perform the test for equality with another Product object, in this case. This method is called in the following situations: when you do a ProductInstance.Equals(AnotherProductInstance) and when you perform actions like Contains<T>, IndexOf() or Remove() on your collection Coming to the Equals method defined line 14 onwards. The two ‘if’ blocks check for null and referential equality using the ReferenceEquals() method defined in the Object class. Line 23 is where I’m doing the actual check on the properties of the Product instances. This is what returns the ‘True’ for us when we run the application. I have also overridden the Object.Equals() method which calls the Equals() method of the interface. One thing to remember is that anytime you override the Equals() method, its’ a good practice to override the GetHashCode() method and overload the ‘==’ and the ‘!=’ operators. For detailed information on this, please read this and this. Since we’ve overloaded the operators as well, we get ‘True’ when we do actions like: 1: Console.WriteLine(products1.Contains(products2[0])); 2: Console.WriteLine(products1[0] == products2[0]); This completes the full circle on the SequenceEqual() method. See the code used in the article here.

    Read the article

  • Customizable Method Bodies in NetBeans IDE 7.3

    - by Geertjan
    In NetBeans IDE 7.3, bodies of newly created methods can now be customized in Tools/Templates/Java/Code Snippets, see below: The content of the first of the two above, "Generated Method Body", is like this: <#-- A built-in Freemarker template (see http://freemarker.sourceforge.net) used for filling the body of methods generated by the IDE. When editing the template, the following predefined variables, that will be then expanded into the corresponding values, could be used together with Java expressions and comments: ${method_return_type}       a return type of a created method ${default_return_value}     a value returned by the method by default ${method_name}              name of the created method ${class_name}               qualified name of the enclosing class ${simple_class_name}        simple name of the enclosing class --> throw new java.lang.UnsupportedOperationException("Not supported yet."); //To change body of generated methods, choose Tools | Templates. The second one, "Overriden Methody Body", is as follows: <#-- A built-in Freemarker template (see http://freemarker.sourceforge.net) used for filling the body of overridden methods generated by the IDE. When editing the template, the following predefined variables, that will be then expanded into the corresponding values, could be used together with Java expressions and comments: ${super_method_call}        a super method call ${method_return_type}       a return type of a created method ${default_return_value}     a value returned by the method by default ${method_name}              name of the created method ${class_name}               qualified name of the enclosing class ${simple_class_name}        simple name of the enclosing class --> <#if method_return_type?? && method_return_type != "void"> return ${super_method_call}; //To change body of generated methods, choose Tools | Templates. <#else> ${super_method_call}; //To change body of generated methods, choose Tools | Templates. </#if>

    Read the article

  • Can I pass constructor parameters to Unity's Resolve() method?

    - by NotDan
    I am using Microsoft's Unity for dependency injection and I want to do something like this: IDataContext context = _unityContainer.Resolve<IDataContext>(); var repositoryA = _unityContainer.Resolve<IRepositoryA>(context); //Same instance of context var repositoryB = _unityContainer.Resolve<IRepositoryB>(context); //Same instance of context IDataContext context2 = _unityContainer.Resolve<IDataContext>(); //New instance var repositoryA2 = _unityContainer.Resolve<IRepositoryA>(context2); RepositoryA and RepositoryB both have a constructor that takes an IDataContext parameter, and I want Unity to initialize the repository with the context that I pass it. Also note that IDataContext is not registered with Unity (I dont want 3 instances of IDataContext).

    Read the article

  • Should we avoid to use Object as the input parameter/ output value of a method?

    - by developer.cyrus
    Take Java syntax as an example, though the question itself is language independent. If the following snippet takes an object MyAbstractEmailTemplate as input argument in the method setTemplate, the class MyGateway will then become tightly-coupled with the object MyAbstractEmailTemplate, which lessens the re-usability of the class MyGateway. A compromise is to use dependency-injection to ease the instantiation of MyAbstractEmailTemplate. This might solve the coupling problem to some extent, but the interface is still rigid, hardly providing enough ?exibility to other developers/ applications. So if we only use primitive data type (or even plain XML in web service) as the input/ output of a method, it seems the coupling problem no longer exists. So what do you think? public class MyGateway { protected MyAbstractEmailTemplate template; publoc void setTemplate(MyAbstractEmailTemplate template) { this.template = template; } }

    Read the article

  • Parallelism in .NET – Part 8, PLINQ’s ForAll Method

    - by Reed
    Parallel LINQ extends LINQ to Objects, and is typically very similar.  However, as I previously discussed, there are some differences.  Although the standard way to handle simple Data Parellelism is via Parallel.ForEach, it’s possible to do the same thing via PLINQ. PLINQ adds a new method unavailable in standard LINQ which provides new functionality… LINQ is designed to provide a much simpler way of handling querying, including filtering, ordering, grouping, and many other benefits.  Reading the description in LINQ to Objects on MSDN, it becomes clear that the thinking behind LINQ deals with retrieval of data.  LINQ works by adding a functional programming style on top of .NET, allowing us to express filters in terms of predicate functions, for example. PLINQ is, generally, very similar.  Typically, when using PLINQ, we write declarative statements to filter a dataset or perform an aggregation.  However, PLINQ adds one new method, which provides a very different purpose: ForAll. The ForAll method is defined on ParallelEnumerable, and will work upon any ParallelQuery<T>.  Unlike the sequence operators in LINQ and PLINQ, ForAll is intended to cause side effects.  It does not filter a collection, but rather invokes an action on each element of the collection. At first glance, this seems like a bad idea.  For example, Eric Lippert clearly explained two philosophical objections to providing an IEnumerable<T>.ForEach extension method, one of which still applies when parallelized.  The sole purpose of this method is to cause side effects, and as such, I agree that the ForAll method “violates the functional programming principles that all the other sequence operators are based upon”, in exactly the same manner an IEnumerable<T>.ForEach extension method would violate these principles.  Eric Lippert’s second reason for disliking a ForEach extension method does not necessarily apply to ForAll – replacing ForAll with a call to Parallel.ForEach has the same closure semantics, so there is no loss there. Although ForAll may have philosophical issues, there is a pragmatic reason to include this method.  Without ForAll, we would take a fairly serious performance hit in many situations.  Often, we need to perform some filtering or grouping, then perform an action using the results of our filter.  Using a standard foreach statement to perform our action would avoid this philosophical issue: // Filter our collection var filteredItems = collection.AsParallel().Where( i => i.SomePredicate() ); // Now perform an action foreach (var item in filteredItems) { // These will now run serially item.DoSomething(); } .csharpcode, .csharpcode pre { font-size: small; color: black; font-family: consolas, "Courier New", courier, monospace; background-color: #ffffff; /*white-space: pre;*/ } .csharpcode pre { margin: 0em; } .csharpcode .rem { color: #008000; } .csharpcode .kwrd { color: #0000ff; } .csharpcode .str { color: #006080; } .csharpcode .op { color: #0000c0; } .csharpcode .preproc { color: #cc6633; } .csharpcode .asp { background-color: #ffff00; } .csharpcode .html { color: #800000; } .csharpcode .attr { color: #ff0000; } .csharpcode .alt { background-color: #f4f4f4; width: 100%; margin: 0em; } .csharpcode .lnum { color: #606060; } This would cause a loss in performance, since we lose any parallelism in place, and cause all of our actions to be run serially. We could easily use a Parallel.ForEach instead, which adds parallelism to the actions: // Filter our collection var filteredItems = collection.AsParallel().Where( i => i.SomePredicate() ); // Now perform an action once the filter completes Parallel.ForEach(filteredItems, item => { // These will now run in parallel item.DoSomething(); }); This is a noticeable improvement, since both our filtering and our actions run parallelized.  However, there is still a large bottleneck in place here.  The problem lies with my comment “perform an action once the filter completes”.  Here, we’re parallelizing the filter, then collecting all of the results, blocking until the filter completes.  Once the filtering of every element is completed, we then repartition the results of the filter, reschedule into multiple threads, and perform the action on each element.  By moving this into two separate statements, we potentially double our parallelization overhead, since we’re forcing the work to be partitioned and scheduled twice as many times. This is where the pragmatism comes into play.  By violating our functional principles, we gain the ability to avoid the overhead and cost of rescheduling the work: // Perform an action on the results of our filter collection .AsParallel() .Where( i => i.SomePredicate() ) .ForAll( i => i.DoSomething() ); The ability to avoid the scheduling overhead is a compelling reason to use ForAll.  This really goes back to one of the key points I discussed in data parallelism: Partition your problem in a way to place the most work possible into each task.  Here, this means leaving the statement attached to the expression, even though it causes side effects and is not standard usage for LINQ. This leads to my one guideline for using ForAll: The ForAll extension method should only be used to process the results of a parallel query, as returned by a PLINQ expression. Any other usage scenario should use Parallel.ForEach, instead.

    Read the article

  • One method with many behaviours or many methods

    - by Krowar
    This question is quite general and not related to a specific language, but more to coding best practices. Recently, I've been developing a feature for my app that is requested in many cases with slightly different behaviours. This function send emails , but to different receivers, or with different texts according to the parameters. The method signature is something like public static sendMail (t_message message = null , t_user receiver = null , stream attachedPiece = null) And then there are many condition inside the method, like if(attachedPiece != null) { } I've made the choice to do it this way (with a single method) because it prevents me to rewrite the (nearly) same method 10 times, but I'm not sure that it's a good practice. What should I have done? Write 10 sendMail method with different parameters? Are there obvious pros and cons for these different ways of programming? Thanks a lot.

    Read the article

  • How should dependencies be managed across a modular application?

    - by bear
    Let's say that we have a structure like this: Application -- Modules --Module1 -- Controller -- PublicHelper --Module2 -- Controller -- PublicHelper Whereby a module's Public Helper can provide helper functions. In nearly every module helper, the helper needs to access another module's public helper methods. Let's say for instance, in a PHP application: Module1 provides functionality to create a sale, and as part of the class Module1PublicHelper extends AbstractModuleHelper { public function createSale($customerId, $param, $param) { $userPublicHelper = // grab an instance of the user public helper $currentUser = $userPublicHelper->getCurrentUser(); } } class Module2PublicHelper extends AbstractModuleHelper { public function getCurrentUser() { //do something return $user; } } In this situation, the method needs to obtain an instance, either new or whatever of the user public helper. Given that all of Module Public Helper classes are instantiated with a minimum set of constructor params, e.g. EntityManager, what would be the best way to get a copy of it? Obviously, we can't really inject the user public helper class into the class containing createSale One solution would be to use a service locator or registry, however, testing the application isn't exactly easy.

    Read the article

  • Are parametrized calls/sanitization/escaping characters necessary for hashed password fields in SQL queries?

    - by Computerish
    When writing a login system for a website, it is standard to use some combination of parameterized calls, sanitizing the user input, and/or escaping special characters to prevent SQL injection attacks. Any good login system, however, should also hash (and possibly salt) every password before it goes into an SQL query, so is it still necessary to worry about SQL injection attacks in passwords? Doesn't a hash completely eliminate any possibility of an SQL injection attack on its own?

    Read the article

  • How best to construct our test subjects in unit tests?

    - by Liath
    Some of our business logic classes require quite a few dependencies (in our case 7-10). As such when we come to unit test these the creation become quite complex. In most tests these dependencies are often not required (only some dependencies are required for particular methods). As a result unit tests often require a significant number of lines of code to mock up these useless dependencies (which can't be null because of null checks). For example: [Test] public void TestMethodA() { var dependency5 = new Mock<IDependency1>(); dependency5.Setup(x => x. // some setup var sut = new Sut(new Mock<IDependency1>().Object, new Mock<IDependency2>().Object, new Mock<IDependency3>().Object, new Mock<IDependency4>().Object, dependency5); Assert.SomeAssert(sut.MethodA()); } In this example almost half the test is taken up creating dependencies which aren't used. I've investigated an approach where I have a helper method. [Test] public void TestMethodA() { var dependency5 = new Mock<IDependency1>(); dependency5.Setup(x => x. // some setup var sut = CreateSut(null, null, null, null, dependency5); Assert.SomeAssert(sut.MethodA()); } private Sut CreateSut(IDependency1 d1, IDependency2 d2...) { return new Sut(d1 ?? new Mock<IDependency1>().Object, d2 ?? new Mock<IDependency2>().Object, } But these often grow very complicated very quickly. What is the best way to create these BLL classes in test classes to reduce complexity and simplify tests?

    Read the article

  • templated method on T inside a templated class on TT : Is that possible/correct.

    - by paercebal
    I have a class MyClass which is templated on typename T. But inside, I want a method which is templated on another type TT (which is unrelated to T). After reading/tinkering, I found the following notation: template <typename T> class MyClass { public : template<typename TT> void MyMethod(const TT & param) ; } ; For stylistic reasons (I like to have my templated class declaration in one header file, and the method definitions in another header file), I won't define the method inside the class declaration. So, I have to write it as: template <typename T> // this is the type of the class template <typename TT> // this is the type of the method void MyClass<T>::MyMethod(const TT & param) { // etc. } I knew I had to "declare" the typenames used in the method, but didn't know how exactly, and found through trials and errors. The code above compiles on Visual C++ 2008, but: Is this the correct way to have a method templated on TT inside a class templated on T? As a bonus: Are there hidden problems/surprises/constraints behind this kind of code? (I guess the specializations can be quite amusing to write)

    Read the article

  • How to TDD test that objects are being added to a collection if the collection is private?

    - by Joshua Harris
    Assume that I planned to write a class that worked something like this: public class GameCharacter { private Collection<CharacterEffect> _collection; public void Add(CharacterEffect e) { ... } public void Remove(CharacterEffect e) { ... } public void Contains(CharacterEffect e) { ... } } When added an effect does something to the character and is then added to the _collection. When it is removed the effect reverts the change to the character and is removed from the _collection. It's easy to test if the effect was applied to the character, but how do I test that the effect was added to _collection? What test could I write to start constructing this class. I could write a test where Contains would return true for a certain effect being in _collection, but I can't arrange a case where that function would return true because I haven't implemented the Add method that is needed to place things in _collection. Ok, so since Contains is dependent on having Add working, then why don't I try to create Add first. Well for my first test I need to try and figure out if the effect was added to the _collection. How would I do that? The only way to see if an effect is in _collection is with the Contains function. The only way that I could think to test this would be to use a FakeCollection that Mocks the Add, Remove, and Contains of a real collection, but I don't want _collection being affected by outside sources. I don't want to add a setEffects(Collection effects) function, because I do not want the class to have that functionality. The one thing that I am thinking could work is this: public class GameCharacter<C extends Collection> { private Collection<CharacterEffect> _collection; public GameCharacter() { _collection = new C<CharacterEffect>(); } } But, that is just silly making me declare what some private data structures type is on every declaration of the character. Is there a way for me to test this without breaking TDD principles while still allowing me to keep my collection private?

    Read the article

  • Constructor versus setter injection

    - by Chris
    Hi, I'm currently designing an API where I wish to allow configuration via a variety of methods. One method is via an XML configuration schema and another method is through an API that I wish to play nicely with Spring. My XML schema parsing code was previously hidden and therefore the only concern was for it to work but now I wish to build a public API and I'm quite concerned about best-practice. It seems that many favor javabean type PoJo's with default zero parameter constructors and then setter injection. The problem I am trying to tackle is that some setter methods implementations are dependent on other setter methods being called before them in sequence. I could write anal setters that will tolerate themselves being called in many orders but that will not solve the problem of a user forgetting to set the appropriate setter and therefore the bean being in an incomplete state. The only solution I can think of is to forget about the objects being 'beans' and enforce the required parameters via constructor injection. An example of this is in the default setting of the id of a component based on the id of the parent components. My Interface public interface IMyIdentityInterface { public String getId(); /* A null value should create a unique meaningful default */ public void setId(String id); public IMyIdentityInterface getParent(); public void setParent(IMyIdentityInterface parent); } Base Implementation of interface: public abstract class MyIdentityBaseClass implements IMyIdentityInterface { private String _id; private IMyIdentityInterface _parent; public MyIdentityBaseClass () {} @Override public String getId() { return _id; } /** * If the id is null, then use the id of the parent component * appended with a lower-cased simple name of the current impl * class along with a counter suffix to enforce uniqueness */ @Override public void setId(String id) { if (id == null) { IMyIdentityInterface parent = getParent(); if (parent == null) { // this may be the top level component or it may be that // the user called setId() before setParent(..) } else { _id = Helpers.makeIdFromParent(parent,getClass()); } } else { _id = id; } } @Override public IMyIdentityInterface getParent() { return _parent; } @Override public void setParent(IMyIdentityInterface parent) { _parent = parent; } } Every component in the framework will have a parent except for the top level component. Using the setter type of injection, then the setters will have different behavior based on the order of the calling of the setters. In this case, would you agree, that a constructor taking a reference to the parent is better and dropping the parent setter method from the interface entirely? Is it considered bad practice if I wish to be able to configure these components using an IoC container? Chris

    Read the article

  • static setter method injection in Spring

    - by vishnu
    Hi, I have following requirement I wanted to pass http:\\localhost:9080\testws.cls value as setter injection through spring configuration file. How can i do this static variable setter injection for WSDL_LOCATION public class Code1 extends javax.xml.ws.Service { private final static URL CODE1_WSDL_LOCATION; static { URL url = null; try { url = new URL("http:\\localhost:9080\testws.cls"); } catch (MalformedURLException e) { e.printStackTrace(); } CODE1_WSDL_LOCATION = url; } public Code1(URL wsdlLocation, QName serviceName) { super(wsdlLocation, serviceName); } public Code1() { super(CODE1_WSDL_LOCATION, new QName("http://tempuri.org", "Code1")); } /** * * @return * returns Code1Soap */ @WebEndpoint(name = "Code1Soap") public Code1Soap getCode1Soap() { return (Code1Soap)super.getPort(new QName("http://tempuri.org", "Code1Soap"), Code1Soap.class); } } Please help me out.

    Read the article

  • How to build a Singleton-like dependency injector replacement (Php)

    - by Erparom
    I know out there are a lot of excelent containers, even frameworks almost entirely DI based with good strong IoC classes. However, this doesn't help me to "define" a new pattern. (This is Php code but understandable to anyone) Supose we have: //Declares the singleton class bookSingleton { private $author; private static $bookInstance; private static $isLoaned = FALSE; //The private constructor private function __constructor() { $this->author = "Onecrappy Writer Ofcheap Novels"; } //Sets the global isLoaned state and also gets self instance public static function loanBook() { if (self::$isLoaned === FALSE) { //Book already taken, so return false return FALSE; } else { //Ok, not loaned, lets instantiate (if needed and loan) if (!isset(self::$bookInstance)) { self::$bookInstance = new BookSingleton(); } self::$isLoaned = TRUE; } } //Return loaned state to false, so another book reader can take the book public function returnBook() { $self::$isLoaned = FALSE; } public function getAuthor() { return $this->author; } } Then we get the singelton consumtion class: //Consumes the Singleton class BookBorrower() { private $borrowedBook; private $haveBookState; public function __construct() { this->haveBookState = FALSE; } //Use the singelton-pattern behavior public function borrowBook() { $this->borrowedBook = BookSingleton::loanBook(); //Check if was successfully borrowed if (!this->borrowedBook) { $this->haveBookState = FALSE; } else { $this->haveBookState = TRUE; } } public function returnBook() { $this->borrowedBook->returnBook(); $this->haveBookState = FALSE; } public function getBook() { if ($this->haveBookState) { return "The book is loaned, the author is" . $this->borrowedbook->getAuthor(); } else { return "I don't have the book, perhaps someone else took it"; } } } At last, we got a client, to test the behavior function __autoload($class) { require_once $class . '.php'; } function write ($whatever,$breaks) { for($break = 0;$break<$breaks;$break++) { $whatever .= "\n"; } echo nl2br($whatever); } write("Begin Singleton test", 2); $borrowerJuan = new BookBorrower(); $borrowerPedro = new BookBorrower(); write("Juan asks for the book", 1); $borrowerJuan->borrowBook(); write("Book Borrowed? ", 1); write($borrowerJuan->getAuthorAndTitle(),2); write("Pedro asks for the book", 1); $borrowerPedro->borrowBook(); write("Book Borrowed? ", 1); write($borrowerPedro->getAuthorAndTitle(),2); write("Juan returns the book", 1); $borrowerJuan->returnBook(); write("Returned Book Juan? ", 1); write($borrowerJuan->getAuthorAndTitle(),2); write("Pedro asks again for the book", 1); $borrowerPedro->borrowBook(); write("Book Borrowed? ", 1); write($borrowerPedro->getAuthorAndTitle(),2); This will end up in the expected behavior: Begin Singleton test Juan asks for the book Book Borrowed? The book is loaned, the author is = Onecrappy Writer Ofcheap Novels Pedro asks for the book Book Borrowed? I don't have the book, perhaps someone else took it Juan returns the book Returned Book Juan? I don't have the book, perhaps someone else took it Pedro asks again for the book Book Borrowed? The book is loaned, the author is = Onecrappy Writer Ofcheap Novels So I want to make a pattern based on the DI technique able to do exactly the same, but without singleton pattern. As far as I'm aware, I KNOW I must inject the book inside "borrowBook" function instead of taking a static instance: public function borrowBook(BookNonSingleton $book) { if (isset($this->borrowedBook) || $book->isLoaned()) { $this->haveBook = FALSE; return FALSE; } else { $this->borrowedBook = $book; $this->haveBook = TRUE; return TRUE; } } And at the client, just handle the book: $borrowerJuan = new BookBorrower(); $borrowerJuan-borrowBook(new NonSingletonBook()); Etc... and so far so good, BUT... Im taking the responsability of "single instance" to the borrower, instead of keeping that responsability inside the NonSingletonBook, that since it has not anymore a private constructor, can be instantiated as many times... making instances on each call. So, What does my NonSingletonBook class MUST be in order to never allow borrowers to have this same book twice? (aka) keep the single instance. Because the dependency injector part of the code (borrower) does not solve me this AT ALL. Is it needed the container with an "asShared" method builder with static behavior? No way to encapsulate this functionallity into the Book itself? "Hey Im a book and I shouldn't be instantiated more than once, I'm unique"

    Read the article

  • Is it possible to implement X-HTTP-Method-Override in ASP.NET MVC?

    - by Greg Beech
    I'm implementing a prototype of a RESTful API using ASP.NET MVC and apart from the odd bug here and there I've achieve all the requirements I set out at the start, apart from callers being able to use the X-HTTP-Method-Override custom header to override the HTTP method. What I'd like is that the following request... GET /someresource/123 HTTP/1.1 X-HTTP-Method-Override: DELETE ...would be dispatched to my controller method that implements the DELETE functionality rather than the GET functionality for that action (assuming that there are multiple methods implementing the action, and that they are marked with different [AcceptVerbs] attributes). So, given the following two methods, I would like the above request to be dispatched to the second one: [ActionName("someresource")] [AcceptVerbs(HttpVerbs.Get)] public ActionResult GetSomeResource(int id) { /* ... */ } [ActionName("someresource")] [AcceptVerbs(HttpVerbs.Delete)] public ActionResult DeleteSomeResource(int id) { /* ... */ } Does anybody know if this is possible? And how much work would it be to do so...?

    Read the article

  • Where To Call Custom Method? viewDidLoad, viewWillLoad...

    - by Chris
    I am loading some info from a server. I have created a separate method to do this. I am then calling [self myCustomMethod] to run the method. No matter where I call [self myCustomMethod] (initWithNibName, viewDidLoad, viewWillLoad, viewWillAppear, viewDidAppear), the custom method is getting called twice - what's the deal?

    Read the article

  • Javascript static method intheritance

    - by Matteo Pagliazzi
    I want to create a javascript class/object that allow me to have various method: Model class Model.all() » static method Model.find() » static method Model delete() » instance method Model save() » instance method Model.create() » static that returns a new Model instance For static method I can define them using: Model.staticMethod(){ method } while for instance method is better to use: function Model(){ this.instanceMethod = function(){} } and then create a new instance or using prototype? var m = function Model(){ } m.prototype.method() = function(){ } Now let's say that I want to create a new class based on Model, how to inherit not only its prototypes but also its static methods?

    Read the article

  • Is any simple way to create method and set its body dynamically in C#?

    - by greatromul
    I hold body of method in string. I want to create method dynamically. But I don't know, how to set its body. I saw very tedious way using CodeDom. And I saw using Emit with OpCodes. Is any way to use ready code from string variable? string method_body = "return \"Hello, world!\";"; //there is method body DynamicMethod dm = new System.Reflection.Emit.DynamicMethod("My_method", typeof(string), new Type[] { }); //any way to create method dynamically //any way to set body string result = (string)dm.Invoke(...); //I need write result in variable

    Read the article

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