Search Results

Search found 4593 results on 184 pages for 'constructor injection'.

Page 22/184 | < Previous Page | 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29  | Next Page >

  • Connect ViewModel and View using Unity

    - by brainbox
    In this post i want to describe the approach of connecting View and ViewModel which I'm using in my last project.The main idea is to do it during resolve inside of unity container. It can be achived using InjectionFactory introduced in Unity 2.0 public static class MVVMUnityExtensions{    public static void RegisterView<TView, TViewModel>(this IUnityContainer container) where TView : FrameworkElement    {        container.RegisterView<TView, TView, TViewModel>();    }    public static void RegisterView<TViewFrom, TViewTo, TViewModel>(this IUnityContainer container)        where TViewTo : FrameworkElement, TViewFrom    {        container.RegisterType<TViewFrom>(new InjectionFactory(            c =>            {                var model = c.Resolve<TViewModel>();                var view = Activator.CreateInstance<TViewTo>();                view.DataContext = model;                return view;            }         ));    }}}And here is the sample how it could be used:var unityContainer = new UnityContainer();unityContainer.RegisterView<IFooView, FooView, FooViewModel>();IFooView view = unityContainer.Resolve<IFooView>(); // view with injected viewmodel in its datacontextPlease tell me your prefered way to connect viewmodel and view.

    Read the article

  • Test interface implementation

    - by Michael
    I have a interface in our code base that I would like to be able to mock out for unit testing. I am writing a test implementation to allow the individual tests to be able to override the specific methods they are concerned with rather than implementing every method. I've run into a quandary over how the test implementation should behave if the test fails to override a method used by the method under test. Should I return a "non-value" (0, null) in the test implementation or throw a UnsupportedOperationException to explicitly fail the test?

    Read the article

  • How to TDD test that objects are being added to a collection if the collection is private?

    - by Joshua Harris
    Assume that I planned to write a class that worked something like this: public class GameCharacter { private Collection<CharacterEffect> _collection; public void Add(CharacterEffect e) { ... } public void Remove(CharacterEffect e) { ... } public void Contains(CharacterEffect e) { ... } } When added an effect does something to the character and is then added to the _collection. When it is removed the effect reverts the change to the character and is removed from the _collection. It's easy to test if the effect was applied to the character, but how do I test that the effect was added to _collection? What test could I write to start constructing this class. I could write a test where Contains would return true for a certain effect being in _collection, but I can't arrange a case where that function would return true because I haven't implemented the Add method that is needed to place things in _collection. Ok, so since Contains is dependent on having Add working, then why don't I try to create Add first. Well for my first test I need to try and figure out if the effect was added to the _collection. How would I do that? The only way to see if an effect is in _collection is with the Contains function. The only way that I could think to test this would be to use a FakeCollection that Mocks the Add, Remove, and Contains of a real collection, but I don't want _collection being affected by outside sources. I don't want to add a setEffects(Collection effects) function, because I do not want the class to have that functionality. The one thing that I am thinking could work is this: public class GameCharacter<C extends Collection> { private Collection<CharacterEffect> _collection; public GameCharacter() { _collection = new C<CharacterEffect>(); } } But, that is just silly making me declare what some private data structures type is on every declaration of the character. Is there a way for me to test this without breaking TDD principles while still allowing me to keep my collection private?

    Read the article

  • How to use DI and DI containers

    - by Pinetree
    I am building a small PHP mvc framework (yes, yet another one), mostly for learning purposes, and I am trying to do it the right way, so I'd like to use a DI container, but I am not asking which one to use but rather how to use one. Without going into too much detail, the mvc is divided into modules which have controllers which render views for actions. This is how a request is processed: a Main object instantiates a Request object, and a Router, and injects the Request into the Router to figure out which module was called. then it instantiates the Module object and sends the Request to that the Module creates a ModuleRouter and sends the Request to figure out the controller and action it then creates the Controller and the ViewRenderer, and injects the ViewRenderer into the Controller (so that the controller can send data to the view) the ViewRenderer needs to know which module, controller and action were called to figure out the path to the view scripts, so the Module has to figure out this and inject it to the ViewRenderer the Module then calls the action method on the controller and calls the render method on the ViewRenderer For now, I do not have any DI container set up, but what I do have are a bunch of initX() methods that create the required component if it is not already there. For instance, the Module has the initViewRenderer() method. These init methods get called right before that component is needed, not before, and if the component was already set it will not initialize it. This allows for the components to be switched, but it does not require manually setting them if they are not there. Now, I'd like to do this by implementing a DI container, but still keep the manual configuration to a bare minimum, so if the directory structure and naming convention is followed, everything should work, without even touching the config. If I use the DI container, do I then inject it into everything (the container would inject itself when creating a component), so that other components can use it? When do I register components with the DI? Can a component register other components with the DI during run-time? Do I create a 'common' config and use that? How do I then figure out on the fly which components I need and how they need to be set up? If Main uses Router which uses Request, Main then needs to use the container to get Module (or does the module need to be found and set beforehand? How?) Module uses Router but needs to figure out the settings for the ViewRenderer and the Controller on the fly, not in advance, so my DI container can't be setting those on the Module before the module figures out the controller and action... What if the controller needs some other service? Do I inject the container into every controller? If I start doing that, I might just inject it into everything... Basically I am looking for the best practices when dealing with stuff like this. I know what DI is and what DI containers do, but I am looking for guidance to using them in real life, and not some isolated examples on the net. Sorry for the lengthy post and many thanks in advance.

    Read the article

  • Software Architecture and MEF composition location

    - by Leonardo
    Introduction My software (a bunch of webapi's) consist of 4 projects: Core, FrontWebApi, Library and Administration. Library is a code library project that consists of only interfaces and enumerators. All my classes in other projects inherit from at least one interface, and this interface is in the library. Generally speaking, my interfaces define either Entities, Repositories or Controllers. This project references no other project or any special dlls... just the regular .Net stuff... Core is a class-library project where concrete implementation of Entities and Repositories. In some cases i have more than 1 implementation for a Repository (ex: one for azure table storage and one for regular Sql). This project handles the intelligence (business rules mostly) and persistence, and it references only the Library. FrontWebApi is a ASP.NET MVC 4 WebApi project that implements the controllers interfaces to handle web-requests (from a mobile native app)... It references the Core and the Library. Administration is a code-library project that represents a "optional-module", meaning: if it is present, it provides extra-features (such as Access Control Lists) to the application, but if its not, no problem. Administration is also only referencing the Library and implementing concrete classes of a few interfaces such as "IAccessControlEntry"... I intend to make this available with a "setup" that will create any required database table or anything like that. But it is important to notice that the Core has no reference to this project... Development Now, in order to have a decoupled code I decide to use IoC and because this is a small project, I decided to do it using MEF, specially because of its advertised "composition" capabilities. I arranged all the imports/exports and constructors and everything, but something is quite not perfect in my "mental-visualisation": Main Question Where should I "Compose" the objects? I mean: Technically, the only place where real implementation access is required is in the Repositories, because in order to retrieve data from wherever, entities instances will be necessary, and in all other places. The repositories could also provide a public "GetCleanInstanceOf()" right? Then all other places will be just fine working with the interfaces instead of concrete classes... Secondary Question Should "Administration" implement the concrete object for "IAccessControlGeneralRepository" or the Core should?

    Read the article

  • Explicitly pass context object versus injecting with IoC

    - by SonOfPirate
    I have a layered service application where the service layer delegates operations into the domain layer for execution. Many of these operations need to know the context under which they are operation. (The context included the identity of the current user, culture information, etc. received from the caller.) For example, I have an API method that returns a list of announcements. The list is based on the current user's role and each announcement is localized to their culture. The API is a thin-facade that delegates to an Application Service in my domain layer. The Application Service method obviously needs to know the context of the current request/operation as another call to the same API from another user should result in a different list. Within this method, we also have logging that uses some of the context information so we a clear understanding of the context when the operation was performed (this is especially useful if something goes wrong.) While this is a contrived example, in the real world, my Application Services will coordinate operations with many collaborative components, any number of them also needing the context information. My choice is to pass the context to the Application Service which would then pass it with any calls to collaborators or have the IoC container satisfy the dependency the Application Service and any collaborators have on the context. I am wondering if it is considered good/bad, best practices/code smell, etc. if I pass the context object as a parameter to the domain methods or if injecting the context via an IoC container is preferred. (EDIT: I should mention that the context object is instantiated per-request.)

    Read the article

  • Pooling (Singleton) Objects Against Connection Pools

    - by kolossus
    Given the following scenario A canned enterprise application that maintains its own connection pool A homegrown client application to the enterprise app. This app is built using Spring framework, with the DAO pattern While I may have a simplistic view of this, I think the following line of thinking is sound: Having a fixed pool of DAO objects, holding on to connection objects from the pool. Clearly, the pool should be capable of scaling up (or down depending on need) and the connection objects must outnumber the DAOs by a healthy margin. Good Instantiating brand new DAOs for every request to access the enterprise app; each DAO will attempt to grab a connection from the pool and release it when it's done. Bad Since these are service objects, there will be no (mutable) state held by the objects (reduced risk of concurrency issues) I also think that with #1, there should be little to no resource contention, while in #2, there'll almost always be a DAO waiting to be serviced. Is my thinking correct and what could go wrong?

    Read the article

  • Multiple Zend application code organisation

    - by user966936
    For the past year I have been working on a series of applications all based on the Zend framework and centered on a complex business logic that all applications must have access to even if they don't use all (easier than having multiple library folders for each application as they are all linked together with a common center). Without going into much detail about what the project is specifically about, I am looking for some input (as I am working on the project alone) on how I have "grouped" my code. I have tried to split it all up in such a way that it removes dependencies as much as possible. I'm trying to keep it as decoupled as I logically can, so in 12 months time when my time is up anyone else coming in can have no problem extending on what I have produced. Example structure: applicationStorage\ (contains all applications and associated data) applicationStorage\Applications\ (contains the applications themselves) applicationStorage\Applications\external\ (application grouping folder) (contains all external customer access applications) applicationStorage\Applications\external\site\ (main external customer access application) applicationStorage\Applications\external\site\Modules\ applicationStorage\Applications\external\site\Config\ applicationStorage\Applications\external\site\Layouts\ applicationStorage\Applications\external\site\ZendExtended\ (contains extended Zend classes specific to this application example: ZendExtended_Controller_Action extends zend_controller_Action ) applicationStorage\Applications\external\mobile\ (mobile external customer access application different workflow limited capabilities compared to full site version) applicationStorage\Applications\internal\ (application grouping folder) (contains all internal company applications) applicationStorage\Applications\internal\site\ (main internal application) applicationStorage\Applications\internal\mobile\ (mobile access has different flow and limited abilities compared to main site version) applicationStorage\Tests\ (contains PHP unit tests) applicationStorage\Library\ applicationStorage\Library\Service\ (contains all business logic, services and servicelocator; these are completely decoupled from Zend framework and rely on models' interfaces) applicationStorage\Library\Zend\ (Zend framework) applicationStorage\Library\Models\ (doesn't know services but is linked to Zend framework for DB operations; contains model interfaces and model datamappers for all business objects; examples include Iorder/IorderMapper, Iworksheet/IWorksheetMapper, Icustomer/IcustomerMapper) (Note: the Modules, Config, Layouts and ZendExtended folders are duplicated in each application folder; but i have omitted them as they are not required for my purposes.) For the library this contains all "universal" code. The Zend framework is at the heart of all applications, but I wanted my business logic to be Zend-framework-independent. All model and mapper interfaces have no public references to Zend_Db but actually wrap around it in private. So my hope is that in the future I will be able to rewrite the mappers and dbtables (containing a Models_DbTable_Abstract that extends Zend_Db_Table_Abstract) in order to decouple my business logic from the Zend framework if I want to move my business logic (services) to a non-Zend framework environment (maybe some other PHP framework). Using a serviceLocator and registering the required services within the bootstrap of each application, I can use different versions of the same service depending on the request and which application is being accessed. Example: all external applications will have a service_auth_External implementing service_auth_Interface registered. Same with internal aplications with Service_Auth_Internal implementing service_auth_Interface Service_Locator::getService('Auth'). I'm concerned I may be missing some possible problems with this. One I'm half-thinking about is a config.ini file for all externals, then a separate application config.ini overriding or adding to the global external config.ini. If anyone has any suggestions I would be greatly appreciative. I have used contextswitching for AJAX functions within the individual applications, but there is a big chance both external and internal will get web services created for them. Again, these will be separated due to authorization and different available services. \applicationstorage\Applications\internal\webservice \applicationstorage\Applications\external\webservice

    Read the article

  • How best to construct our test subjects in unit tests?

    - by Liath
    Some of our business logic classes require quite a few dependencies (in our case 7-10). As such when we come to unit test these the creation become quite complex. In most tests these dependencies are often not required (only some dependencies are required for particular methods). As a result unit tests often require a significant number of lines of code to mock up these useless dependencies (which can't be null because of null checks). For example: [Test] public void TestMethodA() { var dependency5 = new Mock<IDependency1>(); dependency5.Setup(x => x. // some setup var sut = new Sut(new Mock<IDependency1>().Object, new Mock<IDependency2>().Object, new Mock<IDependency3>().Object, new Mock<IDependency4>().Object, dependency5); Assert.SomeAssert(sut.MethodA()); } In this example almost half the test is taken up creating dependencies which aren't used. I've investigated an approach where I have a helper method. [Test] public void TestMethodA() { var dependency5 = new Mock<IDependency1>(); dependency5.Setup(x => x. // some setup var sut = CreateSut(null, null, null, null, dependency5); Assert.SomeAssert(sut.MethodA()); } private Sut CreateSut(IDependency1 d1, IDependency2 d2...) { return new Sut(d1 ?? new Mock<IDependency1>().Object, d2 ?? new Mock<IDependency2>().Object, } But these often grow very complicated very quickly. What is the best way to create these BLL classes in test classes to reduce complexity and simplify tests?

    Read the article

  • SQL Injection Protection for dynamic queries

    - by jbugeja
    The typical controls against SQL injection flaws are to use bind variables (cfqueryparam tag), validation of string data and to turn to stored procedures for the actual SQL layer. This is all fine and I agree, however what if the site is a legacy one and it features a lot of dynamic queries. Then, rewriting all the queries is a herculean task and it requires an extensive period of regression and performance testing. I was thinking of using a dynamic SQL filter and calling it prior to calling cfquery for the actual execution. I found one filter in CFLib.org (http://www.cflib.org/udf/sqlSafe): <cfscript> /** * Cleans string of potential sql injection. * * @param string String to modify. (Required) * @return Returns a string. * @author Bryan Murphy ([email protected]) * @version 1, May 26, 2005 */ function metaguardSQLSafe(string) { var sqlList = "-- ,'"; var replacementList = "#chr(38)##chr(35)##chr(52)##chr(53)##chr(59)##chr(38)##chr(35)##chr(52)##chr(53)##chr(59)# , #chr(38)##chr(35)##chr(51)##chr(57)##chr(59)#"; return trim(replaceList( string , sqlList , replacementList )); } </cfscript> This seems to be quite a simple filter and I would like to know if there are ways to improve it or to come up with a better solution?

    Read the article

  • Android Custom View Constructor

    - by Mitch
    I'm learning about using Custom Views from the following: http://developer.android.com/guide/topics/ui/custom-components.html#modifying The description says: Class Initialization As always, the super is called first. Furthermore, this is not a default constructor, but a parameterized one. The EditText is created with these parameters when it is inflated from an XML layout file, thus, our constructor needs to both take them and pass them to the superclass constructor as well. Is there a better description? I've been trying to figure out what the constructor(s) should look like and I've come up with 4 possible choices (see example at end of post). I'm not sure what these 4 choices do (or don't do), why I should implement them, or what the parameters mean. Is there a description of these? Thanks. Mitch public MyCustomView() { super(); } public MyCustomView(Context context) { super(context); } public MyCustomView(Context context, AttributeSet attrs) { super(context, attrs); } public MyCustomView(Context context, AttributeSet attrs, Map params) { super(context, attrs, params); }

    Read the article

  • Boost Python : How to only expose the constructor of a class with virtual (pure & impure) methods

    - by fallino
    Hello, I'm a newbie with Boost::Python but I tried to search on the web to do so I want to expose a 3rd party library to Python. One of the class of the library (.hpp) is composed of a public constructor with arguments a protected constructor and functions various regular functions various pure virtual functions various non pure virtual functions First, I did not succeed in building it without having errors about this protected constructor. I finally commented it. A first question would be : Is there a way to exclude these protected functions since I don't want to expose them ? (I know it's possible and easy with Py++, but I started without using it) Then I tried to expose all of my functions, beginning with the pure virtual ones (commenting them all except one), which wasn't a success too So I finally decided not to expose these virtual functions (which in fact seems logical...), but, here again, I didn't manage building it with a simple constructor with arguments (without no_init). So my second question is : Is there a way to exclude these virtual functions since I don't want to expose them ? Sorry if it seems trivial but I didn't find anything explicit on the web and I need something rather explicit :). Thanks in advance

    Read the article

  • Swig: No Constructor defined

    - by wheaties
    I added %allowexcept to my *.i file when building a Python <-- C++ bridge using Swig. Then I removed that preprocessing directive. Now I can't get the Python produced code to recognize the constructor of a C++ class. Here's the class file: #include <exception> class Swig_Foo{ public: Swig_Foo(){} virtual ~Swig_Foo(){} virtual getInt() =0; virtual throwException() { throw std::exception(); } }; And here's the code Swig produces from it: class Swig_Foo: __swig_setmethods__ = {} __setattr__ = lambda self, name, value: _swig_setattr(self, Swig_Foo, name, value) __swig_getmethods__ = {} __getattr__ = lambda self, name: _swig_getattr(self, Swig_Foo, name) def __init__(self): raise AttributeError, "No constructor defined" __repr__ = _swig_repr __swig_destroy__ = _foo.delete_Swig_Foo __del__ = lambda self : None; def getInt(*args): return apply(_foo.Swig_Foo_getInt, args) def throwOut(*args): return apply(_foo.Swig_Foo_throwOut, args) Swig_Foo_swigregister = _foo.Swig_Foo_swigregister Swig_Foo_swigregister(Swig_Foo) The problem is the def __init__self): raise AttributeError, "No constructor defined" portion. It never did this before I added the %allowexception and now that I've removed it, I can't get it to create a real constructor. All the other classes have actual constructors. Quite baffled. Anyone know how I can get it to stop doing this?

    Read the article

  • Constructor and Destructors in C++ [Not a question] [closed]

    - by Jack
    I am using gcc. Please tell me if I am wrong - Lets say I have two classes A & B class A { public: A(){cout<<"A constructor"<<endl;} ~A(){cout<<"A destructor"<<endl;} }; class B:public A { public: B(){cout<<"B constructor"<<endl;} ~B(){cout<<"B destructor"<<endl;} }; 1) The first line in B's constructor should be a call to A's constructor ( I assume compiler automatically inserts it). Also the last line in B's destructor will be a call to A's destructor (compiler does it again). Why was it built this way? 2) When I say A * a = new B(); compiler creates a new B object and checks to see if A is a base class of B and if it is it allows 'a' to point to the newly created object. I guess that is why we don't need any virtual constructors. ( with help from @Tyler McHenry , @Konrad Rudolph) 3) When I write delete a compiler sees that a is an object of type A so it calls A's destructor leading to a problem which is solved by making A's destructor virtual. As user - Little Bobby Tables pointed out to me all destructors have the same name destroy() in memory so we can implement virtual destructors and now the call is made to B's destructor and all is well in C++ land. Please comment.

    Read the article

  • Dependency Properties, change notification and setting values in the constructor

    - by stefan.at.wpf
    Hello, I have a clas with 3 dependency properties A,B,C. The values of these properties are set by the constructor and every time one of the properties A, B or C changes, the method recalculate() is called. Now during execution of the constructor these method is called 3 times, because the 3 properties A, B, C are changed. Hoewever this isn't necessary as the method recalculate() can't do anything really useful without all 3 properties set. So what's the best way for property change notification but circumventing this change notification in the constructor? I thought about adding the property changed notification in the constructor, but then each object of the DPChangeSample class would always add more and more change notifications. Thanks for any hint! class DPChangeSample : DependencyObject { public static DependencyProperty AProperty = DependencyProperty.Register("A", typeof(int), typeof(DPChangeSample), new PropertyMetadata(propertyChanged)); public static DependencyProperty BProperty = DependencyProperty.Register("B", typeof(int), typeof(DPChangeSample), new PropertyMetadata(propertyChanged)); public static DependencyProperty CProperty = DependencyProperty.Register("C", typeof(int), typeof(DPChangeSample), new PropertyMetadata(propertyChanged)); private static void propertyChanged(DependencyObject d, DependencyPropertyChangedEventArgs e) { ((DPChangeSample)d).recalculate(); } private void recalculate() { // Using A, B, C do some cpu intensive caluclations } public DPChangeSample(int a, int b, int c) { SetValue(AProperty, a); SetValue(BProperty, b); SetValue(CProperty, c); } }

    Read the article

  • Attaching methods to prototype from within constructor function

    - by Matthew Taylor
    Here is the textbook standard way of describing a 'class' or constructor function in JavaScript, straight from the Definitive Guide to JavaScript: function Rectangle(w,h) { this.width = w; this.height = h; } Rectangle.prototype.area = function() { return this.width * this.height; }; I don't like the dangling prototype manipulation here, so I was trying to think of a way to encapsulate the function definition for area inside the constructor. I came up with this, which I did not expect to work: function Rectangle(w,h) { this.width = w; this.height = h; this.constructor.prototype.area = function() { return this.width * this.height; }; } I didn't expect this to work because the this reference inside the area function should be pointing to the area function itself, so I wouldn't have access to width and height from this. But it turns out I do! var rect = new Rectangle(2,3); var area = rect.area(); // great scott! it is 6 Some further testing confirmed that the this reference inside the area function actually was a reference to the object under construction, not the area function itself. function Rectangle(w,h) { this.width = w; this.height = h; var me = this; this.constructor.prototype.whatever = function() { if (this === me) { alert ('this is not what you think');} }; } Turns out the alert pops up, and this is exactly the object under construction. So what is going on here? Why is this not the this I expect it to be?

    Read the article

  • Constructor and Destructors in C++ work?

    - by Jack
    I am using gcc. Please tell me if I am wrong - Lets say I have two classes A & B class A { public: A(){cout<<"A constructor"<<endl;} ~A(){cout<<"A destructor"<<endl;} }; class B:public A { public: B(){cout<<"B constructor"<<endl;} ~B(){cout<<"B destructor"<<endl;} }; 1) The first line in B's constructor should be a call to A's constructor ( I assume compiler automatically inserts it). Also the last line in B's destructor will be a call to A's destructor (compiler does it again). Why was it built this way? 2) When I say A * a = new B(); compiler creates a new B object and checks to see if A is a base class of B and if it is it allows 'a' to point to the newly created object. I guess that is why we don't need any virtual constructors. ( with help from @Tyler McHenry , @Konrad Rudolph) 3) When I write delete a compiler sees that a is an object of type A so it calls A's destructor leading to a problem which is solved by making A's destructor virtual. As user - Little Bobby Tables pointed out to me all destructors have the same name destroy() in memory so we can implement virtual destructors and now the call is made to B's destructor and all is well in C++ land. Please comment.

    Read the article

  • Calling a constructor from method within the same class

    - by Nathan
    I'm new to java and I'm learning about creating object classes. One of my homework assignment requires that I call the constructor at least once within a method of the same object class. I'm getting an error that says The method DoubleMatrix(double[][]) is undefined for the type DoubleMatrix Here's my constructor: public DoubleMatrix(double[][] tempArray) { // Declaration int flag = 0; int cnt; // Statement // check to see if doubArray isn't null and has more than 0 rows if(tempArray == null || tempArray.length < 0) { flag++; } // check to see if each row has the same length if(flag == 0) { for(cnt = 0; cnt <= tempArray.length - 1 || flag != 1; cnt++) { if(tempArray[cnt + 1].length != tempArray[0].length) { flag++; } } } else if(flag == 1) { makeDoubMatrix(1, 1);// call makeDoubMatrix method } }// end constructor 2 Here's the method where I try and call the constructor: public double[][] addMatrix(double[][] tempDoub) { // Declaration double[][] newMatrix; int rCnt, cCnt; //Statement // checking to see if both are of same dimension if(doubMatrix.length == tempDoub.length && doubMatrix[0].length == tempDoub[0].length) { newMatrix = new double[doubMatrix.length][doubMatrix[0].length]; // for loop to add matrix to a new one for(rCnt = 0; rCnt <= doubMatrix.length; rCnt++) { for(cCnt = 0; cCnt <= doubMatrix.length; cCnt++) { newMatrix[rCnt][cCnt] = doubMatrix[rCnt][cCnt] + tempDoub[rCnt][cCnt]; } } } else { newMatrix = new double[0][0]; DoubleMatrix(newMatrix) } return newMatrix; }// end addMatrix method Can someone point me to the right direction and explain why I'm getting an error?

    Read the article

  • Constructors + Dependency Injection

    - by Sunny
    If I am writing up a class with more than 1 constructor parameter like: class A{ public A(Dependency1 d1, Dependency2 d2, ...){} } I usually create a "argument holder"-type of class like: class AArgs{ public Dependency1 d1 { get; private set; } public Dependency2 d2 { get; private set; } ... } and then: class A{ public A(AArgs args){} } Typically, using a DI-container I can configure the constructor for dependencies & resolve them & so there is minimum impact when the constructors need to change. Is this considered an anti-pattern and/or any arguments against doing this?

    Read the article

  • c# copy constructor generator

    - by Shawn Mclean
    I want to copy values from one object to another object. Something similiar to pass by value but with assignment. Eg. PushPin newValPushPin = oldPushPin; //I want to break the reference here. I was told to write a copy constructor for this. But this class has alot of properties, it will probably take an hour to write a copy constructor by hand. Is there a better way to assign an object to another object by value? If not, is there a copy constructor generator?

    Read the article

  • Constructor in a Interface?

    - by Sebi
    I know its not possible to define a constructor in a interface. But im wondering why, because i think i could be very useful. So you could be sure that some fields in a class are defined for every implementaiton of this interface. For example consider the following message class: public class MyMessage { public MyMessage(String receiver) { this.receiver = receiver; } private String receiver; public void send() { //some implementation for sending the mssage to the receiver } } If a define a Interface for this class so that i can have more classes which implement the message interface, i can only define the send method and not the constructor. So how can i assure that every implementation of this class really has an receiver setted? If i use a method like setReceiver(String receiver) i can't be sure that this method is really called. In the constructor i could assure it.

    Read the article

  • FxCop giving a warning on private constructor CA1823 and CA1053

    - by Luis Sánchez
    I have a class that looks like the following: Public Class Utilities Public Shared Function blah(userCode As String) As String 'doing some stuff End Function End Class I'm running FxCop 10 on it and it says: "Because type 'Utilities' contains only 'static' ( 'Shared' in Visual Basic) members, add a default private constructor to prevent the compiler from adding a default public constructor." Ok, you're right Mr. FxCop, I'll add a private constructor: Private Utilities() Now I'm having: "It appears that field 'Utilities.Utilities' is never used or is only ever assigned to. Use this field or remove it." Any ideas of what should I do to get rid of both warnings?

    Read the article

  • C# Constructor & List Question

    - by ShonnaE
    Ohk, I am doing a c-sharp program, and I get everything but this, I just can't understand what it is asking. I know how to create a list.. and how to create a constructor.. but this is where i get confused.. its probably way simple but i am missing it. I created 2 lists .. now i should create a constructor here is one my lists List<Person> organize = new List<Person>(); THIS PART --- *The constructor should also initialize the two event lists to new empty lists. *

    Read the article

  • javascript constructor reset: What is it ?

    - by Sake
    I came across this slide: http://www.slideshare.net/stoyan/javascript-patterns#postComment at page 35: Option 5 + super + constructor reset function inherit(C, P) { var F = function(){}; F.prototype = P.prototype; C.prototype = new F(); C.uber = P.prototype; C.prototype.constructor = C; // WHY ??? } I don't get it. Can anybody please explain what the last line for ? C.prototype.constructor = C; // WHY ??? Thanks

    Read the article

  • How to initialise a STL vector/list with a class without invoking the copy constructor

    - by Warpspace
    I have a C++ program that uses a std::list containing instances of a class. If I call e.g. myList.push_back(MyClass(variable)); it goes through the process of creating a temporary variable, and then immediately copies it to the vector, and afterwards deletes the temporary variable. This is not nearly as efficient as I want, and sucks when you need a deep copy. I would love to have the constructor of my class new something and not have to implement a copy constructor just to allocate my memory for the second time and waste runtime. I'd also rather not have to immediately find the class instance from the vector/list and then manually allocate the memory (or do something horrible like allocate the memory in the copy constructor itself). Is there any way around this (I'm not using Visual Studio BTW)?

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29  | Next Page >