Search Results

Search found 15139 results on 606 pages for 'scripting interface'.

Page 230/606 | < Previous Page | 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237  | Next Page >

  • Java Best Practice for type resolution at runtime.

    - by Brian
    I'm trying to define a class (or set of classes which implement the same interface) that will behave as a loosely typed object (like JavaScript). They can hold any sort of data and operations on them depend on the underlying type. I have it working in three different ways but none seem ideal. These test versions only allow strings and integers and the only operation is add. Adding integers results in the sum of the integer values, adding strings concatenates the strings and adding an integer to a string converts the integer to a string and concatenates it with the string. The final version will have more types (Doubles, Arrays, JavaScript-like objects where new properties can be added dynamically) and more operations. Way 1: public interface DynObject1 { @Override public String toString(); public DynObject1 add(DynObject1 d); public DynObject1 addTo(DynInteger1 d); public DynObject1 addTo(DynString1 d); } public class DynInteger1 implements DynObject1 { private int value; public DynInteger1(int v) { value = v; } @Override public String toString() { return Integer.toString(value); } public DynObject1 add(DynObject1 d) { return d.addTo(this); } public DynObject1 addTo(DynInteger1 d) { return new DynInteger1(d.value + value); } public DynObject1 addTo(DynString1 d) { return new DynString1(d.toString()+Integer.toString(value)); } } ...and similar for DynString1 Way 2: public interface DynObject2 { @Override public String toString(); public DynObject2 add(DynObject2 d); } public class DynInteger2 implements DynObject2 { private int value; public DynInteger2(int v) { value = v; } @Override public String toString() { return Integer.toString(value); } public DynObject2 add(DynObject2 d) { Class c = d.getClass(); if(c==DynInteger2.class) { return new DynInteger2(value + ((DynInteger2)d).value); } else { return new DynString2(toString() + d.toString()); } } } ...and similar for DynString2 Way 3: public class DynObject3 { private enum ObjectType { Integer, String }; Object value; ObjectType type; public DynObject3(Integer v) { value = v; type = ObjectType.Integer; } public DynObject3(String v) { value = v; type = ObjectType.String; } @Override public String toString() { return value.toString(); } public DynObject3 add(DynObject3 d) { if(type==ObjectType.Integer && d.type==ObjectType.Integer) { return new DynObject3(Integer.valueOf(((Integer)value).intValue()+((Integer)value).intValue())); } else { return new DynObject3(value.toString()+d.value.toString()); } } } With the if-else logic I could use value.getClass()==Integer.class instead of storing the type but with more types I'd change this to use a switch statement and Java doesn't allow switch to use Classes. Anyway... My question is what is the best way to go about something thike this?

    Read the article

  • Generic Type constraint in .net

    - 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

  • Calculate the contentsize of scrollview

    - by neha
    Hi all, I'm having a scrollview as the detailedview of tableview cell. There are multiple views on the detailedview like labels, buttons etc. which I'm creating through interface builder. What I'm creating through interface builder is static. I'm putting everything on a view of height 480. A label on my detailedview is having dynamic text which can extend to any length. The problem is that I need to set the scrollview's content size for which I need its height. How shall I set scrollview's height provided the content is dynamic?

    Read the article

  • What's the C strategy to "imitate" a C++ template ?

    - by Andrei Ciobanu
    After reading some examples on stackoverflow, and following some of the answers for my previous questions (1), I've eventually come with a "strategy" for this. I've come to this: 1) Have a declare section in the .h file. Here I will define the data-structure, and the accesing interface. Eg.: /** * LIST DECLARATION. (DOUBLE LINKED LIST) */ #define NM_TEMPLATE_DECLARE_LIST(type) \ typedef struct nm_list_elem_##type##_s { \ type data; \ struct nm_list_elem_##type##_s *next; \ struct nm_list_elem_##type##_s *prev; \ } nm_list_elem_##type ; \ typedef struct nm_list_##type##_s { \ unsigned int size; \ nm_list_elem_##type *head; \ nm_list_elem_##type *tail; \ int (*cmp)(const type e1, const type e2); \ } nm_list_##type ; \ \ nm_list_##type *nm_list_new_##type##_(int (*cmp)(const type e1, \ const type e2)); \ \ (...other functions ...) 2) Wrap the functions in the interface inside MACROS: /** * LIST INTERFACE */ #define nm_list(type) \ nm_list_##type #define nm_list_elem(type) \ nm_list_elem_##type #define nm_list_new(type,cmp) \ nm_list_new_##type##_(cmp) #define nm_list_delete(type, list, dst) \ nm_list_delete_##type##_(list, dst) #define nm_list_ins_next(type,list, elem, data) \ nm_list_ins_next_##type##_(list, elem, data) (...others...) 3) Implement the functions: /** * LIST FUNCTION DEFINITIONS */ #define NM_TEMPLATE_DEFINE_LIST(type) \ nm_list_##type *nm_list_new_##type##_(int (*cmp)(const type e1, \ const type e2)) \ {\ nm_list_##type *list = NULL; \ list = nm_alloc(sizeof(*list)); \ list->size = 0; \ list->head = NULL; \ list->tail = NULL; \ list->cmp = cmp; \ }\ void nm_list_delete_##type##_(nm_list_##type *list, \ void (*destructor)(nm_list_elem_##type elem)) \ { \ type data; \ while(nm_list_size(list)){ \ data = nm_list_rem_##type(list, tail); \ if(destructor){ \ destructor(data); \ } \ } \ nm_free(list); \ } \ (...others...) In order to use those constructs, I have to create two files (let's call them templates.c and templates.h) . In templates.h I will have to NM_TEMPLATE_DECLARE_LIST(int), NM_TEMPLATE_DECLARE_LIST(double) , while in templates.c I will need to NM_TEMPLATE_DEFINE_LIST(int) , NM_TEMPLATE_DEFINE_LIST(double) , in order to have the code behind a list of ints, doubles and so on, generated. By following this strategy I will have to keep all my "template" declarations in two files, and in the same time, I will need to include templates.h whenever I need the data structures. It's a very "centralized" solution. Do you know other strategy in order to "imitate" (at some point) templates in C++ ? Do you know a way to improve this strategy, in order to keep things in more decentralized manner, so that I won't need the two files: templates.c and templates.h ?

    Read the article

  • Does collections type conversion util methods already exist in any API?

    - by Delta
    interface TypeConverter<T, E> { T convert(E e); } class CollectionUtil() { public static <E> List<T> convertToList(List<E> fromList, TypeConverter<T, E> conv) { { if(fromList== null) return null; List<T> newList = new ArrayList<T>(fromList.size()) for(E e : fromList) { newList.add(conv.convert(e)); } return newList; } } Above code explains converting from List of String to List of Integer by implementing TypeConverter interface for String, Integer. Are there already any collections conversion utility methods exists in any API like list to set and so on?

    Read the article

  • 3-Tier architecture-layering and the term-mishmash

    - by Rookian
    Hi! I am confused about the different possibilities to express a 3-Tier architecture. Data-Access-Layer Business-Layer Presentation Layer (User Interface) or Database (aka Backend) Business-Layer Presentation Layer (User Interface) Why can you skip the database in the 1st approach? Both use a database! Does the database belong to the layering or not?! What is wrong and what is right? Can someone of you clarify this :)? Thanks in advance!

    Read the article

  • What's the best software analogy you've heard?

    - by Mantorok
    Hi Quite frequently I have to explain things to Project Managers who sometimes want to know a little bit more about something, and sometimes I try and come up with some analogy that best explains it. Now, I can't really kick this off with a good analagy because mine usually suck, but I would be interested in yours, or some you've heard that have been used to simplify explanations. One analogy that does come up often is when explaining Interfaces (i.e. .Net) to which I usually explain in terms of a vehicle has a driver interface, and all vehicles must implement that interface so that anyone who can drive a vehicle will be able to utilise it. Any more? Would like to hear some, both serious and humourous. Please close if a duplicate.

    Read the article

  • JAXB doesn't unmarshal list of interfaces

    - by Joker_vD
    It seems JAXB can't read what it writes. Consider the following code: interface IFoo { void jump(); } @XmlRootElement class Bar implements IFoo { @XmlElement public String y; public Bar() { y = ""; } public Bar(String y) { this.y = y; } @Override public void jump() { System.out.println(y); } } @XmlRootElement class Baz implements IFoo { @XmlElement public int x; public Baz() { x = 0; } public Baz(int x) { this.x = x; } @Override public void jump() { System.out.println(x); } } @XmlRootElement public class Holder { private List<IFoo> things; public Holder() { things = new ArrayList<>(); } @XmlElementWrapper @XmlAnyElement public List<IFoo> getThings() { return things; } public void addThing(IFoo thing) { things.add(thing); } } // ... try { JAXBContext context = JAXBContext.newInstance(Holder.class, Bar.class, Baz.class); Holder holder = new Holder(); holder.addThing(new Bar("1")); holder.addThing(new Baz(2)); holder.addThing(new Baz(3)); for (IFoo thing : holder.getThings()) { thing.jump(); } StringWriter s = new StringWriter(); context.createMarshaller().marshal(holder, s); String data = s.toString(); System.out.println(data); StringReader t = new StringReader(data); Holder holder2 = (Holder)context.createUnmarshaller().unmarshal(t); for (IFoo thing : holder2.getThings()) { thing.jump(); } } catch (Exception e) { System.err.println(e.getMessage()); } It's a simplified example, of course. The point is that I have to store two very differently implemented classes, Bar and Baz, in one collection. Well, I observed that they have pretty similar public interface, so I created an interface IFoo and made them two to implement it. Now, I want to have tools to save and load this collection to/from XML. Unfortunately, this code doesn't quite work: the collection is saved, but then it cannot be loaded! The intended output is 1 2 3 some xml 1 2 3 But unfortunately, the actual output is 1 2 3 some xml com.sun.org.apache.xerces.internal.dom.ElementNSImpl cannot be cast to testapplication1.IFoo Apparently, I need to use the annotations in a different way? Or to give up on JAXB and look for something else? I, well, can write "XMLNode toXML()" method for all classes I wan't to (de)marshal, but...

    Read the article

  • C++ game designing & polymorphism question

    - by Kotti
    Hi! I'm trying to implement some sort of 'just-for-me' game engine and the problem's plot goes the following way: Suppose I have some abstract interface for a renderable entity, e.g. IRenderable. And it's declared the following way: interface IRenderable { // (...) // Suppose that Backend is some abstract backend used // for rendering, and it's implementation is not important virtual void Render(Backend& backend) = 0; }; What I'm doing right now is something like declaring different classes like class Ball : public IRenderable { virtual void Render(Backend& backend) { // Rendering implementation, that is specific for // the Ball object // (...) } }; And then everything looks fine. I can easily do something like std::vector<IRenderable*> items, push some items like new Ball() in this vector and then make a call similiar to foreach (IRenderable* in items) { item->Render(backend); } Ok, I guess it is the 'polymorphic' way, but what if I want to have different types of objects in my game and an ability to manipulate their state, where every object can be manipulated via it's own interface? I could do something like struct GameState { Ball ball; Bonus bonus; // (...) }; and then easily change objects state via their own methods, like ball.Move(...) or bonus.Activate(...), where Move(...) is specific for only Ball and Activate(...) - for only Bonus instances. But in this case I lose the opportunity to write foreach IRenderable* simply because I store these balls and bonuses as instances of their derived, not base classes. And in this case the rendering procedure turns into a mess like ball.Render(backend); bonus.Render(backend); // (...) and it is bad because we actually lose our polymorphism this way (no actual need for making Render function virtual, etc. The other approach means invoking downcasting via dynamic_cast or something with typeid to determine the type of object you want to manipulate and this looks even worse to me and this also breaks this 'polymorphic' idea. So, my question is - is there some kind of (probably) alternative approach to what I want to do or can my current pattern be somehow modified so that I would actually store IRenderable* for my game objects (so that I can invoke virtual Render method on each of them) while preserving the ability to easily change the state of these objects? Maybe I'm doing something absolutely wrong from the beginning, if so, please point it out :) Thanks in advance!

    Read the article

  • Need help with developing a class for my JUnit test

    - by alpdog14
    I have this JUnit test that I need help developing a Interface and Class for, here is the test: Box b1 = new DefaultBox( "abc" ); Box b2 = new DefaultBox( "def" ); Box b3 = new DefaultBox( "" ); assertEquals("abc", b1.contents()); assertEquals("[abc]", b1.toString()); assertTrue(b1.equals(b1)); assertFalse(b1.equals(b2)); assertFalse(b1.equals(null)); assertEquals("cba", b1.flip().contents()); assertEquals("", b3.flip().contents()); can anyone help me in developing a Default box class and a box interface to make these test pass? Any help would be most appreciated.

    Read the article

  • What's going on with "expected specifier-qualifier-list" error

    - by Tattat
    It is my GameEngine.h: #import <Foundation/Foundation.h> #import "GameArray.h"; @interface GameEngine : NSObject { GameArray *gameButtonsArray; } @property (nonatomic, retain) GameArray *gameButtonsArray; And this is my GameArray.h: #import <Foundation/Foundation.h> #import "MyAppDelegate.h" @interface GameArray : NSObject { NSMutableArray *gameButtonsArray; } @property (nonatomic, retain) NSMutableArray *gameButtonsArray; It keep prompt my "expected specifier-qualifier-list" error i my GameEngine.h, and error said that "expected specifier-qualifier-list before 'GameArray'", what's going on?

    Read the article

  • Basic Google search using a shell script

    - by Lri
    Something like this but using just basic shell scripting: #!/usr/bin/env python import urllib import json base = 'http://ajax.googleapis.com/ajax/services/search/web?v=1.0&' query = urllib.urlencode({'q' : "something"}) response = urllib.urlopen(base + query).read() data = json.loads(response) print data['responseData']['results'][0]['url'] Any more convenient alternatives to ajax.googleapis.com? If not, how should you encode the URL and parse JSON?

    Read the article

  • what is your java 1.6 favorite feature

    - by ekeren
    what is your java 1.6 favorite feature? Java 6 has some nifty feature: SeriveLocator Support to Scripting language Acess to Compiler APT enhancement (Annotation) And more... What is the one you like the most, and found it very useful?

    Read the article

  • c# Generic overloaded method dispatching ambiguous

    - by sebgod
    Hello, I just hit a situation where a method dispatch was ambiguous and wondered if anyone could explain on what basis the compiler (.NET 4.0.30319) chooses what overload to call interface IfaceA { } interface IfaceB<T> { void Add(IfaceA a); T Add(T t); } class ConcreteA : IfaceA { } class abstract BaseClassB<T> : IfaceB<T> { public virtual T Add(T t) { ... } public virtual void Add(IfaceA a) { ... } } class ConcreteB : BaseClassB<IfaceA> { // does not override one of the relevant methods } void code() { var concreteB = new ConcreteB(); // it will call void Add(IfaceA a) concreteB.Add(new ConcreteA()); } In any case, why does the compiler not warn me or even why does it compile? Thank you very much for any answers.

    Read the article

  • Starting new transaction in Spring bean

    - by Marcus
    We have: @Transactional(propagation = Propagation.REQUIRED) public class MyClass implementes MyInterface { ... MyInterface has a single method: go(). When go() executes we start a new transaction which commits/rollbacks when the method is complete - this is fine. Now let's say in go() we call a private method in MyClass that has @Transactional(propagation = Propagation.REQUIRES_NEW. It seems that Spring "ignores" the REQUIRES_NEW annotation and does not start a new transaction. I believe this is because Spring AOP operates on the interface level (MyInterface) and does not intercept any calls to MyClass methods. Is this correct? Is there any way to start a new transaction within the go() transaction? Is the only way to call another Spring managed bean that has transactions configured as REQUIRES_NEW? Update: Adding that when clients execute go() they do so via a reference to the interface, not the class: @Autowired MyInterface impl; impl.go();

    Read the article

  • Are support for Object.hasOwnProperty and Function.call reliably mutual?

    - by kennebec
    Can anyone tell me if there are any clients (browsers) that define a functioning Object.prototype.hasOwnProperty that do NOT define a Function.prototype.call? That is, must I use belt and suspenders to qualify clients for a certain level of scripting, or will hasOwnProperty do for both? if(Object.hasOwnProperty && Function.call){ // add script } Is support for either of these properties a reliable subset of support for the other?

    Read the article

  • What is your favorite way to read XML files?

    - by stacker
    Let's take this xml structure as example: <?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?> <Configuration-content> <XFile Name="file name 1" /> <XFile Name="name2" /> <XFile Name="name3" /> <XFile Name="name4" /> </Configuration-content> C# interface to implement: public class Configuration { public XFile[] Files { get; set; } } public interface IConfigurationRipository { Configuration Get(); void Save(Configuration entity); } I wonder what's the best way to do that. The task is to implement IConfigurationRipository using your favorite approach.

    Read the article

  • Low overhead Java Web Services container?

    - by trojanfoe
    I want to provide a Java-based Web Service, but I don't require the features of a full-blown J2EE Application Server. I would like it to start as quickly as possible, though that's not a hard requirement. The Web Service will handle multiple connections and require access to an Oracle database so it will at least require a thread pool and database connection pool. I may want to put a JSP interface onto it later to provide an internal maintainence interface. I have looked at Jetty with an Apache CXF stack, but it looks like I'll have to do a fair amount configuration before even coding the web service - Will it be worth it? Will it even work? Should I forget about the complexity and simply go with JBoss/Weblogic/etc and put up with the bloat and extra start-up time?

    Read the article

  • How do I determine inactivity in a MVVM application?

    - by Jordan
    I have an MVVM kiosk application that I need to restart when it has been inactive for a set amount of time. I'm using Prism and Unity to facilitate the MVVM pattern. I've got the restarting down and I even know how to handle the timer. What I want to know is how to know when activity, that is any mouse event, has taken occurred. The only way I know how to do that is by subscribing to the preview mouse events of the main window. That breaks MVVM thought, doesn't it? I've thought about exposing my window as an interface that exposes those events to my application, but that would require that the window implement that interface which also seems to break MVVM.

    Read the article

  • How can I require an attribute on a class definition?

    - by spoulson
    Is there a way to enforce a compile requirement for certain attributes on a class or interface implementation? For example, let's say my application uses a series of static classes that contain const int resource values. I'd like to decorate the class in a Description attribute to describe its contents. In concept, I'd like to apply this attribute requirement to an interface, then each static class would implement it with its required Description. I could write a run-time check or a unit test to check compliance. But really a compile-time check would be best. Is there such a thing?

    Read the article

  • How to use global caching in php?

    - by user63898
    ello all im new to php and server scripting ( coming from the java/cpp background ) my question is , if i like to be able to build some kind of single tone cache that will hold me data in memory in all the web application life , something that when i start the web server it will start main cache that will server the web application not inside sessions static cache like singletone map in c++/java that that leaves all the time what are my options ?

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237  | Next Page >