Search Results

Search found 1107 results on 45 pages for 'getter setter'.

Page 2/45 | < Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >

• Getter and Setter vs. Builder strategy

  - by Extrakun

  I was reading a JavaWorld's article on Getter and Setter where the basic premise is that getters expose internal content of an object, hence tightening coupling, and go on to provide examples using builder objects. I was rather leery of abolishing getter/setter but on second reading of the article, see to quite like the idea. However, sometimes I just need one cruical element of an entity class, such as the user's id and writing one whole class just to extract that cruical element seems like overkill. It also implies that for different view, a different type of importer/exporter must be implemented (or the whole data of the class to be exported out, thus resulting in waste). Usually I tend towards filtering the result of a getter - for example, if I need to output the price of a product in different currency, I would code it as: return CurrencyOutput::convertTo($product->price(), 'USD'); This is with the understanding that the raw output of a getter is not necessary the final result to be pushed onto a screen or a database. Is getter/setter really as bad as it is protrayed to be? When should one adopt a builder strategy, or a 'get the result and filter it' approach? How do you avoid having a class needing to know about every other objects if you are not using getter/setter?

  Read the article

• How do I alias the scala setter method 'myvar_$(myval)' to something more pleasing when in java?

  - by feydr

  I've been converting some code from java to scala lately trying to tech myself the language. Suppose we have this scala class: class Person() { var name:String = "joebob" } Now I want to access it from java so I can't use dot-notation like I would if I was in scala. So I can get my var's contents by issuing: person = Person.new(); System.out.println(person.name()); and set it via: person = Person.new(); person.name_$eq("sallysue"); System.out.println(person.name()); This holds true cause our Person Class looks like this in javap: Compiled from "Person.scala" public class Person extends java.lang.Object implements scala.ScalaObject{ public Person(); public void name_$eq(java.lang.String); public java.lang.String name(); public int $tag() throws java.rmi.RemoteException; } Yes, I could write my own getters/setters but I hate filling classes up with that and it doesn't make a ton of sense considering I already have them -- I just want to alias the _$eq method better. (This actually gets worse when you are dealing with stuff like antlr because then you have to escape it and it ends up looking like person.name_\$eq("newname"); Note: I'd much rather have to put up with this rather than fill my classes with more setter methods. So what would you do in this situation?

  Read the article

• How do I alias the scala setter method 'myvar_$eq(myval)' to something more pleasing when in java?

  - by feydr

  I've been converting some code from java to scala lately trying to teach myself the language. Suppose we have this scala class: class Person() { var name:String = "joebob" } Now I want to access it from java so I can't use dot-notation like I would if I was in scala. So I can get my var's contents by issuing: person = Person.new(); System.out.println(person.name()); and set it via: person = Person.new(); person.name_$eq("sallysue"); System.out.println(person.name()); This holds true cause our Person Class looks like this in javap: Compiled from "Person.scala" public class Person extends java.lang.Object implements scala.ScalaObject{ public Person(); public void name_$eq(java.lang.String); public java.lang.String name(); public int $tag() throws java.rmi.RemoteException; } Yes, I could write my own getters/setters but I hate filling classes up with that and it doesn't make a ton of sense considering I already have them -- I just want to alias the _$eq method better. (This actually gets worse when you are dealing with stuff like antlr because then you have to escape it and it ends up looking like person.name_\$eq("newname"); Note: I'd much rather have to put up with this rather than fill my classes with more setter methods. So what would you do in this situation?

  Read the article

• How to name multi-setter?

  - by IAdapter

  I'm struggling with how to name this method, I don't like the "set" prefix, because I feel it should be reserved for normal "dumb" setters and some tools might not like it (i did not check it in checkstyle, pmd, etc., but I got a feeling they won't like it.) for example (in java, but I feel its language agnostic) public void setField1Field2(String field1, String field2) { this.field1 = field1; this.field2 = field2; } The only purpose of this method is ONLY to set, this method is needed and cannot be joined with any other (because of framework used).

  Read the article

• Use constructor or setter method?

  - by user633600

  I am working on a UI code where I have an Action class, something like this - public class MyAction extends Action { public MyAction() { setText("My Action Text"); setToolTip("My Action Tool tip"); setImage("Some Image"); } } When this Action class was created it was pretty much assumed that the Action class wont be customizable (in a sense- its text, tooltip or image will be not be changed anywhere in the code). Of late, now we are in need of changing the action text at some location in code. So I suggested my co-worker to remove the hardcoded action text from the constructor and accept it as an argument, so that everybody is forced to pass the action text. Something like this code below - public class MyAction extends Action { public MyAction(String actionText) { setText(actionText); setTooltip("My Action tool tip); setImage("My Image"); } } He however thinks that since setText() method belongs to base class. It can be flexibly used to pass the action text wherever action instance is created. That way, there is no need to change the existing MyAction class. So his code would look something like this. MyAction action = new MyAction(); //this creates action instance with the hardcoded text action.setText("User required new action text"); //overwrite the exisitng text. I am not sure if that is a correct way to deal with problem. I think in above mentioned case user is anyway going to change the text, so why not force him while constructing the action. The only benefit I see with the original code is that user can create Action class without much thinking about setting text.

  Read the article

• Should a setter return immediately if assigned the same value?

  - by Andrei Rinea

  In classes that implement INotifyPropertyChanged I often see this pattern : public string FirstName { get { return _customer.FirstName; } set { if (value == _customer.FirstName) return; _customer.FirstName = value; base.OnPropertyChanged("FirstName"); } } Precisely the lines if (value == _customer.FirstName) return; are bothering me. I've often did this but I am not that sure it's needed nor good. After all if a caller assigns the very same value I don't want to reassign the field and, especially, notify my subscribers that the property has changed when, semantically it didn't. Except saving some CPU/RAM/etc by freeing the UI from updating something that will probably look the same on the screen/whatever_medium what do we obtain? Could some people force a refresh by reassigning the same value on a property (NOT THAT THIS WOULD BE A GOOD PRACTICE HOWEVER)? 1. Should we do it or shouldn't we? 2. Why?

  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

• [WPF] ComboBox Style problems with DisplayMemberPath

  - by kornelijepetak

  I have a ComboBox and I have set the combo.ItemsSource property to a List object. The Book class contains two properties: "Abbreviation" and "Name". I have set the ComboBox's DisplayMemberPath to "Abbreviation" but the following style that is set on the ComboBox does not display the Abbreviation property, but instead shows "Words.Book" which is the name of the class. The ComboBox drop-down displays a list correctly (Using the specified Abbreviation property). The problem is in the selected ComboBox item, the one displayed when the ComboBox' drop-down is closed. I guess the problem is in ContentPresenter in DataTemplate but I was unable to find a successful solution. Currently the ContentPresenter's Content property is set to Content="{TemplateBinding Content} but I don't know if that's how it should be. Any ideas how to show the property specified in DisplayMemberPath on the selected item? Thank you the code: <ControlTemplate x:Key="ComboBoxToggleButton" TargetType="ToggleButton"> <Grid> <Grid.ColumnDefinitions> <ColumnDefinition /> <ColumnDefinition Width="20" /> </Grid.ColumnDefinitions> <Border x:Name="Border" Grid.ColumnSpan="2" CornerRadius="2" BorderThickness="1" Background="{DynamicResource ribbonTitleFade}" /> <Border Grid.Column="0" CornerRadius="2,0,0,2" Margin="1,6,1,6" BorderBrush="{DynamicResource boSecE}" BorderThickness="0,0,1,0" /> <Path x:Name="Arrow" Grid.Column="1" Fill="White" HorizontalAlignment="Center" VerticalAlignment="Center" Data="M 0 0 L 4 4 L 8 0 Z" /> </Grid> <ControlTemplate.Triggers> <Trigger Property="ToggleButton.IsMouseOver" Value="true"> <Setter TargetName="Border" Property="Background" Value="{DynamicResource ribbonTitleFade}" /> </Trigger> <Trigger Property="ToggleButton.IsChecked" Value="true"> <Setter TargetName="Border" Property="Background" Value="{DynamicResource ribbonTitleFade}" /> </Trigger> <Trigger Property="IsEnabled" Value="False"> <Setter TargetName="Border" Property="Background" Value="Black" /> <Setter TargetName="Border" Property="BorderBrush" Value="Black" /> <Setter Property="Foreground" Value="Gray"/> <Setter TargetName="Arrow" Property="Fill" Value="Gray" /> </Trigger> </ControlTemplate.Triggers> </ControlTemplate> <Style x:Key="comboBoxBorderTransparent" TargetType="Control"> <Setter Property="BorderBrush" Value="{DynamicResource boPrimC}" /> </Style> <Style x:Key="comboItemStyle" TargetType="ComboBoxItem"> <Setter Property="Template"> <Setter.Value> <ControlTemplate TargetType="{x:Type ComboBoxItem}"> <Border x:Name="backBorder" > <StackPanel Orientation="Horizontal"> <Rectangle x:Name="rectA" Stroke="White" Width="4" Height="4" Fill="#80FFFFFF" Margin="5,0,0,0" HorizontalAlignment="Left" /> <TextBlock x:Name="text" Foreground="White" FontSize="10px"> <ContentPresenter Margin="8,1,0,1" SnapsToDevicePixels="{TemplateBinding SnapsToDevicePixels}" HorizontalAlignment="{TemplateBinding HorizontalContentAlignment}" VerticalAlignment="{TemplateBinding VerticalContentAlignment}" /> </TextBlock> </StackPanel> </Border> <ControlTemplate.Triggers> <Trigger Property="ComboBoxItem.IsMouseOver" Value="true"> <Setter TargetName="rectA" Property="Stroke" Value="Black" /> <Setter TargetName="rectA" Property="Fill" Value="#80000000" /> <Setter TargetName="backBorder" Property="Background" Value="White"/> <Setter TargetName="text" Property="Foreground" Value="{DynamicResource boPrimC}"/> </Trigger> </ControlTemplate.Triggers> </ControlTemplate> </Setter.Value> </Setter> </Style> <DataTemplate x:Key="comboSelectedItemTemplate"> <TextBlock Foreground="White" FontSize="10px"> <ContentPresenter Content="{TemplateBinding Content}" /> </TextBlock> </DataTemplate> <Style TargetType="ComboBox"> <Setter Property="SnapsToDevicePixels" Value="true"/> <Setter Property="OverridesDefaultStyle" Value="true"/> <Setter Property="ScrollViewer.HorizontalScrollBarVisibility" Value="Auto"/> <Setter Property="ScrollViewer.VerticalScrollBarVisibility" Value="Auto"/> <Setter Property="ScrollViewer.CanContentScroll" Value="true"/> <Setter Property="MinWidth" Value="60"/> <Setter Property="MinHeight" Value="20"/> <Setter Property="ItemContainerStyle" Value="{DynamicResource comboItemStyle}"/> <Setter Property="Template"> <Setter.Value> <ControlTemplate TargetType="ComboBox"> <Grid> <ToggleButton Name="ToggleButton" Grid.Column="2" Template="{StaticResource ComboBoxToggleButton}" Focusable="false" IsChecked="{Binding Path=IsDropDownOpen,Mode=TwoWay,RelativeSource={RelativeSource TemplatedParent}}" ClickMode="Press"> </ToggleButton> <ContentPresenter HorizontalAlignment="Center" VerticalAlignment="Center" Name="ContentSite" IsHitTestVisible="False" Content="{TemplateBinding SelectionBoxItem}" ContentTemplate="{DynamicResource comboSelectedItemTemplate}" ContentTemplateSelector="{TemplateBinding ItemTemplateSelector}" Margin="3,3,23,3" /> <Popup Name="Popup" Placement="Bottom" IsOpen="{TemplateBinding IsDropDownOpen}" AllowsTransparency="False" Focusable="False" PopupAnimation="Slide"> <Grid Name="DropDown" SnapsToDevicePixels="True" MinWidth="{TemplateBinding ActualWidth}" MaxHeight="{TemplateBinding MaxDropDownHeight}"> <Border x:Name="DropDownBorder" Background="{DynamicResource ribbonTitleFade}" BorderThickness="1" BorderBrush="{DynamicResource boPrimC}" /> <ScrollViewer Margin="4,6,4,6" SnapsToDevicePixels="True"> <StackPanel IsItemsHost="True" KeyboardNavigation.DirectionalNavigation="Contained" /> </ScrollViewer> </Grid> </Popup> </Grid> <ControlTemplate.Triggers> <Trigger Property="HasItems" Value="false"> <Setter TargetName="DropDownBorder" Property="MinHeight" Value="95"/> </Trigger> <Trigger Property="IsEnabled" Value="false"> <Setter Property="Foreground" Value="Black"/> </Trigger> <Trigger Property="IsGrouping" Value="true"> <Setter Property="ScrollViewer.CanContentScroll" Value="false"/> </Trigger> <Trigger SourceName="Popup" Property="Popup.AllowsTransparency" Value="true"> <Setter TargetName="DropDownBorder" Property="CornerRadius" Value="2"/> <Setter TargetName="DropDownBorder" Property="Margin" Value="0"/> </Trigger> <Trigger Property="IsEditable" Value="true"> <Setter Property="IsTabStop" Value="false"/> <!--<Setter TargetName="ContentSite" Property="Visibility" Value="Hidden"/>--> </Trigger> </ControlTemplate.Triggers> </ControlTemplate> </Setter.Value> </Setter> <Style.Triggers> </Style.Triggers> </Style>

  Read the article

• Creating a property setter delegate

  - by Jim C

  I have created methods for converting a property lambda to a delegate: public static Delegate MakeGetter<T>(Expression<Func<T>> propertyLambda) { var result = Expression.Lambda(propertyLambda.Body).Compile(); return result; } public static Delegate MakeSetter<T>(Expression<Action<T>> propertyLambda) { var result = Expression.Lambda(propertyLambda.Body).Compile(); return result; } These work: Delegate getter = MakeGetter(() => SomeClass.SomeProperty); object o = getter.DynamicInvoke(); Delegate getter = MakeGetter(() => someObject.SomeProperty); object o = getter.DynamicInvoke(); but these won't compile: Delegate setter = MakeSetter(() => SomeClass.SomeProperty); setter.DynamicInvoke(new object[]{propValue}); Delegate setter = MakeSetter(() => someObject.SomeProperty); setter.DynamicInvoke(new object[]{propValue}); The MakeSetter lines fail with "The type arguments cannot be inferred from the usage. Try specifying the type arguments explicitly." Is what I'm trying to do possible? Thanks in advance.

  Read the article

• prevent the designer from calling a getter (VS 2008, WinForms)

  - by LLEA

  hi, I have a simple UserControl containing a ComboBox which is empty at first. The setter for that CB adds items to it and the getter returns the selected item. When adding this UC to a Form, the designer automatically calls the getter for the CB which is empty. The method to fill up the CB with items is called later. I can think of one or two ways to bypass this problem by "messing around" in the code. But before I start that I'd like to ask you if there is a way to stop the designer from calling the getter method. Maybe with a attribute similar to Browsable or Bindable? thx

  Read the article

• Between a jsf page and a managed bean, why the getter method is called twice

  - by Bariscan

  Hi, I have a jsf page with a form has an outputtext in it. The value of outputtext component is called from a backing bean (or managed bean). I know when I code it as #{MyBean.myString} Jsf rename it and calls getMyString() method. However the wierd thing is, when I put a breakpoint to the getter method of this component, I see it is called twice during the page is being rendered. The outputtext is in a h:form, and it is the only component wich is bind to a backingbean. I mean, it is so wierd that jsf should get the value when it first come to the getter method, however it needs to go to the getter method twice. Can you explain what is the reason of this behaviour in jsf? Any help would be appreciated, Best wishes, Baris

  Read the article

• Getter and Setter - POJO object - Problem with input data in Struts2

  - by andreimladin

  I have a problem with setter and getter method in struts2. I have a form : ... + all input fields of job/ and action: (addJob is mapped at this action) public class InsertJobAction extends ActionSupport{ ... private Job job = null; public String execute(){ jobService.insert(job); //here job is not null; that is ok } getter and setter for job } this action works correctly; I have a similar form and action, but the input fields from thisform are less than first form; The problem is here: in execute() of the second action job is null. Why?? Does depend it of fields noumber ?? I have 2 constructors in my Job class one with no params, and one with all params for every field of class; I made debug with Log4j ...and in first case there arrives in Job constructor in the second not. Why??When it calls constructor??? When are called the setter and getter methodsb, before or after execute() method??? And when i have a form with input data?? Are called setter methods before execute() method? I'm very confusely because in a case it works without problems, but in the second case it doesn't Thanks, Andrew

  Read the article

• @dynamic property needs setter with multiple behaviors

  - by ambertch

  I have a class that contains multiple user objects and as such has an array of them as an instance variable: NSMutableArray *users; The tricky part is setting it. I am deserializing these objects from a server via Objective Resource, and for backend reasons users can only be returned as a long string of UIDs - what I have locally is a separate dictionary of users keyed to UIDs. Given the string uidString of comma separated UIDs I override the default setter and populate the actual user objects: @dynamic users; - (void)setUsers:(id)uidString { users = [NSMutableArray arrayWithArray: [[User allUsersDictionary] objectsForKeys:[(NSString*)uidString componentsSeparatedByString:@","]]]; } The problem is this: I now serialize these to database using SQLitePO, which stores these as the array of user objects, not the original string. So when I retrieve it from database the setter mistakenly treats this array of user objects as a string! Where I actually want to adjust the setter's behavior when it gets this object from DB vs. over the network. I can't just make the getter serialize back into a string without tearing up large code that reference this array of user objects, and I tried to detect in the setter whether I have a string or an array coming in: if ([uidString respondsToSelector:@selector(addObject)]) { // Already an array, so don't do anything - just assign users = uidString but no success... so I'm kind of stuck - any suggestions? Thanks in advance!

  Read the article

• TreeViewItem - Use ControlTemplate and HierarchicalDataTemplate together

  - by CrownJ

  I'm using HierarchicalDataTemplate in my TreeView, and I wanted to also overwrite the default template for the TreeViewItem so that when an item is selected, it only highlights the text, not including the icon next to it. <TreeView.ItemTemplate> <HierarchicalDataTemplate ItemsSource="{Binding Children}"> <TreeViewItem Style="{StaticResource TreeViewItemStyle}" Header="{Binding DisplayText}" /> </HierarchicalDataTemplate> </TreeView.ItemTemplate> <TreeView.Resources> <Style x:Key="TreeViewItemFocusVisual"> <Setter Property="Control.Template"> <Setter.Value> <ControlTemplate> <Rectangle/> </ControlTemplate> </Setter.Value> </Setter> </Style> <Style x:Key="ExpandCollapseToggleStyle" TargetType="{x:Type ToggleButton}"> <Setter Property="Focusable" Value="False"/> <Setter Property="Width" Value="19"/> <Setter Property="Height" Value="13"/> <Setter Property="Template"> <Setter.Value> <ControlTemplate TargetType="{x:Type ToggleButton}"> <Border Width="19" Height="13" Background="Transparent"> <Border Width="9" Height="9" SnapsToDevicePixels="true" BorderBrush="#FF7898B5" BorderThickness="1" CornerRadius="1"> <Border.Background> <LinearGradientBrush EndPoint="1,1" StartPoint="0,0"> <GradientStop Color="White" Offset=".2"/> <GradientStop Color="#FFC0B7A6" Offset="1"/> </LinearGradientBrush> </Border.Background> <Path x:Name="ExpandPath" Fill="Black" Margin="1,1,1,1" Data="M 0 2 L 0 3 L 2 3 L 2 5 L 3 5 L 3 3 L 5 3 L 5 2 L 3 2 L 3 0 L 2 0 L 2 2 Z"/> </Border> </Border> <ControlTemplate.Triggers> <Trigger Property="IsChecked" Value="True"> <Setter Property="Data" TargetName="ExpandPath" Value="M 0 2 L 0 3 L 5 3 L 5 2 Z"/> </Trigger> </ControlTemplate.Triggers> </ControlTemplate> </Setter.Value> </Setter> </Style> <Style x:Key="{x:Type TreeViewItem}" TargetType="{x:Type TreeViewItem}"> <Setter Property="Background" Value="Transparent"/> <Setter Property="HorizontalContentAlignment" Value="{Binding HorizontalContentAlignment, RelativeSource={RelativeSource AncestorType={x:Type ItemsControl}}}"/> <Setter Property="VerticalContentAlignment" Value="{Binding VerticalContentAlignment, RelativeSource={RelativeSource AncestorType={x:Type ItemsControl}}}"/> <Setter Property="Padding" Value="1,0,0,0"/> <Setter Property="Foreground" Value="{DynamicResource {x:Static SystemColors.ControlTextBrushKey}}"/> <Setter Property="FocusVisualStyle" Value="{StaticResource TreeViewItemFocusVisual}"/> <Setter Property="Template"> <Setter.Value> <ControlTemplate TargetType="{x:Type TreeViewItem}"> <Grid> <Grid.ColumnDefinitions> <ColumnDefinition Width="Auto"/> <ColumnDefinition Width="Auto"/> <ColumnDefinition Width="*"/> </Grid.ColumnDefinitions> <Grid.RowDefinitions> <RowDefinition Height="Auto"/> <RowDefinition/> </Grid.RowDefinitions> <ToggleButton x:Name="Expander" Style="{StaticResource ExpandCollapseToggleStyle}" ClickMode="Press" IsChecked="{Binding IsExpanded, RelativeSource={RelativeSource TemplatedParent}}"/> <StackPanel Orientation="Horizontal" Grid.Column="1" > <Image Width="16" Height="16" Margin="3,0" Source="{Binding Path=ImageSource}" /> <Border x:Name="Bd" SnapsToDevicePixels="true" Background="{TemplateBinding Background}" BorderBrush="{TemplateBinding BorderBrush}" BorderThickness="{TemplateBinding BorderThickness}" Margin="0" Padding="0"> <ContentPresenter x:Name="PART_Header" HorizontalAlignment="{TemplateBinding HorizontalContentAlignment}" SnapsToDevicePixels="{TemplateBinding SnapsToDevicePixels}" ContentSource="Header"/> </Border> </StackPanel> <ItemsPresenter x:Name="ItemsHost" Grid.Column="1" Grid.ColumnSpan="2" Grid.Row="1"/> </Grid> <ControlTemplate.Triggers> <Trigger Property="IsExpanded" Value="false"> <Setter Property="Visibility" TargetName="ItemsHost" Value="Collapsed"/> </Trigger> <Trigger Property="HasItems" Value="false"> <Setter Property="Visibility" TargetName="Expander" Value="Hidden"/> </Trigger> <Trigger Property="IsSelected" Value="true"> <Setter Property="Background" TargetName="Bd" Value="{DynamicResource {x:Static SystemColors.HighlightBrushKey}}"/> <Setter Property="Control.Foreground" TargetName="Bd" Value="{DynamicResource {x:Static SystemColors.HighlightTextBrushKey}}"/> </Trigger> <MultiTrigger> <MultiTrigger.Conditions> <Condition Property="IsSelected" Value="true"/> <Condition Property="IsSelectionActive" Value="false"/> </MultiTrigger.Conditions> <Setter Property="Background" TargetName="Bd" Value="{DynamicResource {x:Static SystemColors.ControlBrushKey}}"/> <Setter Property="Control.Foreground" TargetName="Bd" Value="{DynamicResource {x:Static SystemColors.ControlTextBrushKey}}"/> </MultiTrigger> <Trigger Property="IsEnabled" Value="false"> <Setter Property="Foreground" Value="{DynamicResource {x:Static SystemColors.GrayTextBrushKey}}"/> </Trigger> </ControlTemplate.Triggers> </ControlTemplate> </Setter.Value> </Setter> <Style.Triggers> <Trigger Property="VirtualizingStackPanel.IsVirtualizing" Value="true"> <Setter Property="ItemsPanel"> <Setter.Value> <ItemsPanelTemplate> <VirtualizingStackPanel/> </ItemsPanelTemplate> </Setter.Value> </Setter> </Trigger> </Style.Triggers> </Style> </TreeView.Resources> I couldn't find a way to use both the HierarchicalDataTemplate and ControlTemplate together so I can specify the ItemsSource and also change parts of the control's behavior. When I do the above code, it won't select the treeviewitem at all.

  Read the article

• Overriding setter on domain class in grails 1.1.2

  - by Pavel P

  I have following two domain classes in Grails 1.1.2: class A implements Serializable { MyEnumType myField Date fieldChanged void setMyField(MyEnumType val) { if (myField != null && myField != val) { myField = val fieldChanged = new Date() } } } class B extends A { List children void setMyField(MyEnumType val) { if (myField != null && myField != val) { myField = val fieldChanged = new Date() children.each { child -> child.myField = val } } } When I set B instance's myField, I get the setter into the cycle... myField = val line calls setter again instead of assiging the new value. Any hint how to override the setter correctly? Thanks

  Read the article

• Custom setter methods in Core-Data

  - by andrewebling

  I need to write a custom setter method for a field (we'll call it foo) in my subclass of NSManagedObject. foo is defined in the data model and Xcode has autogenerated @property and @dynamic fields in the .h and .m files respectively. If I write my setter like this: - (void)setFoo: (NSObject *)inFoo { [super setFoo: inFoo]; [self updateStuff]; } then I get a compiler warning on the call to super. Alternatively, if I do this: - (void)setFoo: (NSObject *)inFoo { [super setValue: inFoo forKey: inFoo]; [self updateStuff]; } then I end up in an infinite loop. So what's the correct approach to write a custom setter for a subclass of NSManagedObject?

  Read the article

• XAML Setter Property to Command

  - by Kevin

  I am trying to call a command when my mouse is over a toggle button. I have the following code. <Trigger Property="IsMouseOver" Value="True"> <Setter Property="Cursor" Value="Hand"></Setter> <Setter Property="Command" Value="{Binding Path=PushPinMouse}" /> </Trigger> When I roll the mouse over, the hand shows. But when i roll the mouse over it doesn't hit my PushPinMouse method.. Why's that?

  Read the article

• Can't set breakpoints on an auto-property setter ?

  - by Cristi Diaconescu

  Is it just me, or does VS 2008 not allow setting a breakpoint just on the setter of an auto-property? It looks something like this: public int CurrentFramesize { get; protected set; } and if I try to set a breakpoint on the setter line, the whole auto-property turns breakpoint-red.

  Read the article

• @property setter for BOOL.

  - by George

  Hi, I'm having problems setting a BOOL using @property and @synthesize. I'm using @property BOOL isPaused; And I can get it by using [myObject isPaused]; but I cannot manage to set it. I'd like to use [myObject setPaused: NO];. I also tried @property (setter=setPaused) BOOL isPaused; but if I'm not mistaking, then I need to write that setter myself.

  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

• readonly property setter

  - by Anonymous Coward

  Hi Everyone After a extensive debugging session I found that the problem was that I called the setter of a readonly property. Is there a trick to provoke a compiler warning when this happens? Because marking the setter private does not work. Cheers, CA

  Read the article

• Can <Setter.Value> have multiple grids inside it

  - by Subhen

  Hi, I want to define the background for my application in App.XAML. The background was previously defined in another xaml page,which have multiple Grids inside it like following: <Grid x:Key="GridGeneric" d:LayoutOverrides="Width, Height"> <Grid.Background> <LinearGradientBrush EndPoint="0.5,1" StartPoint="0.5,0"> <GradientStop Color="#FF00172E" Offset="1"/> <GradientStop Color="#FF004074" Offset="0.433"/> <GradientStop Color="#FF081316"/> <GradientStop Color="#FF001D3F" Offset="0.215"/> <GradientStop Color="#FF002043" Offset="0.818"/> <GradientStop Color="#FF003B6C" Offset="0.642"/> </LinearGradientBrush> </Grid.Background> <Grid> <Grid.Background> <RadialGradientBrush RadiusY="0.973" GradientOrigin="0.497,-0.276" RadiusX="1.003"> <GradientStop Color="#FFB350EE" Offset="0"/> <GradientStop Color="#001D3037" Offset="0.847"/> </RadialGradientBrush> </Grid.Background> </Grid> ------ ----- </Grid> Now I want to place the same in my App.xaml like following: <Style x:Key="backgroundStyle" TargetType="Grid"> <Setter Property="Background"> <Setter.Value> <Grid> <Grid.Background> <LinearGradientBrush EndPoint="0.5,1" StartPoint="0.5,0"> <GradientStop Color="#FF00172E" Offset="1"/> <GradientStop Color="#FF004074" Offset="0.433"/> <GradientStop Color="#FF081316"/> <GradientStop Color="#FF001D3F" Offset="0.215"/> <GradientStop Color="#FF002043" Offset="0.818"/> <GradientStop Color="#FF003B6C" Offset="0.642"/> </LinearGradientBrush> </Grid.Background> <Grid> <Grid.Background> <RadialGradientBrush RadiusY="0.973" GradientOrigin="0.497,-0.276" RadiusX="1.003"> <GradientStop Color="#FFB350EE" Offset="0"/> <GradientStop Color="#001D3037" Offset="0.847"/> </RadialGradientBrush> </Grid.Background> </Grid> --------- --------- </Grid> </Setter.Value> </Setter> </Style> But While doing this I am getting the following Exception.

  Read the article

• Using .NET XmlSerializer with get properties and setter functions

  - by brone

  I'm trying to use XmlSerializer from C# to save out a class that has some values that are read by properties (the code being just a simple retrieval of field value) but set by setter functions (since there is a delegate called if the value changes). What I'm currently doing is this sort of thing. The intended use is to use the InT property to read the value, and use SetInT to set it. Setting it has side-effects, so a method is more appropriate than a property here. XmlSerializationOnly_InT exists solely for the benefit of the XmlSerializer (hence the name), and shouldn't be used by normal code. class X { public double InT { get { return _inT; } } public void SetInT(double newInT) { if (newInT != _inT) { _inT = newInT; Changed();//includes delegate call; potentially expensive } } private double _inT; // not called by normal code, as the property set is not just a simple // field set or two. [XmlElement(ElementName = "InT")] public double XmlSerializationOnly_InT { get { return InT; } set { SetInT(value); } } } This works, it's easy enough to do, and the XML file looks like you'd expect. It's manual labour though, and a bit ugly, so I'm only somewhat satisfied. What I'd really like is to be able to tell the XML serialization to read the value using the property, and set it using the setter function. Then I wouldn't need XmlSerializationOnly_InT at all. I seem to be following standard practise by distinguishing between property sets and setter functions in this way, so I'm sure I'm not the only person to have encountered this (though google suggests I might be). What have others done in this situation? Is there some easy way to persuade the XmlSerializer to handle this sort of thing better? If not, is there perhaps some other easy way to do it?

  Read the article

• Validation errors prevent the property setter being called

  - by HA

  Hi, I am looking for a simple solution to the following problem: I am using a simple TextBox control with the Text property bound to a property in the code behind. Additionally I am using a validation rule to notify the user of malformed input. ... error display style here ... Now after entering valid data into the TextBox the user can hit a button to send the data. When clicking the button the data from the bound property UserName in the code behind is evaluated and sent. The problem is that a user can enter valid data into the TextBox and this will be set in the property UserName. If the user then decides to change the text in the TextBox and the data becomes invalid, the setter of the property UserName is not called after the failed validation. This means that the last valid data remains in the property UserName, while the TextBox display the invalid data with the error indicator. If the user then clicks on the button to send the data, the last valid data will be sent instead of the current TextBox content. I know I could deactivate the button if the data is invalid and in fact I do, but the method is called in the setter of UserName. And if that is not called after a failed validation the button stays enabled. So the question is: How do I enable calling of the property setter after a failed validation?

  Read the article

• Value object getter

  - by sarah xia

  Hi, I've got a value object, which stores info for example amount. The getAmount() getter returns amount in cents. However in various places, we need to get amount in dollar. There are 2 approaches I can think of: write a convert method and place it in a utility class. add a getAmountInDollar() getter in the value object. I prefer the second approach. What do you think? What are pros and cons of both approaches?

  Read the article

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