Search Results

Search found 8448 results on 338 pages for 'initialization block'.

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 2/338 | < Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >

  • How to block a sub-site in windows?

    - by Creedy
    How can i block a sub-site of a website as e.g. http://example.com/someSite unfortunately the hosts file is not an option since you can only block whole domains there and any "/" just destroys these rules. this is just for my personal protection against visiting some sites too often, while i still have to be able to get to the other sites of that domain (as e.g. example.com/someOtherSite) would be great if someone knows a solution regarding this topic

    Read the article

  • How to block a sub-domain in windows?

    - by Creedy
    How can i block a sub-site of a website as e.g. http://example.com/someSite unfortunately the hosts file is not an option since you can only block whole domains there and any "/" just destroys these rules. this is just for my personal protection against visiting some sites too often, while i still have to be able to get to the other sites of that domain (as e.g. example.com/someOtherSite) would be great if someone knows a solution regarding this topic

    Read the article

  • C++ - Constructor or Initialize Method to Startup

    - by Bob Fincheimer
    I want to determine when to do non-trivial initialization of a class. I see two times to do initialization: constructor and other method. I want to figure out when to use each. Choice 1: Constructor does initialization MyClass::MyClass(Data const& data) : m_data() { // does non-trivial initialization here } MyClass::~MyClass() { // cleans up here } Choice 2: Defer initialization to an initialize method MyClass::MyClass() : m_data() {} MyClass::Initialize(Data const& data) { // does non-trivial initialization here } MyClass::~MyClass() { // cleans up here } So to try and remove any subjectivity I want to figure out which is better in a couple of situations: Class that encapsulates a resource (window/font/some sort of handle) Class that composites resources to do something (a control/domain object) Data structure classes (tree/list/etc.) [Anything else you can think of] Things to analyze: Performance Ease of use by other developers How error-prone/opportunities for bugs [Anything else you can think of]

    Read the article

  • Ruby - Possible to pass a block as a param as an actual block to another function?

    - by Markus O'Reilly
    This is what I'm trying to do: def call_block(in_class = "String", &block) instance = eval("#{in_class}.new") puts "instance class: #{instance.class}" instance.instance_eval{ block.call } end # --- TEST EXAMPLE --- # This outputs "class: String" every time "sdlkfj".instance_eval { puts "class: #{self.class}" } # This will only output "class: Object" every time # I'm trying to get this to output "class: String" though call_block("String") { puts "class: #{self.class}" } On the line where it says "instance.instance_eval{ block.call }", I'm trying to find another way to make the new instance variable run instance eval on the block. The only way I can think of to get it to do that is to pass instance_eval the original block, not as a variable or anything, but as a real block like in the test example. Any tips?

    Read the article

  • Is there any reason lazy initialization couldn't be built into Java?

    - by Renesis
    Since I'm working on a server with absolutely no non-persisted state for users, every User-related object we have is rolled out on every request. Consequently I often find myself doing lazy initialization of properties of objects that may go unused. protected EventDispatcher dispatcher = new EventDispatcher(); Becomes... protected EventDispatcher<EventMessage> dispatcher; public EventDispatcher<EventMessage> getEventDispatcher() { if (dispatcher == null) { dispatcher = new EventDispatcher<EventMessage>(); } return dispatcher; } Is there any reason this couldn't be built into Java? protected lazy EventDispatcher dispatcher = new EventDispatcher();

    Read the article

  • Blocking a country (mass iP Ranges), best practice for the actual block

    - by kwiksand
    Hi all, This question has obviously been asked many times in many different forms, but I can't find an actual answer to the specific plan I've got. We run a popular European Commercial deals site, and are getting a large amount of incoming registrations/traffic from countries who cannot even take part in the deals we offer (and many of the retailers aren't even known outside Western Europe). I've identified the problem area to block a lot of this traffic, but (as expected) there are thousands of ip ranges required. My question now (finally!). On a test server, I created a script to block each range within iptables, but the amount of time it took to add the rules was large, and then iptables was unresponsive after this (especially when attempting a iptables -L). What is the most efficient way of blocking large numbers of ip ranges: iptables? Or a plugin where I can preload them efficiantly? hosts.deny? .htaccess (nasty as I'd be running it in apache on every load balanced web server)? Cheers

    Read the article

  • Postfix block senders outside from local domains

    - by Tibor Peter Toth
    I would like to block every mail that is coming in from a domain that is running on my server. Example: I have domain1.com on my mail server and I'm getting a mail from outside with an email address of [email protected] Then I know it's a Spam, because domain1.com is on my server, so the sender cannot come from outside. I want postfix to check for this, and simply block these kind of emails. I know this is a function in postfix, just don't know which one. Thanks.

    Read the article

  • How to solve lazy initialization exception using JPA and Hibernate as provider

    - by rupertin
    I am working on a project for a customer who wants to use lazy initialization. They always get "lazy initialization exception" when mapping classes with the default lazy loading mode. @JoinTable(name = "join_profilo_funzionalita", joinColumns = {@JoinColumn(name = "profilo_id", referencedColumnName = "profilo_id")}, inverseJoinColumns = {@JoinColumn(name = "funzionalita_id", referencedColumnName = "funzionalita_id")}) //@ManyToMany(fetch=FetchType.EAGER) - no exceptions if uncommented @ManyToMany private Collection<Funzionalita> funzionalitaIdCollection; Is there a standard pattern using JPA classes to avoid this error? Snippets are welcome, thanks a lot for your time.

    Read the article

  • initialization of objects in c++

    - by Happy Mittal
    I want to know, in c++, when does the initialization of objects take place? Is it at the compile time or link time? For ex: //file1.cpp extern int i; int j=5; //file2.cpp ( link with file1.cpp) extern j; int i=10; Now, what does compiler do : according to me, it allocates storage for variables. Now I want to know : does it also put initialization value in that storage or is it done at link time?

    Read the article

  • Release Candidates of Application Initialization and Dynamic IP Restrictions Released

    - by The Official Microsoft IIS Site
    Two new Release Candidates for the following IIS Extensions have been released today: Application Initialization for IIS 7.5 (the replacement for the previously released Application Warmup beta extension) Dynamic IP Restrictions for IIS7/7.5 Application Initialization for IIS 7.5 Application Initialization is a feature which is coming in IIS 8.0 and is now also available for IIS 7.5 (please note this feature is not available for IIS 7.0).   This module helps to eliminate the lack of feedback...(read more)

    Read the article

  • std::map for storing static const Objects

    - by Sean M.
    I am making a game similar to Minecraft, and I am trying to fine a way to keep a map of Block objects sorted by their id. This is almost identical to the way that Minecraft does it, in that they declare a bunch of static final Block objects and initialize them, and then the constructor of each block puts a reference of that block into whatever the Java equivalent of a std::map is, so there is a central place to get ids and the Blocks with those ids. The problem is, that I am making my game in C++, and trying to do the exact same thing. In Block.h, I am declaring the Blocks like so: //Block.h public: static const Block Vacuum; static const Block Test; And in Block.cpp I am initializing them like so: //Block.cpp const Block Block::Vacuum = Block("Vacuum", 0, 0); const Block Block::Test = Block("Test", 1, 0); The block constructor looks like this: Block::Block(std::string name, uint16 id, uint8 tex) { //Check for repeat ids if (IdInUse(id)) { fprintf(stderr, "Block id %u is already in use!", (uint32)id); throw std::runtime_error("You cannot reuse block ids!"); } _id = id; //Check for repeat names if (NameInUse(name)) { fprintf(stderr, "Block name %s is already in use!", name); throw std::runtime_error("You cannot reuse block names!"); } _name = name; _tex = tex; //fprintf(stdout, "Using texture %u\n", _tex); _transparent = false; _solidity = 1.0f; idMap[id] = this; nameMap[name] = this; } And finally, the maps that I'm using to store references of Blocks in relation to their names and ids are declared as such: std::map<uint16, Block*> Block::idMap = std::map<uint16, Block*>(); //The map of block ids std::map<std::string, Block*> Block::nameMap = std::map<std::string, Block*>(); //The map of block names The problem comes when I try to get the Blocks in the maps using a method called const Block* GetBlock(uint16 id), where the last line is return idMap.at(id);. This line returns a Block with completely random values like _visibility = 0xcccc and such like that, found out through debugging. So my question is, is there something wrong with the blocks being declared as const obejcts, and then stored at pointers and accessed later on? The reason I cant store them as Block& is because that makes a copy of the Block when it is entered, so the block wouldn't have any of the attributes that could be set afterwards in the constructor of any child class, so I think I need to store them as a pointer. Any help is greatly appreciated, as I don't fully understand pointers yet. Just ask if you need to see any other parts of the code.

    Read the article

  • Methods for Lazy Initialization with properties

    - by Stuart Pegg
    I'm currently altering a widely used class to move as much of the expensive initialization from the class constructor into Lazy Initialized properties. Below is an example (in c#): Before: public class ClassA { public readonly ClassB B; public void ClassA() { B = new ClassB(); } } After: public class ClassA { private ClassB _b; public ClassB B { get { if (_b == null) { _b = new ClassB(); } return _b; } } } There are a fair few more of these properties in the class I'm altering, and some are not used in certain contexts (hence the Laziness), but if they are used they're likely to be called repeatedly. Unfortunately, the properties are often also used inside the class. This means there is a potential for the private variable (_b) to be used directly by a method without it being initialized. Is there a way to make only the public property (B) available inside the class, or even an alternative method with the same initialized-when-needed? This is reposted from Programmers (not subjective enough apparently): http://programmers.stackexchange.com/questions/34270/best-methods-for-lazy-initialization-with-properties

    Read the article

  • Thread-safe initialization of function-local static const objects

    - by sbi
    This question made me question a practice I had been following for years. For thread-safe initialization of function-local static const objects I protect the actual construction of the object, but not the initialization of the function-local reference referring to it. Something like this: namspace { const some_type& create_const_thingy() { lock my_lock(some_mutex); static const some_type the_const_thingy; return the_const_thingy; } } void use_const_thingy() { static const some_type& the_const_thingy = create_const_thingy(); // use the_const_thingy } The idea is that locking takes time, and if the reference is overwritten by several threads, it won't matter. I'd be interested if this is safe enough in practice? safe according to The Rules? (I know, the current standard doesn't even know what "concurrency" is, but what about trampling over an already initialized reference? And do other standards, like POSIX, have something to say that's relevant to this?) For the inquiring minds: Many such function-local static const objects I used are maps which are initialized from const arrays upon first use and used for lookup. For example, I have a few XML parsers where tag name strings are mapped to enum values, so I could later switch over the tags enum values.

    Read the article

  • Preferred way of application initialization

    - by lisak
    Do you guys have your own little framework for project startups ? I mean, every time one needs to do the same things at the beginning: Context initialization - ideally after arguments are processed. Sometimes without interactive user input, sometimes with input reader. Sometimes we need to load properties, sometimes not. Then we need to get a class out of context and run its method. Programming....programming until writing shell script to place everything on classpath. It's true that it differs according to the actual needs. But it seems to me, that I'm doing always almost the same, again and again from the scratch. Sometimes I realize that I'm postponing my work just because I don't want to do these annoying startups. It would be great if there was some kind of universal Main class doing reflection to specified bean, context initialization, argument parsing, interactive user input reading and have the programmer do the important things...All setup might be done via spring configuration. I think I'll have to do it by myself. I'd appreciate your ideas

    Read the article

  • C++ Suppress Automatic Initialization and Destruction

    - by Travis G
    How does one suppress the automatic initialization and destruction of a type? While it is wonderful that T buffer[100] automatically initializes all the elements of buffer, and destroys them when they fall out of scope, this is not the behavior I want. #include <iostream> static int created = 0, destroyed = 0; struct S { S() { ++created; } ~S() { ++destroyed; } }; template <typename T, size_t KCount> class Array { private: T m_buffer[KCount]; public: Array() { // some way to suppress the automatic initialization of m_buffer } ~Array() { // some way to suppress the automatic destruction of m_buffer } }; int main() { { Array<S, 100> arr; } std::cout << "Created:\t" << created << std::endl; std::cout << "Destroyed:\t" << destroyed << std::endl; return 0; } The output of this program is: Created: 100 Destroyed: 100 I would like it to be: Created: 0 Destroyed: 0 My only idea is to make m_buffer some trivially constructed and destructed type like char and then rely on operator[] to wrap the pointer math for me, although this seems like a horribly hacked solution. Another solution would be to use malloc and free, but that gives a level of indirection that I do not want.

    Read the article

  • Odd ActiveRecord model dynamic initialization bug in production

    - by qfinder
    I've got an ActiveRecord (2.3.5) model that occasionally exhibits incorrect behavior that appears to be related to a problem in its dynamic initialization. Here's the code: class Widget < ActiveRecord::Base extend ActiveSupport::Memoizable serialize :settings VALID_SETTINGS = %w(show_on_sale show_upcoming show_current show_past) VALID_SETTINGS.each do |setting| class_eval %{ def #{setting}=(val); self.settings[:#{setting}] = (val == "1"); end def #{setting}; self.settings[:#{setting}]; end } end def initialize_settings self.settings ||= { :show_on_sale => true, :show_upcoming => true } end after_initialize :initialize_settings # All the other stuff the model does end The idea was to use a single record field (settings) to persist a bunch of configuration data for this object, but allow all the settings to seamlessly work with form helpers and the like. (Why this approach makes sense here is a little out of scope, but let's assume that it does.) Net-net, Widget should end up with instance methods (eg #show_on_sale= #show_on_sale) for all the entires in the VALID_SETTINGS array. Any default values should be specified in initialize_settings. And indeed this works, mostly. In dev and staging, no problems at all. But in production, the app sometimes ends up in a state where a) any writes to the dynamically generated setters fail and b) none of the default values appear to be set - although my leading theory is that the dynamically generated reader methods are just broken. The code, db, and environment is otherwise identical between the three. A typical error message / backtrace on the fail looks like: IndexError: index 141145 out of string (eval):2:in []=' (eval):2:inshow_on_sale=' [GEM_ROOT]/gems/activerecord-2.3.5/lib/active_record/base.rb:2746:in send' [GEM_ROOT]/gems/activerecord-2.3.5/lib/active_record/base.rb:2746:inattributes=' [GEM_ROOT]/gems/activerecord-2.3.5/lib/active_record/base.rb:2742:in each' [GEM_ROOT]/gems/activerecord-2.3.5/lib/active_record/base.rb:2742:inattributes=' [GEM_ROOT]/gems/activerecord-2.3.5/lib/active_record/base.rb:2634:in `update_attributes!' ...(then controller and all the way down) Ideas or theories as to what might be going on? My leading theory is that something is going wrong in instance initialization wherein the class instance variable settings is ending up as a string rather than a hash. This explains both the above setter failure (:show_on_sale is being used to index into the string) and the fact that getters don't work (an out of bounds [] call on a string just returns nil). But then how and why might settings occasionally end up as a string rather than hash?

    Read the article

  • C++ Array Initialization in Function Call or Constructor Call

    - by david
    This question is related to the post here. Is it possible to initialize an array in a function call or constructor call? For example, class foo's constructor wants an array of size 3, so I want to call foo( { 0, 0, 0 } ). I've tried this, and it does not work. I'd like to be able to initialize objects of type foo in other objects' constructor initialization lists, or initialize foo's without first creating a separate array. Is this possible?

    Read the article

  • C++ array initialization without assignment

    - by david
    This question is related to the post here. Is it possible to initialize an array without assigning it? For example, class foo's constructor wants an array of size 3, so I want to call foo( { 0, 0, 0 } ). I've tried this, and it does not work. I'd like to be able to initialize objects of type foo in other objects' constructor initialization lists. Is this possible?

    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 >