Search Results

Search found 88144 results on 3526 pages for 'first class functions'.

Page 2/3526 | < Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >

  • Entity Association Mapping with Code First Part 1 : Mapping Complex Types

    - by mortezam
    Last week the CTP5 build of the new Entity Framework Code First has been released by data team at Microsoft. Entity Framework Code-First provides a pretty powerful code-centric way to work with the databases. When it comes to associations, it brings ultimate flexibility. I’m a big fan of the EF Code First approach and am planning to explain association mapping with code first in a series of blog posts and this one is dedicated to Complex Types. If you are new to Code First approach, you can find a great walkthrough here. In order to build a solid foundation for our discussion, we will start by learning about some of the core concepts around the relationship mapping.   What is Mapping?Mapping is the act of determining how objects and their relationships are persisted in permanent data storage, in our case, relational databases. What is Relationship mapping?A mapping that describes how to persist a relationship (association, aggregation, or composition) between two or more objects. Types of RelationshipsThere are two categories of object relationships that we need to be concerned with when mapping associations. The first category is based on multiplicity and it includes three types: One-to-one relationships: This is a relationship where the maximums of each of its multiplicities is one. One-to-many relationships: Also known as a many-to-one relationship, this occurs when the maximum of one multiplicity is one and the other is greater than one. Many-to-many relationships: This is a relationship where the maximum of both multiplicities is greater than one. The second category is based on directionality and it contains two types: Uni-directional relationships: when an object knows about the object(s) it is related to but the other object(s) do not know of the original object. To put this in EF terminology, when a navigation property exists only on one of the association ends and not on the both. Bi-directional relationships: When the objects on both end of the relationship know of each other (i.e. a navigation property defined on both ends). How Object Relationships Are Implemented in POCO domain models?When the multiplicity is one (e.g. 0..1 or 1) the relationship is implemented by defining a navigation property that reference the other object (e.g. an Address property on User class). When the multiplicity is many (e.g. 0..*, 1..*) the relationship is implemented via an ICollection of the type of other object. How Relational Database Relationships Are Implemented? Relationships in relational databases are maintained through the use of Foreign Keys. A foreign key is a data attribute(s) that appears in one table and must be the primary key or other candidate key in another table. With a one-to-one relationship the foreign key needs to be implemented by one of the tables. To implement a one-to-many relationship we implement a foreign key from the “one table” to the “many table”. We could also choose to implement a one-to-many relationship via an associative table (aka Join table), effectively making it a many-to-many relationship. Introducing the ModelNow, let's review the model that we are going to use in order to implement Complex Type with Code First. It's a simple object model which consist of two classes: User and Address. Each user could have one billing address. The Address information of a User is modeled as a separate class as you can see in the UML model below: In object-modeling terms, this association is a kind of aggregation—a part-of relationship. Aggregation is a strong form of association; it has some additional semantics with regard to the lifecycle of objects. In this case, we have an even stronger form, composition, where the lifecycle of the part is fully dependent upon the lifecycle of the whole. Fine-grained domain models The motivation behind this design was to achieve Fine-grained domain models. In crude terms, fine-grained means “more classes than tables”. For example, a user may have both a billing address and a home address. In the database, you may have a single User table with the columns BillingStreet, BillingCity, and BillingPostalCode along with HomeStreet, HomeCity, and HomePostalCode. There are good reasons to use this somewhat denormalized relational model (performance, for one). In our object model, we can use the same approach, representing the two addresses as six string-valued properties of the User class. But it’s much better to model this using an Address class, where User has the BillingAddress and HomeAddress properties. This object model achieves improved cohesion and greater code reuse and is more understandable. Complex Types: Splitting a Table Across Multiple Types Back to our model, there is no difference between this composition and other weaker styles of association when it comes to the actual C# implementation. But in the context of ORM, there is a big difference: A composed class is often a candidate Complex Type. But C# has no concept of composition—a class or property can’t be marked as a composition. The only difference is the object identifier: a complex type has no individual identity (i.e. no AddressId defined on Address class) which make sense because when it comes to the database everything is going to be saved into one single table. How to implement a Complex Types with Code First Code First has a concept of Complex Type Discovery that works based on a set of Conventions. The convention is that if Code First discovers a class where a primary key cannot be inferred, and no primary key is registered through Data Annotations or the fluent API, then the type will be automatically registered as a complex type. Complex type detection also requires that the type does not have properties that reference entity types (i.e. all the properties must be scalar types) and is not referenced from a collection property on another type. Here is the implementation: public class User{    public int UserId { get; set; }    public string FirstName { get; set; }    public string LastName { get; set; }    public string Username { get; set; }    public Address Address { get; set; }} public class Address {     public string Street { get; set; }     public string City { get; set; }            public string PostalCode { get; set; }        }public class EntityMappingContext : DbContext {     public DbSet<User> Users { get; set; }        } With code first, this is all of the code we need to write to create a complex type, we do not need to configure any additional database schema mapping information through Data Annotations or the fluent API. Database SchemaThe mapping result for this object model is as follows: Limitations of this mappingThere are two important limitations to classes mapped as Complex Types: Shared references is not possible: The Address Complex Type doesn’t have its own database identity (primary key) and so can’t be referred to by any object other than the containing instance of User (e.g. a Shipping class that also needs to reference the same User Address). No elegant way to represent a null reference There is no elegant way to represent a null reference to an Address. When reading from database, EF Code First always initialize Address object even if values in all mapped columns of the complex type are null. This means that if you store a complex type object with all null property values, EF Code First returns a initialized complex type when the owning entity object is retrieved from the database. SummaryIn this post we learned about fine-grained domain models which complex type is just one example of it. Fine-grained is fully supported by EF Code First and is known as the most important requirement for a rich domain model. Complex type is usually the simplest way to represent one-to-one relationships and because the lifecycle is almost always dependent in such a case, it’s either an aggregation or a composition in UML. In the next posts we will revisit the same domain model and will learn about other ways to map a one-to-one association that does not have the limitations of the complex types. References ADO.NET team blog Mapping Objects to Relational Databases Java Persistence with Hibernate

    Read the article

  • Abstract class + Inheritance vs Interface

    - by RealityDysfunction
    Hello fellow programmers, I am reading a book on C# and the author is comparing Abstract classes and Interfaces. He claims that if you have the following "abstract class:" abstract class CloneableType { public abstract object Clone(); } Then you cannot do this: public class MiniVan : Car, CloneableType {} This, I understand. However he claims that because of this inability to do multiple inheritance that you should use an interface for CloneableType, like so: public interface ICloneable { object Clone(); } My question is, isn't this somewhat misleading, because you can create an abstract class which is "above" class Car with the method Clone, then have Car inherit that class and then Minivan will inherit Car with all these methods, CloneAble class - Car class - Minivan Class. What do you think? Thanks.

    Read the article

  • Why should I declare a class as an abstract class?

    - by Pied Piper
    I know the syntax, rules applied to abstract class and I want know usage of an abstract class Abstract class can not be instantiated directly but can be extended by other class What is the advantage of doing so? How it is different from an Interface? I know that one class can implement multiple interfaces but can only extend one abstract class. Is that only difference between an interface and an abstract class? I am aware about usage of an Interface. I have learned that from Event delegation model of AWT in Java. In which situations I should declare class as an abstract class? What is benefits of that?

    Read the article

  • Python: query a class's parent-class after multiple derivations ("super()" does not work)

    - by henry
    Hi, I have built a class-system that uses multiple derivations of a baseclass (object-class1-class2-class3): class class1(object): def __init__(self): print "class1.__init__()" object.__init__(self) class class2(class1): def __init__(self): print "class2.__init__()" class1.__init__(self) class class3(class2): def __init__(self): print "class3.__init__()" class2.__init__(self) x = class3() It works as expected and prints: class3.__init__() class2.__init__() class1.__init__() Now I would like to replace the 3 lines object.__init__(self) ... class1.__init__(self) ... class2.__init__(self) with something like this: currentParentClass().__init__() ... currentParentClass().__init__() ... currentParentClass().__init__() So basically, i want to create a class-system where i don't have to type "classXYZ.doSomething()". As mentioned above, I want to get the "current class's parent-class". Replacing the three lines with: super(type(self), self).__init__() does NOT work (it always returns the parent-class of the current instance - class2) and will result in an endless loop printing: class3.__init__() class2.__init__() class2.__init__() class2.__init__() class2.__init__() ... So is there a function that can give me the current class's parent-class? Thank you for your help! Henry -------------------- Edit: @Lennart ok maybe i got you wrong but at the moment i think i didn't describe the problem clearly enough.So this example might explain it better: lets create another child-class class class4(class3): pass now what happens if we derive an instance from class4? y = class4() i think it clearly executes: super(class3, self).__init__() which we can translate to this: class2.__init__(y) this is definitly not the goal(that would be class3.__init__(y)) Now making lots of parent-class-function-calls - i do not want to re-implement all of my functions with different base-class-names in my super()-calls.

    Read the article

  • How to use derived class shared variables in shared methods of base class

    - by KoolKabin
    Hi guys, I am trying to add shared members in derived classes and use that values in base classes... I have base class DBLayer public shared function GetDetail(byval UIN as integer) dim StrSql = string.format("select * from {0} where uin = {1}", tablename, uin) .... end function end class my derived class class User inherits dblayer public shared tabledname as string = "users" end class class item inherits dblayer public shared tabledname as string = "item" end class class category inherits dblayer public shared tabledname as string = "category" end class currently there is error using the tablename variable of derived class in base class but i want to use it... coz i dun know other techniques... if other solutions are better then u can post it or u can say how can i make it work? confused...

    Read the article

  • F#: any way to use member functions as unbound functions?

    - by gatoatigrado
    Is there a way to extract member functions, and use them as F# functions? I'd like to be able to write the following: mystring |> string.Split '\n' |> Array.filter (string.Length >> (=) 0 >> not) The code above works if you [let] let mystring = "a c\nb\n" let stringSplit (y:char) (x:string) = x.Split(y) let stringLength (x:string) = x.Length mystring |> stringSplit '\n' |> Array.filter (stringLength >> (=) 0 >> not)

    Read the article

  • Advantages of Singleton Class over Static Class?

    Point 1)Singleton We can get the object of singleton and then pass to other methods.Static Class We can not pass static class to other methods as we pass objectsPoint 2) Singleton In future, it is easy to change the logic of of creating objects to some pooling mechanism. Static Class Very difficult to implement some pooling logic in case of static class. We would need to make that class as non-static and then make all the methods non-static methods, So entire your code needs to be changed.Point3:) Singleton Can Singletone class be inherited to subclass? Singleton class does not say any restriction of Inheritence. So we should be able to do this as long as subclass is also inheritence.There's nothing fundamentally wrong with subclassing a class that is intended to be a singleton. There are many reasons you might want to do it. and there are many ways to accomplish it. It depends on language you use.Static Class We can not inherit Static class to another Static class in C#. Think about it this way: you access static members via type name, like this: MyStaticType.MyStaticMember(); Were you to inherit from that class, you would have to access it via the new type name: MyNewType.MyStaticMember(); Thus, the new item bears no relationships to the original when used in code. There would be no way to take advantage of any inheritance relationship for things like polymorphism. span.fullpost {display:none;}

    Read the article

  • Advantages of Singleton Class over Static Class?

    Point 1) Singleton We can get the object of singleton and then pass to other methods. Static Class We can not pass static class to other methods as we pass objects Point 2) Singleton In future, it is easy to change the logic of of creating objects to some pooling mechanism. Static Class Very difficult to implement some pooling logic in case of static class. We would need to make that class as non-static and then make all the methods non-static methods, So entire your code needs to be changed. Point3:) Singleton Can Singletone class be inherited to subclass? Singleton class does not say any restriction of Inheritence. So we should be able to do this as long as subclass is also inheritence.There's nothing fundamentally wrong with subclassing a class that is intended to be a singleton. There are many reasons you might want to do it. and there are many ways to accomplish it. It depends on language you use. Static Class We can not inherit Static class to another Static class in C#. Think about it this way: you access static members via type name, like this: MyStaticType.MyStaticMember(); Were you to inherit from that class, you would have to access it via the new type name: MyNewType.MyStaticMember(); Thus, the new item bears no relationships to the original when used in code. There would be no way to take advantage of any inheritance relationship for things like polymorphism. span.fullpost {display:none;}

    Read the article

  • Python — Time complexity of built-in functions versus manually-built functions in finite fields

    - by stackuser
    Generally, I'm wondering about the advantages versus disadvantages of using the built-in arithmetic functions versus rolling your own in Python. Specifically, I'm taking in GF(2) finite field polynomials in string format, converting to base 2 values, performing arithmetic, then output back into polynomials as string format. So a small example of this is in multiplication: Rolling my own: def multiply(a,b): bitsa = reversed("{0:b}".format(a)) g = [(b<<i)*int(bit) for i,bit in enumerate(bitsa)] return reduce(lambda x,y: x+y,g) Versus the built-in: def multiply(a,b): # a,b are GF(2) polynomials in binary form .... return a*b #returns product of 2 polynomials in gf2 Currently, operations like multiplicative inverse (with for example 20 bit exponents) take a long time to run in my program as it's using all of Python's built-in mathematical operations like // floor division and % modulus, etc. as opposed to making my own division, remainder, etc. I'm wondering how much of a gain in efficiency and performance I can get by building these manually (as shown above). I realize the gains are dependent on how well the manual versions are built, that's not the question. I'd like to find out 'basically' how much advantage there is over the built-in's. So for instance, if multiplication (as in the example above) is well-suited for base 10 (decimal) arithmetic but has to jump through more hoops to change bases to binary and then even more hoops in operating (so it's lower efficiency), that's what I'm wondering. Like, I'm wondering if it's possible to bring the time down significantly by building them myself in ways that maybe some professionals here have already come across.

    Read the article

  • :first-child fails when an element of a different class is dynamically inserted above

    - by koko
    So, I've encountered a situation where inserting an element of a different class/id breaks all css-rules on that :first-child. <div id="nav"> <div class="nSub">abcdef</div> <div class="nSub">abcdef</div> <div class="nSub">abcdef</div> <div class="nSub">abcdef</div> <div class="nSub">abcdef</div> </div> .nSub:first-child { margin-top:15px; -moz-border-radius-topleft:5px; /* ... */ } .nSub { background:#666; /* ... */ } .nSub:last-child { -moz-border-radius-bottomleft:5px; /* ... */ } As soon as I insert an element of another class/id above, like this: $('nav').insert({top:'<div id="newWF"></div>'}); all declarations for .nSub:first-child are being ignored in both FF 3.6 and Safari 4.

    Read the article

  • Manager/Container class vs static class methods

    - by Ben
    Suppose I a have a Widget class that is part of a framework used independently by many applications. I create Widget instances in many situations and their lifetimes vary. In addition to Widget's instance specified methods, I would like to be able to perform the follow class wide operations: Find a single Widget instance based on a unique id Iterate over the list of all Widgets Remove a widget from the set of all widgets In order support these operations, I have been considering two approaches: Container class - Create some container or manager class, WidgetContainer, which holds a list of all Widget instances, support iteration and provides methods for Widget addition, removal and lookup. For example in C#: public class WidgetContainer : IEnumerable<Widget { public void AddWidget(Widget); public Widget GetWidget(WidgetId id); public void RemoveWidget(WidgetId id); } Static class methods - Add static class methods to Widget. For example: public class Widget { public Widget(WidgetId id); public static Widget GetWidget(WidgetId id); public static void RemoveWidget(WidgetId id); public static IEnumerable<Widget AllWidgets(); } Using a container class has the added problem of how to access the container class. Make it a singleton?..yuck! Create some World object that provides access to all such container classes? I have seen many frameworks that use the container class approach, so what is the general consensus?

    Read the article

  • class inheretence of a attribute which is itself a class

    - by alex
    i have a class which inherets a attribute from a super-class. this attribute is a class itself. class classA(superClass): def func(self,x): if self.attributeB is None: do somthing and in the other class i have class superClass: self.attributB = classB() i get the error AttributeError: class classA has no attribute 'attributeB' when i access the attribute like i showed but if on command line i can see it works, x = classA() x.attributeB is None True so the test works. whats going on in the above code?

    Read the article

  • EF 6 Code First Many to many With Payload and self referencing many to many

    - by lesley86
    I Have the problem where i have a many to many relationship and on one of the tables there will be a self referencing many to many. So basically a school have zero or many groups and many groups can have 0 or many schools. The groups table will contain a parent child many to many with itself because a group can be a child of another group or it can have no children and that child can have a child, one child can also have many parents or a entity can have no parents. I created a mapping table with Payload to solvethe first many to many problem. code snippet public class School { public virtual ICollection<SchoolGroupMap> SchoolGroupMaps } public class SchoolGroup { public virtual ICollection<SchoolGroupMap> SchoolGroupMaps } public class SchoolGroupMap { public virtual School School public virtual SchoolGroup SchoolGroup } i Then tried modifying the code the following way for the the self referencing many to many public class SchoolGroup { public virtual ICollection<SchoolGroupMap> SchoolGroupMaps public virtual ICollection<SchoolGroup> Parents public virtual ICollection<SchoolGroup> Children } I changed the context with has many and an auto mapping table (forgive me i have been trying so many things today i do not have the exact code). I received an error the properties on the classes must match. Can anyone help please. I want to do create navigation properties on the self referencing many to many. Also a seed example would be appreciated regards

    Read the article

  • Improving first person camera and implementing third person camera

    - by brainydexter
    I want to improve upon my first person camera implementation and extend it to, so the user can toggle between third person/first person view. My current setup: draw():: glPushMatrix(); m_pCamera->ApplyCameraTransform(); // Render gameObjects glPopMatrix(); Camera is strongly coupled to the player, so much so, that it is a friend of player. This is what the Camera::ApplyCameraTransform looks like: glm::mat4 l_TransformationMatrix; m_pPlayer->m_pTransformation->GetTransformation(l_TransformationMatrix, false); l_TransformationMatrix = glm::core::function::matrix::inverse(l_TransformationMatrix); glMultMatrixf(glm::value_ptr(l_TransformationMatrix)); So, I take the player's transformation matrix and invert it to yield First person camera view. Since, Third person camera view is just a 'translated' first person view behind the player; what would be a good way to improve upon this (keeping in mind that I will be extending it to Third person camera as well. Thanks

    Read the article

  • Using a database class in my user class

    - by Josh
    In my project I have a database class that I use to handle all the MySQL stuff. It connects to a database, runs queries, catches errors and closes the connection. Now I need to create a members area on my site, and I was going to build a users class that would handle registration, logging in, password/username changes/resets and logging out. In this users class I need to use MySQL for obvious reasons... which is what my database class was made for. But I'm confused as to how I would use my database class in my users class. Would I want to create a new database object for my user class and then have it close whenever a method in that class is finished? Or do I somehow make a 'global' database class that can be used throughout my entire script (if this is the case I need help with that, no idea what to do there.) Thanks for any feedback you can give me.

    Read the article

  • Using a datanase class in my user class?

    - by Josh
    In my project I have a database class that I use to handle all the MySQL stuff. It connects to a database, runs queries, catches errors and closes the connection. Now I need to create a members area on my site, and I was going to build a users class that would handle registration, logging in, password/username changes/resets and logging out. In this users class I need to use MySQL for obvious reasons... which is what my database class was made for. But I'm confused as to how I would use my database class in my users class. Would I want to create a new database object for my user class and then have it close whenever a method in that class is finished? Or do I somehow make a 'global' database class that can be used throughout my entire script (if this is the case I need help with that, no idea what to do there.) Thanks for any feedback you can give me.

    Read the article

  • Can i access outer class objects in inner class

    - by Shantanu Gupta
    I have three classes like this. class A { public class innerB { //Do something } public class innerC { //trying to access objB here directly or indirectly over here. //I dont have to create an object of innerB, but to access the object created by A //i.e. innerB objInnerB = objB; //not like this innerB objInnerB= new innerB(); } public innerB objB{get;set;} } I want to access the object of class B in Class C that is created by class A. Is it possible somehow to make changes on object of Class A in Class C. Can i get Class A's object by creating event or anyhow.

    Read the article

  • Linking a template class using another template class (error LNK2001)

    - by Luís Guilherme
    I implemented the "Strategy" design pattern using an Abstract template class, and two subclasses. Goes like this: template <class T> class Neighbourhood { public: virtual void alter(std::vector<T>& array, int i1, int i2) = 0; }; and template <class T> class Swap : public Neighbourhood<T> { public: virtual void alter(std::vector<T>& array, int i1, int i2); }; There's another subclass, just like this one, and alter is implemented in the cpp file. Ok, fine! Now I declare another method, in another class (including neighbourhood header file, of course), like this: void lSearch(/*parameters*/, Neighbourhood<LotSolutionInformation> nhood); It compiles fine and cleanly. When starting to link, I get the following error: 1>SolverFV.obj : error LNK2001: unresolved external symbol "public: virtual void __thiscall lsc::Neighbourhood<class LotSolutionInformation>::alter(class std::vector<class LotSolutionInformation,class std::allocator<class LotSolutionInformation> > &,int,int)" (?alter@?$Neighbourhood@VLotSolutionInformation@@@lsc@@UAEXAAV?$vector@VLotSolutionInformation@@V?$allocator@VLotSolutionInformation@@@std@@@std@@HH@Z)

    Read the article

  • Accessing a Class Member from a First-Class Function

    - by dbyrne
    I have a case class which takes a list of functions: case class A(q:Double, r:Double, s:Double, l:List[(Double)=>Double]) I have over 20 functions defined. Some of these functions have their own parameters, and some of them also use the q, r, and s values from the case class. Two examples are: def f1(w:Double) = (d:Double) => math.sin(d) * w def f2(w:Double, q:Double) = (d:Double) => d * q * w The problem is that I then need to reference q, r, and s twice when instantiating the case class: A(0.5, 1.0, 2.0, List(f1(3.0), f2(4.0, 0.5))) //0.5 is referenced twice I would like to be able to instantiate the class like this: A(0.5, 1.0, 2.0, List(f1(3.0), f2(4.0))) //f2 already knows about q! What is the best technique to accomplish this? Can I define my functions in a trait that the case class extends? EDIT: The real world application has 7 members, not 3. Only a small number of the functions need access to the members. Most of the functions don't care about them.

    Read the article

  • How to restrict an access to some of the functions at third level in Classes (OOPs)

    - by Shantanu Gupta
    I have created a class say A which has some functions defined as protected. Now Class B inherits A and class C inherits B. Class A has private default constructor and protected parameterized constructor. I want Class B to be able to access all the protected functions defined in Class A but class C can have access on some of the functions only not all the functions and class C is inheriting class B. How can I restrict access to some of the functions of Class A from Class C ? Class A { private A(){} protected A(int ){} } Class B : A {} CLass C:B { }

    Read the article

  • Building a database class in PHP

    - by Sprottenwels
    I wonder if I should write a database class for my application, and if so, how to accomplish it? Over there on SO, a guy mentioned it should be written as an abstract class. However, I can't understand why this would be a benefit. Do I understand correctly, that if I would write an abstract class, every other class that methods will need a database connection, could simply extend this abstract class and have it's own database object? If so, how is this different from a "normal" class where I could instantiate an database object? Another method would be to completely forget about my own class and to instantiate a mysqli object on demand. What do you recommend?

    Read the article

  • What can procs and lambdas do that functions can't in ruby

    - by SecurityGate
    I've been working in Ruby for the last couple weeks, and I've come to the subject of procs, lambdas and blocks. After reading a fair share of examples from a variety of sources, I don't how they're much different from small, specialized functions. It's entirely possible that the examples I've read aren't showing the power behind procs and lambdas. def zero_function(x) x = x.to_s if x.length == 1 return x = "0" + x else return x end end zero_lambda = lambda {|x| x = x.to_s if x.length == 1 return x = "0" + x else return x end } zero_proc = Proc.new {|x| x = x.to_s if x.length == 1 puts x = "0" + x else puts x end } puts zero_function(4) puts zero_lambda.call(3) zero_proc.call(2) This function, proc, and lambda do the exact same thing, just slightly different. Is there any reason to choose one over another?

    Read the article

  • Class design for calling "the same method" on different classes from one place

    - by betatester07
    Let me introduce my situation: I have Java EE application and in one package, I want to have classes which will act primarily as cache for some data from database, for example: class that will hold all articles for our website class that will hold all categories etc. Every class should have some update() method, which will update data for that class from database and also some other methods for data manipulation specific for that data type. Now, I would like to call update() method for all class instances (there will be exactly one class instance for every class) from one place. What is the best design?

    Read the article

  • How to easily substitute a Base class

    - by JTom
    Hi, I have the following hierarchy of classes class classOne { virtual void abstractMethod() = 0; }; class classTwo : public classOne { }; class classThree : public classTwo { }; All classOne, classTwo and classThree are abstract classes, and I have another class that is defining the pure virtual methods class classNonAbstract : public classThree { void abstractMethod(); // Couple of new methods void doIt(); void doItToo(); }; And right now I need it differently...I need it like class classNonAbstractOne : public classOne { void abstractMethod(); // Couple of new methods void doIt(); void doItToo(); }; class classNonAbstractTwo : public classTwo { void abstractMethod(); // Couple of new methods void doIt(); void doItToo(); }; and class classNonAbstractThree : public classThree { void abstractMethod(); // Couple of new methods void doIt(); void doItToo(); }; But all the nonAbstract classes have the same new methods, with the same code...and I would like to avoid copying all the methods and it's code to every nonAbstract class. How could I accomplish that? Hopefully it's understandable...

    Read the article

  • code first CTP5 error message

    - by user482833
    I get the following error message with a new project I have set using code first CTP5. Can't find anything on the web about it. Has anyone encountered this error message? The context cannot be used while the model is being created. This occurs the first time my database context is called (code below): using (StaffData context = new StaffData()) { return context.Employees.Count(e = e.EmployeeReference) == 1; } At this point the database has not been created. I have a database initialiser DropCreateDatabaseIfModelChanges which I set in app_start.

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >