Search Results

Search found 1061 results on 43 pages for 'inherited'.

facebook twitter digg google delicious technorati stumbleupon myspace wordpress linkedin gmail igoogle windows live tumblr viadeo yahoo buzz yahoo mail yahoo bookmarks favorites email print

Page 2/43 | < Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >

  • How to set HTTP Headers from client class inherited from SoapHttpClientProtocol

    - by Alfred
    I'm using a class MyClass inherited from SoapHttpClientProtocol (auto-generated in my project by creating a WebReference from a .wsdl file, representing a service). Before calling a "WebMethod" of this service, I need to custom the http header of my request. I tried overloading the GetWebRequest() method of SoapHttpClientProtocol that way : public partial class MyClass: System.Web.Services.Protocols.SoapHttpClientProtocol{ protected override WebRequest GetWebRequest(Uri uri) { HttpWebRequest request = (HttpWebRequest)base.GetWebRequest(uri); request.Headers.Add("MyCustomHeader", "MyCustomHeaderValue"); return request; } } I was hoping that GetWebRequest was called in the constructor of MyClass, apparently it's not. Could someone help me ?

    Read the article

  • MVC.NET UpdateModel doesn't update inherited public properties??

    - by mrjoltcola
    I refactored some common properties into a base class and immediately my model updates started failing. UpdateModel() and TryUpdateModel() do not seem to update inherited public properties. I cannot find detailed info on MSDN nor Google as to the rules or semantics of these methods. The docs are terse (http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/dd470933.aspx), simply stating: Updates the specified model instance using values from the controller's current value provider. Well that leads us to believe it is as simple as that. It makes no mention of limitations with inheritance. My assumption is the methods are reflecting on the top class only, ignoring base properties, but this seems to be an ugly shortcoming, if so.

    Read the article

  • Unit test class inherited from ContextBoundObject and decorated with ContextAttribute

    - by Joel Cunningham
    I am trying to retrofit unit tests on to some existing code base. Both the class and method I want to unit test is decorated with custom attributes that are inherited from ContextBoundObject and ContextAttribute. I dont want them to run as part of the unit test. The only solution I have come up with is to compile the attribute out when I want to unit test. I dont really like this solution and would prefer to either replace it with a mocked attribute at runtime or prevent the attribute from running in a more elegant way. How do you unit test code that has class and method attributes that inherit from ContextBoundObject and ContextAttribute that you dont want to run as part of a unit test? Thanks in advance.

    Read the article

  • C# - Accesing to items for a collection inherited from List<string>

    - by Salvador
    I am trying to implement a new class inherited from List<string>, to load the contents from a text file to the items. using System.Collections.Generic; using System.IO; using System.Linq; public class ListExt: List<string> { string baseDirectory; public LoadFromFile(string FileName) { this._items = File.ReadAllLines(FileName).ToList();//does not work because _list is private } } but i dont knew how to load the lines into the _items property because is private. any suggestions?

    Read the article

  • IRepository with Inherited Classes

    - by Stacey
    In keeping with the Repository pattern of data input, I've a question in regards to using inherited classes. For instance, suppose I would have the class... class Employee IEmployeeRepository { Add(Employee employee); } This works fine, nothing wrong with it so far... but now let's say I continue on.. class Manager : Employee Okay, now let's assume that I never need to enter a manager different than an Employee? What's the best approach here? Would a scenario such as .. IEmployeeRepository { Add<T>(T employee) where T : Employee } Be the best approach, or do I need to abstract a different repository for each type?

    Read the article

  • Are static members inherited? (C++)

    - by Keand64
    When static members are inherited, are they static for the entire heirarchy, or just that class, ie: class SomeClass { public: SomeClass(){total++;} static int total; }; class SomeDerivedClass: public SomeClass { public: SomeDerivedClass(){total++;} }; int main() { SomeClass A; SomeClass B; SomeDerivedClass C; return 0; } would total be 3 in all three instances, or would it be 2 for SomeClass and 1 for SomeDerivedClass?

    Read the article

  • Modifying an inherited Rails association

    - by Chris Kilmer
    I have a Team class that inherits from a Group class. Both Team and Groups have memberships through the same association. However, I need to run a method after a Team memberships is added but not a Group. I currently have something like this: class Group < ActiveRecord::Base has_many :memberships, :class_name => 'Connection', :foreign_key => 'connectable_id', :as => :connectable, :dependent => :destroy end class Team < Group has_many :memberships, :class_name => 'Connection', :foreign_key => 'connectable_id', :as => :connectable, :dependent => :destroy, :after_add => :add_company_membership private def membership_check(membership) end end Is there some way to modify the inherited association in Team so that I don't have to redefine the entire thing but rather just add the :after_add hook it? Any help would be appreciated.

    Read the article

  • Eliminating inherited overlong MACRO

    - by ExpatEgghead
    I have inherited a very long set of macros from some C algorithm code.They basically call free on a number of structures as the function exits either abnormally or normally. I would like to replace these with something more debuggable and readable. A snippet is shown below #define FREE_ALL_VECS {FREE_VEC_COND(kernel);FREE_VEC_COND(cirradCS); FREE_VEC_COND(pixAccum)..... #define FREE_ALL_2D_MATS {FREE_2D_MAT_COND(circenCS); FREE_2D_MAT_COND(cirradCS_2); } #define FREE_ALL_IMAGES {immFreeImg(&imgC); immFreeImg(&smal..... #define COND_FREE_ALLOC_VARS {FREE_ALL_VECS FREE_ALL_2D_MATS FREE_ALL_IMAGES} What approach would be best? Should I just leave well alone if it works? This macro set is called twelve times in one function. I'm on Linux with gcc.

    Read the article

  • Silverlight WCF service consuming inherited types in datacontract

    - by RemotecUk
    Hi, Im trying to consume a WCF service in silverlight... What I have done is to create two seperate assemblies for my datacontracts... Assembly that contains all of my types marked with data contracts build against .Net 3.5 A Silverlight assembly which links to files in the 1st assembly. This means my .Net app can reference assembly 1 and my silverlight app assembly 2. This works fine and I can communicate across the service. The problems occur when I try to transfer inherited classed. I have the following class stucture... IFlight - an interface for all types of flights. BaseFlight : IFlight - a baseflight flight implements IFlight AdhocFlight : BaseFlight, IFlight - an adhoc flight inherits from baseflight and also implements IFlight. I can successfully transfer base flights across the service. However I really need to be able to transfer objects of IFlight across the interface as I want one operation contract that can transfer many types of flight... public IFlight GetFlightBooking() { AdhocFlight af = new AdhocFlight(); return af; } ... should work I think? However I get the error: "The server did not provide a meaningful reply; this might be caused by a contract mismatch, a premature session shutdown or an internal server error." Any ideas would be appreciated.

    Read the article

  • What is the best practice for using lock within inherited classes

    - by JDMX
    I want to know if one class is inheriting from another, is it better to have the classes share a lock object that is defined at the base class or to have a lock object defined at each inheritance level. A very simple example of a lock object on each level of the class public class Foo { private object thisLock = new object(); private int ivalue; public int Value { get { lock( thisLock ) { return ivalue; } } set { lock( thisLock ) { ivalue= value; } } } } public class Foo2: Foo { private object thisLock2 = new object(); public int DoubleValue { get { lock( thisLock2 ) { return base.Value * 2; } } set { lock( thisLock2 ) { base.Value = value / 2; } } } } public class Foo6: Foo2 { private object thisLock6 = new object(); public int TripleDoubleValue { get { lock( thisLock6 ) { return base.DoubleValue * 3; } } set { lock( thisLock6 ) { base.DoubleValue = value / 3; } } } } A very simple example of a shared lock object public class Foo { protected object thisLock = new object(); private int ivalue; public int Value { get { lock( thisLock ) { return ivalue; } } set { lock( thisLock ) { ivalue= value; } } } } public class Foo2: Foo { public int DoubleValue { get { lock( thisLock ) { return base.Value * 2; } } set { lock( thisLock ) { base.Value = value / 2; } } } } public class Foo6: Foo2 { public int TripleDoubleValue { get { lock( thisLock ) { return base.DoubleValue * 3; } } set { lock( thisLock ) { base.DoubleValue = value / 3; } } } } Which example is the preferred way to manage locking within an inherited class?

    Read the article

  • Entity Framework - Foreign key constraints not added for inherited entity

    - by Tri Q
    Hello, It appears to me that a strange phenomenon is occurring with inherited entities (TPT) in EF4. I have three entities. 1. Asset 2. Property 3. Activity Property is a derived-type of Asset. Property has many activities (many-to-many) When modeling this in my EDMX, everything seems fine until I try to insert a new Property into the database. If the property does not contain any Activity, it works, but all hell breaks loose when I add some new activities to the new Property. As it turns out after 2 days of crawling the web and fiddling around, I noticed that in the EF store (SSDL) some of the constraints between entities were not picked up during the update process. Property_Activity table which links properties and activities show only one constraint FK_Property_Activity_Activity but FK_Property_Activity_Property was missing. I knew this is an Entity Framework anomoly because when I switched the relationship in the database to: Asset <-- Asset_Activity <-- Activity After an update, all foreign key constraints are picked up and the save is successful, with or without activities in the new property. Is this intended or a bug in EF? How do I get around this problem? Should I abandon inheritance altogether?

    Read the article

  • C# Inheritence: Choosing what repository based on type of inherited class

    - by Oskar Kjellin
    I have been making a program that downloads information about movies from the internet. I have a base class Title, which represents all titles. Movie, Serie and Episode are inherited from that class. To save them to the database I have 2 services, MovieService and SerieService. They in turn call repositories, but that is not important here. I have a method Save(Title title) which I am not very happy with. I check for what type the title is and then call the correct service. I would like to perhaps write like this: ITitleService service = title.GetService(); title.GetSavedBy(service); So I have an abstract method on Title that returns an ITitleSaver, which will return the correct service for the instance. My question is how should I implement ITitleSaver? If I make it accept Title I will have to cast it to the correct type before calling the correct overload. Which will lead to having to deal with casting once again. What is the best approach to dealing with this? I would like to have the saving logic in the corresponding class.

    Read the article

  • Calling Base Class Functions with Inherited Type

    - by Kein Mitleid
    I can't describe exactly what I want to say but I want to use base class functions with an inherited type. Like I want to declare "Coord3D operator + (Coord3D);" in one class, but if I use it with Vector3D operands, I want it to return Vector3D type instead of Coord3D. With this line of code below, I add two Vector3D's and get a Coord3D in return, as told to me by the typeid().name() function. How do I reorganize my classes so that I get a Vector3D on return? #include <iostream> #include <typeinfo> using namespace std; class Coord3D { public: float x, y, z; Coord3D (float = 0.0f, float = 0.0f, float = 0.0f); Coord3D operator + (Coord3D &); }; Coord3D::Coord3D (float a, float b, float c) { x = a; y = b; z = c; } Coord3D Coord3D::operator+ (Coord3D &param) { Coord3D temp; temp.x = x + param.x; temp.y = y + param.y; temp.z = z + param.z; return temp; } class Vector3D: public Coord3D { public: Vector3D (float a = 0.0f, float b = 0.0f, float c = 0.0f) : Coord3D (a, b, c) {}; }; int main () { Vector3D a (3, 4, 5); Vector3D b (6, 7, 8); cout << typeid(a + b).name(); return 0; }

    Read the article

  • Unable to delete inherited entity class in EF4

    - by Coding Gorilla
    I have two entities in an EF4 model (using Model First), let's call them EntityA and EntityB. EntityA is marked as abstract, and EntityB inherits from EntityA. They are similar to the following: public class EntityA { public Guid Id; public string Name; public string Uri; } public class EntityB : EntityA { public string AnotherProperty; } The generated database tables look as I would expect them, with EntityA as on table, and then another table like: EntityA_EntityB Id (PK, FK, uniqueidentifier) AnotherProperty (varchar) There is a foreign key constraint on EntityA_EntityB that references EntityA's Id property, no cascades are configured (although I did try changing these myself). The problem is that when I attempt to do something like: Context.DeleteObject(EntityA_EntityB); EF attempts to delete the EntityA_EntityB table record before deleting the EntityA table record, which of course violates the foreign key constraint on EntityA_EntityB table. Using EFProfiler I see the following commands being sent to the database: delete [dbo].[EntityA_EntityB] where (([Id] = '5c02899f-09ea-2ed9-d44b-01aef80f6b64' /* @0 */) followed by delete [dbo].[EntityA] where ([Id] = '5c02899f-09ea-2ed9-d44b-01aef80f6b64' /* @0 */) I'm completely stumped as to how to get around this problem. I would think the EF should know that it needs to delete the base class first, before deleting the inherited class. I know I could do some triggers or other database type solutions, but I'd rather avoid doing that if I can. All my classes are POCO built using some customized T4 templates. I don't want to paste in a lot of extraneous code, but if you need more information I'll provide what I can.

    Read the article

  • Javascript OOP - accessing the inherited property or function from a closure within a subclass

    - by Ali
    Hi All, I am using the javascript inheritance helper provided here: http://ejohn.org/blog/simple-javascript-inheritance/ I have the following code, and I have problem accessing the inherited property or function from a closure within a subclass as illustrated below. I am new to OOP javascript code and I appreciate your advice. I suppose within the closure, the context changes to JQuery (this variable) hence the problem. I appreciate your comments. Thanks, -A PS - Using JQuery 1.5 var Users = Class.extend({ init: function(names){this.names = names;} }); var HomeUsers = Users.extend({ work:function(){ // alert(this.names.length); // PRINTS A // var names = this.names; // If I make a local alias it works $.map([1,2,3],function(){ var newName = this.names.length; //error this.names is not defined. alert(newName); }); } }); var users = new HomeUsers(["A"]); users.work();

    Read the article

  • How to override "inherited" z-indexes?

    - by Earlz
    I am needing to override the notion of inherited z-indexes. For instance in this code <style> div{ background-color:white; top: 0px; bottom: 0px; left: 0px; right: 0px; } </style> <div style="position: fixed; z-index: 2;"> div 1 <div style="position: fixed; z-index: 3;"> div 2 </div> </div> <div style="position: fixed; z-index: 2;"> div 3 </div> http://jsbin.com/epoqo3/3 I want for div 2 to be displayed, but instead div 3 is displayed. How can I change this behavior without changing my structure.

    Read the article

  • Suggestions on Working with this Inherited Generic Method

    - by blu
    We have inherited a project that is a wrapper around a section of the core business model. There is one method that takes a generic, finds items matching that type from a member and then returns a list of that type. public List<T> GetFoos<T>() { List<IFoo> matches = Foos.FindAll( f => f.GetType() == typeof(T) ); List<T> resultList = new List<T>(); foreach (var match in matches) { resultList.Add((T)obj); } } Foos can hold the same object cast into various classes in inheritance hierarchy to aggregate totals differently for different UI presentations. There are 20+ different types of descendants that can be returned by GetFoos. The existing code basically has a big switch statement copied and pasted throughout the code. The code in each section calls GetFoos with its corresponding type. We are currently refactoring that into one consolidated area, but as we are doing that we are looking at other ways to work with this method. One thought was to use reflection to pass in the type, and that worked great until we realized the Invoke returned an object, and that it needed to be cast somehow to the List <T>. Another was to just use the switch statement until 4.0 and then use the dynamic language options. We welcome any alternate thoughts on how we can work with this method. I have left the code pretty brief, but if you'd like to know any additional details please just ask.

    Read the article

  • MetadataType, inherited properties and client validation in ASP.NET MVC 2

    - by Kristoffer Ahl
    Inherited properties and MetadataType does not seem to work with client side validation in ASP.NET MVC 2. The validation of our MetadataTypes work as expected on the server but for some reason it does not generate the appropriate client scripts for it. Client side validation kicks in as expected for properties with the DataAnnotations attributes set on the PersonView so I know that client side validation is active and that it works. Does anyone know if or how it can be fixed? Here's what we have: public abstract class PersonView { public string FirstName { get; set; } public string LastName { get; set; } public string Email { get; set; } [Required] public string PhoneNumber { get; set; } public string AddressLine1 { get; set; } public string AddressLine2 { get; set; } public string AddressZipCode { get; set; } public string AddressCity { get; set; } public string AddressCountry { get; set; } } [MetadataType(typeof(CustomerViewMetaData))] public class CustomerView : PersonView {} [MetadataType(typeof(GuestViewMetaData))] public class GuestView : PersonView {} public class GuestViewMetaData { [Required(ErrorMessage = "The guests firstname is required")] public string FirstName { get; set; } [Required(ErrorMessage = "The guests lastname is required")] public string LastName { get; set; } } public class CustomerViewMetaData { [Required(ErrorMessage = "The customers firstname is required")] public string FirstName { get; set; } [Required(ErrorMessage = "The customers lastname is required")] public string LastName { get; set; } [Required(ErrorMessage = "The customers emails is required")] public string Email { get; set; } } As you can see, it's nothing fancy or strange in there... Can it be fixed? Is it a bug in ASP.NET MVC 2?

    Read the article

  • C++ visibility of privately inherited typedefs to nested classes

    - by beldaz
    First time on StackOverflow, so please be tolerant. In the following example (apologies for the length) I have tried to isolate some unexpected behaviour I've encountered when using nested classes within a class that privately inherits from another. I've often seen statements to the effect that there is nothing special about a nested class compared to an unnested class, but in this example one can see that a nested class (at least according to GCC 4.4) can see the public typedefs of a class that is privately inherited by the closing class. I appreciate that typdefs are not the same as member data, but I found this behaviour surprising, and I imagine many others would, too. So my question is threefold: Is this standard behaviour? (a decent explanation of why would be very helpful) Can one expect it to work on most modern compilers (i.e., how portable is it)? #include <iostream> class Base { typedef int priv_t; priv_t priv; public: typedef int pub_t; pub_t pub; Base() : priv(0), pub(1) {} }; class PubDerived : public Base { public: // Not allowed since Base::priv is private // void foo() {std::cout << priv << "\n";} class Nested { // Not allowed since Nested has no access to PubDerived member data // void foo() {std::cout << pub << "\n";} // Not allowed since typedef Base::priv_t is private // void bar() {priv_t x=0; std::cout << x << "\n";} }; }; class PrivDerived : private Base { public: // Allowed since Base::pub is public void foo() {std::cout << pub << "\n";} class Nested { public: // Works (gcc 4.4 - see below) void fred() {pub_t x=0; std::cout << x << "\n";} }; }; int main() { // Not allowed since typedef Base::priv_t private // std::cout << PubDerived::priv_t(0) << "\n"; // Allowed since typedef Base::pub_t is inaccessible std::cout << PubDerived::pub_t(0) << "\n"; // Prints 0 // Not allowed since typedef Base::pub_t is inaccessible //std::cout << PrivDerived::pub_t(0) << "\n"; // Works (gcc 4.4) PrivDerived::Nested o; o.fred(); // Prints 0 return 0; }

    Read the article

  • Cast IEnumerable<Inherited> To IEnumerable<Base>

    - by david2342
    I'm trying to cast an IEnumerable of an inherited type to IEnumerable of base class. Have tried following: var test = resultFromDb.Cast<BookedResource>(); return test.ToList(); But getting error: You cannot convert these types. Linq to Entities only supports conversion primitive EDM-types. The classes involved look like this: public partial class HistoryBookedResource : BookedResource { } public partial class HistoryBookedResource { public int ResourceId { get; set; } public string DateFrom { get; set; } public string TimeFrom { get; set; } public string TimeTo { get; set; } } public partial class BookedResource { public int ResourceId { get; set; } public string DateFrom { get; set; } public string TimeFrom { get; set; } public string TimeTo { get; set; } } [MetadataType(typeof(BookedResourceMetaData))] public partial class BookedResource { } public class BookedResourceMetaData { [Required(ErrorMessage = "Resource id is Required")] [Range(0, int.MaxValue, ErrorMessage = "Resource id is must be an number")] public object ResourceId { get; set; } [Required(ErrorMessage = "Date is Required")] public object DateFrom { get; set; } [Required(ErrorMessage = "Time From is Required")] public object TimeFrom { get; set; } [Required(ErrorMessage = "Time to is Required")] public object TimeTo { get; set; } } The problem I'm trying to solve is to get records from table HistoryBookedResource and have the result in an IEnumerable<BookedResource> using Entity Framework and LINQ. UPDATE: When using the following the cast seams to work but when trying to loop with a foreach the data is lost. resultFromDb.ToList() as IEnumerable<BookedResource>; UPDATE 2: Im using entity frameworks generated model, model (edmx) is created from database, edmx include classes that reprecent the database tables. In database i have a history table for old BookedResource and it can happen that the user want to look at these and to get the old data from the database entity framework uses classes with the same name as the tables to receive data from db. So i receive the data from table HistoryBookedResource in HistoryBookedResource class. Because entity framework generate the partial classes with the properties i dont know if i can make them virtual and override. Any suggestions will be greatly appreciated.

    Read the article

  • Inherited fluent nhibenate mapping issue

    - by Aim Kai
    I have an interesting issue today!! Basically I have two classes. public class A : B { public virtual new ISet<DifferentItem> Items {get;set;} } public class B { public virtual int Id {get;set;} public virtual ISet<Item> Items {get;set;} } The subclass A hides the base class B property, Items and replaces it with a new property with the same name and a different type. The mappings for these classes are public class AMapping : SubclassMap<A> { public AMapping() { HasMany(x=>x.Items) .LazyLoad() .AsSet(); } } public class BMapping : ClassMap<B> { public BMapping() { Id(x=>x.Id); HasMany(x=>x.Items) .LazyLoad() .AsSet(); } } However when I run my unit test to check the mapping I get the following exception: Tests the A mapping: NHibernate.PropertyAccessException : Invalid Cast (check your mapping for property type mismatches); setter of A ---- System.InvalidCastException : Unable to cast object of type 'NHibernate.Collection.Generic.PersistentGenericSet1[Item]' to type 'Iesi.Collections.Generic.ISet1[DifferentItem]'. Anyone have any ideas? Clearly it is something to do with the type of the collection on the sub-class. But I skimmed through the available options on the mapping class and nothing stood out as being the solution here.

    Read the article

facebook twitter digg google delicious technorati stumbleupon myspace wordpress linkedin gmail igoogle windows live tumblr viadeo yahoo buzz yahoo mail yahoo bookmarks favorites email print

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