Search Results

Search found 40761 results on 1631 pages for 'type hinting'.

Page 20/1631 | < Previous Page | 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27  | Next Page >

  • How detect the file type (MIME) without considering the file extension?

    - by stuzzo
    I find a similar post http://stackoverflow.com/questions/58510/using-net-how-can-you-find-the-mime-type-of-a-file-based-on-the-file-signature and it is the same result I want, I tried to use it but I received always application/octet-stream instead of video/x-flv or video/x-msvideo. I think I miss something, have you any suggest for me? Should I add some kind of information on my workspace?

    Read the article

  • What is the most easy way to get in advanced Type Theory.

    - by Bubba88
    Of course, by 'advanced' I mean here just something beyond what every programmer does know. I'm currently more-or-less comfortable with the basics and want to understand the most important, most elegant and most practically applicable achievements of modern type theory. I just do not have much time, desire and mental powers to study all the formalistics more thoroughly and that may change in the future. But there is something really attractive for me in that branch, that just forces to ask silly questions like this :) Thank you very much!

    Read the article

  • How to Work Around Limitations in Generic Type Constraints in C#?

    - by Jose
    Okay I'm looking for some input, I'm pretty sure this is not currently supported in .NET 3.5 but here goes. I want to require a generic type passed into my class to have a constructor like this: new(IDictionary<string,object>) so the class would look like this public MyClass<T> where T : new(IDictionary<string,object>) { T CreateObject(IDictionary<string,object> values) { return new T(values); } } But the compiler doesn't support this, it doesn't really know what I'm asking. Some of you might ask, why do you want to do this? Well I'm working on a pet project of an ORM so I get values from the DB and then create the object and load the values. I thought it would be cleaner to allow the object just create itself with the values I give it. As far as I can tell I have two options: 1) Use reflection(which I'm trying to avoid) to grab the PropertyInfo[] array and then use that to load the values. 2) require T to support an interface like so: public interface ILoadValues { void LoadValues(IDictionary values); } and then do this public MyClass<T> where T:new(),ILoadValues { T CreateObject(IDictionary<string,object> values) { T obj = new T(); obj.LoadValues(values); return obj; } } The problem I have with the interface I guess is philosophical, I don't really want to expose a public method for people to load the values. Using the constructor the idea was that if I had an object like this namespace DataSource.Data { public class User { protected internal User(IDictionary<string,object> values) { //Initialize } } } As long as the MyClass<T> was in the same assembly the constructor would be available. I personally think that the Type constraint in my opinion should ask (Do I have access to this constructor? I do, great!) Anyways any input is welcome.

    Read the article

  • Dynamic Type to do away with Reflection

    The dynamic type in C# 4.0 is a welcome addition to the language. One thing Ive been doing a lot with it is to remove explicit Reflection code thats often necessary when you dynamically need to walk and object hierarchy. In the past Ive had a number of ReflectionUtils that used string based expressions to walk an object hierarchy. With the introduction of dynamic much of the ReflectionUtils code can be removed for cleaner code that runs considerably faster to boot. The old Way - Reflection Heres...Did you know that DotNetSlackers also publishes .net articles written by top known .net Authors? We already have over 80 articles in several categories including Silverlight. Take a look: here.

    Read the article

  • Using Unity – Part 3

    - by nmarun
    The previous blog was about registering and invoking different types dynamically. In this one I’d like to show how Unity manages/disposes the instances – say hello to Lifetime Managers. When a type gets registered, either through the config file or when RegisterType method is explicitly called, the default behavior is that the container uses a transient lifetime manager. In other words, the unity container creates a new instance of the type when Resolve or ResolveAll method is called. Whereas, when you register an existing object using the RegisterInstance method, the container uses a container controlled lifetime manager - a singleton pattern. It does this by storing the reference of the object and that means so as long as the container is ‘alive’, your registered instance does not go out of scope and will be disposed only after the container either goes out of scope or when the code explicitly disposes the container. Let’s see how we can use these and test if something is a singleton or a transient instance. Continuing on the same solution used in the previous blogs, I have made the following changes: First is to add typeAlias elements for TransientLifetimeManager type: 1: <typeAlias alias="transient" type="Microsoft.Practices.Unity.TransientLifetimeManager, Microsoft.Practices.Unity"/> You then need to tell what type(s) you want to be transient by nature: 1: <type type="IProduct" mapTo="Product2"> 2: <lifetime type="transient" /> 3: </type> 4: <!--<type type="IProduct" mapTo="Product2" />--> The lifetime element’s type attribute matches with the alias attribute of the typeAlias element. Now since ‘transient’ is the default behavior, you can have a concise version of the same as line 4 shows. Also note that I’ve changed the mapTo attribute from ‘Product’ to ‘Product2’. I’ve done this to help understand the transient nature of the instance of the type Product2. By making this change, you are basically saying when a type of IProduct needs to be resolved, Unity should create an instance of Product2 by default. 1: public string WriteProductDetails() 2: { 3: return string.Format("Name: {0}<br/>Category: {1}<br/>Mfg Date: {2}<br/>Hash Code: {3}", 4: Name, Category, MfgDate.ToString("MM/dd/yyyy hh:mm:ss tt"), GetHashCode()); 5: } Again, the above change is purely for the purpose of making the example more clear to understand. The display will show the full date and also displays the hash code of the current instance. The GetHashCode() method returns an integer when an instance gets created – a new integer for every instance. When you run the application, you’ll see something like the below: Now when you click on the ‘Get Product2 Instance’ button, you’ll see that the Mfg Date (which is set in the constructor) and the Hash Code are different from the one created on page load. This proves to us that a new instance is created every single time. To make this a singleton, we need to add a type alias for the ContainerControlledLifetimeManager class and then change the type attribute of the lifetime element to singleton. 1: <typeAlias alias="singleton" type="Microsoft.Practices.Unity.ContainerControlledLifetimeManager, Microsoft.Practices.Unity"/> 2: ... 3: <type type="IProduct" mapTo="Product2"> 4: <lifetime type="singleton" /> 5: </type> Running the application now gets me the following output: Click on the button below and you’ll see that the Mfg Date and the Hash code remain unchanged => the unity container is storing the reference the first time it is created and then returns the same instance every time the type needs to be resolved. Digging more deeper into this, Unity provides more than the two lifetime managers. ExternallyControlledLifetimeManager – maintains a weak reference to type mappings and instances. Unity returns the same instance as long as the some code is holding a strong reference to this instance. For this, you need: 1: <typeAlias alias="external" type="Microsoft.Practices.Unity.ExternallyControlledLifetimeManager, Microsoft.Practices.Unity"/> 2: ... 3: <type type="IProduct" mapTo="Product2"> 4: <lifetime type="external" /> 5: </type> PerThreadLifetimeManager – Unity returns a unique instance of an object for each thread – so this effectively is a singleton behavior on a  per-thread basis. 1: <typeAlias alias="perThread" type="Microsoft.Practices.Unity.PerThreadLifetimeManager, Microsoft.Practices.Unity"/> 2: ... 3: <type type="IProduct" mapTo="Product2"> 4: <lifetime type="perThread" /> 5: </type> One thing to note about this is that if you use RegisterInstance method to register an existing object, this instance will be returned for every thread, making this a purely singleton behavior. Needless to say, this type of lifetime management is useful in multi-threaded applications (duh!!). I hope this blog provided some basics on lifetime management of objects resolved in Unity and in the next blog, I’ll talk about Injection. Please see the code used here.

    Read the article

  • Error: The base type 'System.Web.UI.MasterPage' is not allowed for this page

    - by Patrick Olurotimi Ige
    I came across this error when i was trying to ajaxify my sharepoint site. After adding the AjaxifyMoss from the codeplex  developed by Richard Finn. And tried loading my site i got the error Error: The base type 'System.Web.UI.MasterPage' is not allowed for this page So  i decided to check the web.config and i noticed the SafeControl tag doesn't have the .Net 2.0 assembly included despite the fact i added both vsersios 2.0 and 3.5. Its possible the.Net  3.5 assebply overwrote the 2.0. Anyway after i added the below which is the 2.0 verison       <SafeControl Assembly="System.Web, Version=2.0.0.0, Culture=neutral, PublicKeyToken=b03f5f7f11d50a3a" Namespace="System.Web.UI" TypeName="*" Safe="True" AllowRemoteDesigner="True" />  And refreshed my page. It worked

    Read the article

  • Print Any Document Type with AutoVue Document Print Services

    - by [email protected]
    The newly released AutoVue Document Print Services allow development organizations to automate and process high volume printing operations, of both business and technical document types, within their broader enterprise applications. For many organizations, their printing processes are challenged by the fact that they can only print a small subset of the documents required by their enterprise users. By integrating AutoVue Document Print Services, and deploying them in conjunction with their existing print server solutions, organizations can address that challenge and automate the printing of virtually any document type required in any business process, greatly extending the value of their print server solutions, and improving business processes and workforce productivity. For further details, check out the AutoVue Document Print Services datasheet.

    Read the article

  • Fix: WCF - The type provided as the Service attribute value in the ServiceHost directive could not

    - by Ken Cox [MVP]
    I wanted to expose some raw data to users in my current ASP.NET 3.5 web site project. I created a subdirectory called ‘datafeeds’ and added a WCF Data Service. I wired the dataservice up to the Entity Framework class and, on running the ItemDataService.svc file, was greeted with: The type  <> provided as the Service attribute value in the ServiceHost directive could not be found So why couldn’t it find the class? It was right there in the… oops! Instead of putting the ItemDataService.vb...(read more)

    Read the article

  • WCF/ADO.NET Data Services - Could not load type 'System.Data.Services.Providers.IDataServiceUpdatePr

    - by Sahil Malik
    Ad:: SharePoint 2007 Training in .NET 3.5 technologies (more information). When you try accessing ListData.svc, do you get the following error? Could not load type 'System.Data.Services.Providers.IDataServiceUpdateProvider' from assembly 'System.Data.Services, Version=3.5.0.0, Culture=neutral, PublicKeyToken=b77a5c561934e089'. Well, if you followed the instructions in Chapter 1 of my book to build your VM, you wouldn’t run into the above issue. But if you do, you need to install  -   For Windows Vista and Windows 2008 - http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?familyid=4B710B89-8576-46CF-A4BF-331A9306D555&displaylang=en For Windows 7 and Windows 2008 R2 - http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?familyid=79d7f6f8-d6e9-4b8c-8640-17f89452148e&displaylang=en Remember to: a) Install the x64 version, and b) Do an IISReset before trying again. Comment on the article ....

    Read the article

  • Java default Integer value is int

    - by Chris Okyen
    My code looks like this import java.util.Scanner; public class StudentGrades { public static void main(String[] argv) { Scanner keyboard = new Scanner(System.in); byte q1 = keyboard.nextByte() * 10; } } It gives me an error "Type mismatch: cannot convert from int to byte." Why the heck would Java store a literal operand that is small enough to fit in a byte,. into a int type? Do literals get stored in variables/registers before the ALU performs arithmatic operations.

    Read the article

  • User has not been granted the requested logon type for this computer

    - by Sahil Malik
    SharePoint 2010 Training: more information You may have noted in SharePoint 2013 that the sign in as a different user link is missing. I can imagine why Microsoft took it out, with claims, office apps, and expiring cookies, it was more of a pain than help. But, us devadmins are different – we need “Sign in As”. There are two ways around this problem, a) CTRL_SHIFT_RIGHT_CLICK on your browser, and choose run as different user. Here, run the browser as a different user – note this only works with windows based credentials. One common error you may encounter here is “User has not been granted the requested logon type for this computer”. Here is how to fix that - Read full article ....

    Read the article

  • Index page content identical to page 1 of a gallery-type website

    - by WordPress Developer
    I have a gallery type website, e.g. a site that lists blog posts or pictures in a paginated manner. However, I have 2 pages that have identical content: example.com/index.html example.com/page/1 Page 2, 3 and so on have different content naturally. However, for SEO purposes, what is the best way of telling Google that page 1 is identical to index.html? Should I 302 redirect index.html to /page/1 so index.html is non-existent, so to say or should I put a canonical tag in /page/1 (but not on /page/2) that points to index.html?

    Read the article

  • Mocking successive calls of similar type via sequential mocking

    - by mehfuzh
    In this post , i show how you can benefit from  sequential mocking feature[In JustMock] for setting up expectations with successive calls of same type.  To start let’s first consider the following dummy database and entity class. public class Person {     public virtual string Name { get; set; }     public virtual int Age { get; set; } }   public interface IDataBase {     T Get<T>(); } Now, our test goal is to return different entity for successive calls on IDataBase.Get<T>(). By default, the behavior in JustMock is override , which is similar to other popular mocking tools. By override it means that the tool will consider always the latest user setup. Therefore, the first example will return the latest entity every-time and will fail in line #12: Person person1 = new Person { Age = 30, Name = "Kosev" }; Person person2 = new Person { Age = 80, Name = "Mihail" };   var database = Mock.Create<IDataBase>();   Queue<Person> queue = new Queue<Person>();   Mock.Arrange(() => database.Get<Person>()).Returns(() => queue.Dequeue()); Mock.Arrange(() => database.Get<Person>()).Returns(person2);   // this will fail Assert.Equal(person1.GetHashCode(), database.Get<Person>().GetHashCode());   Assert.Equal(person2.GetHashCode(), database.Get<Person>().GetHashCode()); We can solve it the following way using a Queue and that removes the item from bottom on each call: Person person1 = new Person { Age = 30, Name = "Kosev" }; Person person2 = new Person { Age = 80, Name = "Mihail" };   var database = Mock.Create<IDataBase>();   Queue<Person> queue = new Queue<Person>();   queue.Enqueue(person1); queue.Enqueue(person2);   Mock.Arrange(() => database.Get<Person>()).Returns(queue.Dequeue());   Assert.Equal(person1.GetHashCode(), database.Get<Person>().GetHashCode()); Assert.Equal(person2.GetHashCode(), database.Get<Person>().GetHashCode()); This will ensure that right entity is returned but this is not an elegant solution. So, in JustMock we introduced a  new option that lets you set up your expectations sequentially. Like: Person person1 = new Person { Age = 30, Name = "Kosev" }; Person person2 = new Person { Age = 80, Name = "Mihail" };   var database = Mock.Create<IDataBase>();   Mock.Arrange(() => database.Get<Person>()).Returns(person1).InSequence(); Mock.Arrange(() => database.Get<Person>()).Returns(person2).InSequence();   Assert.Equal(person1.GetHashCode(), database.Get<Person>().GetHashCode()); Assert.Equal(person2.GetHashCode(), database.Get<Person>().GetHashCode()); The  “InSequence” modifier will tell the mocking tool to return the expected result as in the order it is specified by user. The solution though pretty simple and but neat(to me) and way too simpler than using a collection to solve this type of cases. Hope that helps P.S. The example shown in my blog is using interface don’t require a profiler  and you can even use a notepad and build it referencing Telerik.JustMock.dll, run it with GUI tools and it will work. But this feature also applies to concrete methods that includes JM profiler and can be implemented for more complex scenarios.

    Read the article

  • Mocking successive calls of similar type via sequential mocking

    In this post , i show how you can benefit from  sequential mocking feature[In JustMock] for setting up expectations with successive calls of same type.  To start lets first consider the following dummy database and entity class. public class Person { public virtual string Name { get; set; } public virtual int Age { get; set; } }   public interface IDataBase { T Get<T>(); } Now, our test goal is to return different entity for successive calls on IDataBase.Get<T>()....Did you know that DotNetSlackers also publishes .net articles written by top known .net Authors? We already have over 80 articles in several categories including Silverlight. Take a look: here.

    Read the article

  • Corona SDK (Lua) vs Native Obj-C for iPhone only word puzzle type game [closed]

    - by dodgy_coder
    I am trying to decide on whether to use the Corona SDK & Lua versus native Objective-C to develop an iOS app. This will be the first game on any smartphone I have developed and so its not that ambitious - a single player word puzzle type game - something sort of like scrabble. The advantages of Corona I can see are: Lua is probably easier to learn than Obj-C (shorter learning curve) meaning a possibly quicker development time Possibility to port to Android once its finished Advantages of native Obj-C are: Access to all and latest features of iOS More / faster available libraries Has anyone made this decision before? Are there any major advantages or disadvantages I've missed or got wrong here? Thanks.

    Read the article

  • Scala factory pattern returns unusable abstract type

    - by GGGforce
    Please let me know how to make the following bit of code work as intended. The problem is that the Scala compiler doesn't understand that my factory is returning a concrete class, so my object can't be used later. Can TypeTags or type parameters help? Or do I need to refactor the code some other way? I'm (obviously) new to Scala. trait Animal trait DomesticatedAnimal extends Animal trait Pet extends DomesticatedAnimal {var name: String = _} class Wolf extends Animal class Cow extends DomesticatedAnimal class Dog extends Pet object Animal { def apply(aType: String) = { aType match { case "wolf" => new Wolf case "cow" => new Cow case "dog" => new Dog } } } def name(a: Pet, name: String) { a.name = name println(a +"'s name is: " + a.name) } val d = Animal("dog") name(d, "fred") The last line of code fails because the compiler thinks d is an Animal, not a Dog.

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27  | Next Page >