Search Results

Search found 1008 results on 41 pages for 'generics'.

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 24/41 | < Previous Page | 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31  | Next Page >

  • C# Get Keys from a Dictionary<string, Stream>

    - by alex
    Suppose I have a Dictionary like so: Dictionary<string, Stream> How can I get a list (or IEnumerable or whatever) of JUST the Keys from this dictionary? Is this possible? I could enumerate the dictionary, and extract the keys one by one, but I was hoping to avoid this. In my instance, the Dictionary contains a list of filenames (file1.doc, filex.bmp etc...) and the stream content of the file from another part of the application.

    Read the article

  • Exporting to CSV with dynamic field type handling

    - by serhio
    I have to do an export from DB to CSV. field; fileld; field... etc Have 3 types of fields: Alpha, Numeric and Bool respresented as "alphaValue",intValue and True/False. I try to encapsulate this in a fields collection, in order to export if alpha then set "", if Bool=True/False if numeric let as is. and try to build a CsvField class: Public Structure?Class CsvField(Of T As ???) End Structure Enum FieldType Alpha Bool Numeric End Enum any suggestions welcomed.

    Read the article

  • c++ global operator not playing well with template class

    - by John
    ok, i found some similar posts on stackoverflow, but I couldn't find any that pertained to my exact situation and I was confused with some of the answers given. Ok, so here is my problem: I have a template matrix class as follows: template <typename T, size_t ROWS, size_t COLS> class Matrix { public: template<typename, size_t, size_t> friend class Matrix; Matrix( T init = T() ) : _matrix(ROWS, vector<T>(COLS, init)) { /*for( int i = 0; i < ROWS; i++ ) { _matrix[i] = new vector<T>( COLS, init ); }*/ } Matrix<T, ROWS, COLS> & operator+=( const T & value ) { for( vector<T>::size_type i = 0; i < this->_matrix.size(); i++ ) { for( vector<T>::size_type j = 0; j < this->_matrix[i].size(); j++ ) { this->_matrix[i][j] += value; } } return *this; } private: vector< vector<T> > _matrix; }; and I have the following global function template: template<typename T, size_t ROWS, size_t COLS> Matrix<T, ROWS, COLS> operator+( const Matrix<T, ROWS, COLS> & lhs, const Matrix<T, ROWS, COLS> & rhs ) { Matrix<T, ROWS, COLS> returnValue = lhs; return returnValue += lhs; } To me, this seems to be right. However, when I try to compile the code, I get the following error (thrown from the operator+ function): binary '+=' : no operator found which takes a right-hand operand of type 'const matrix::Matrix<T,ROWS,COLS>' (or there is no acceptable conversion) I can't figure out what to make of this. Any help if greatly appreciated!

    Read the article

  • how do I best create a set of list classes to match my business objects

    - by ken-forslund
    I'm a bit fuzzy on the best way to solve the problem of needing a list for each of my business objects that implements some overridden functions. Here's the setup: I have a baseObject that sets up database, and has its proper Dispose() method All my other business objects inherit from it, and if necessary, override Dispose() Some of these classes also contain arrays (lists) of other objects. So I create a class that holds a List of these. I'm aware I could just use the generic List, but that doesn't let me add extra features like Dispose() so it will loop through and clean up. So if I had objects called User, Project and Schedule, I would create UserList, ProjectList, ScheduleList. In the past, I have simply had these inherit from List< with the appropriate class named and then written the pile of common functions I wanted it to have, like Dispose(). this meant I would verify by hand, that each of these List classes had the same set of methods. Some of these classes had pretty simple versions of these methods that could have been inherited from a base list class. I could write an interface, to force me to ensure that each of my List classes has the same functions, but interfaces don't let me write common base functions that SOME of the lists might override. I had tried to write a baseObjectList that inherited from List, and then make my other Lists inherit from that, but there are issues with that (which is really why I came here). One of which was trying to use the Find() method with a predicate. I've simplified the problem down to just a discussion of Dispose() method on the list that loops through and disposes its contents, but in reality, I have several other common functions that I want all my lists to have. What's the best practice to solve this organizational matter?

    Read the article

  • Java class Class<T> and static method Class.forName() drive me crazy.

    - by matt
    Hi, this code doesn't compile. i'm wandering what i am doing wrong: private static Importable getRightInstance(String s) throws Exception { Class<Importable> c = Class.forName(s); Importable i = c.newInstance(); return i; } where Importable is an interface and the string s is the name of an implementing class. The compiler says: ./Importer.java:33: incompatible types found : java.lang.Class<capture#964 of ?> required: java.lang.Class<Importable> Class<Importable> c = Class.forName(format(s)); thanks for any help!

    Read the article

  • Generic Class Vb.net

    - by KoolKabin
    hi guys, I am stuck with a problem about generic classes. I am confused how I call the constructor with parameters. My interface: Public Interface IDBObject Sub [Get](ByRef DataRow As DataRow) Property UIN() As Integer End Interface My Child Class: Public Class User Implements IDBObject Public Sub [Get](ByRef DataRow As System.Data.DataRow) Implements IDBObject.Get End Sub Public Property UIN() As Integer Implements IDBObject.UIN Get End Get Set(ByVal value As Integer) End Set End Property End Class My Next Class: Public Class Users Inherits DBLayer(Of User) #Region " Standard Methods " #End Region End Class My DBObject Class: Public Class DBLayer(Of DBObject As {New, IDBObject}) Public Shared Function GetData() As List(Of DBObject) Dim QueryString As String = "SELECT * ***;" Dim Dataset As DataSet = New DataSet() Dim DataList As List(Of DBObject) = New List(Of DBObject) Try Dataset = Query(QueryString) For Each DataRow As DataRow In Dataset.Tables(0).Rows **DataList.Add(New DBObject(DataRow))** Next Catch ex As Exception DataList = Nothing End Try Return DataList End Function End Class I get error in the starred area of the DBLayer Object. What might be the possible reason? what can I do to fix it? I even want to add New(byval someval as datatype) in IDBObject interface for overloading construction. but it also gives an error? how can i do it? Adding Sub New(ByVal DataRow As DataRow) in IDBObject producess following error 'Sub New' cannot be declared in an interface. Error Produced in DBLayer Object line: DataList.Add(New DBObject(DataRow)) Msg: Arguments cannot be passed to a 'New' used on a type parameter.

    Read the article

  • MSMQ - Message Queue Abstraction and Pattern

    - by Maxim Gershkovich
    Hi All, Let me define the problem first and why a messagequeue has been chosen. I have a datalayer that will be transactional and EXTREMELY insert heavy and rather then attempt to deal with these issues when they occur I am hoping to implement my application from the ground up with this in mind. I have decided to tackle this problem by using the Microsoft Message Queue and perform inserts as time permits asynchronously. However I quickly ran into a problem. Certain inserts that I perform may need to be recalled (ie: retrieved) immediately (imagine this is for POS system and what happens if you need to recall the last transaction - one that still hasn’t been inserted). The way I decided to tackle this problem is by abstracting the MessageQueue and combining it in my data access layer thereby creating the illusion of a single set of data being returned to the user of the datalayer (I have considered the other issues that occur in such a scenario (ie: essentially dirty reads and such) and have concluded for my purposes I can control these issues). However this is where things get a little nasty... I’ve worked out how to get the messages back and such (trivial enough problem) but where I am stuck is; how do I create a generic (or at least somewhat generic) way of querying my message queue? One where I can minimize the duplication between the SQL queries and MessageQueue queries. I have considered using LINQ (but have very limited understanding of the technology) and have also attempted an implementation with Predicates which so far is pretty smelly. Are there any patterns for such a problem that I can utilize? Am I going about this the wrong way? Does anyone have an of their own ideas about how I can tackle this problem? Does anyone even understand what I am talking about? :-) Any and ALL input would be highly appreciated and seriously considered… Thanks again.

    Read the article

  • Java Webservice with generic methods

    - by danby
    Hi, I was wondering if it is possible to make a generic webservice method in java like this: @WebMethod public <T extends Foo> void testGeneric(T data){ However when I try to consume this with a Java client I get an error stating: [ERROR] Schema descriptor {http://####/}testGeneric in message part "parameters" is not defined and could not be bound to Java. I know it is possible to make a method that takes a parameter such as List and this generates correctly using JAX-WS. I don't mind if there is a solution that means I am tied to using only a particular technology. Thanks, Dan.

    Read the article

  • Why membership provider is not generic?

    - by Timmy O' Tool
    I have to confess that I hate membership provider. The default implementation is not very appropriate normally and I haven't seen so far a good implementation of a custom membership provider, probably because this is not possible :-) So the question is: In your opinion: which are the reasons for not having membership/role provider as a generic class? I mean, why Microsoft didn't selected this approach.

    Read the article

  • C# - implementing GetEnumerator() for a collection inherited from List<string>

    - by Vojtech
    Hi, I am trying to implement FilePathCollection. Its items would be simple file names (without a path - such as "image.jpg"). Once the collection is used via foreach cycle, it should return the full path created by concatenating with "baseDirectory". How can I do that? public class FilePathCollection : List<string> { string baseDirectory; public FileCollection(string baseDirectory) { this.baseDirectory = baseDirectory; } new public System.Collections.IEnumerator GetEnumerator() { foreach (string value in this._list) //this does not work because _list is private yield return baseDirectory + value; } } Thanks in advance! :-)

    Read the article

  • How do I create a new AnyType[] array?

    - by cb
    Which is the best practice in this situation? I would like an un-initialized array of the same type and length as the original. public static <AnyType extends Comparable<? super AnyType>> void someFunction(AnyType[] someArray) { AnyType[] anotherArray = (AnyType[]) new Comparable[someArray.length]; ...or... AnyType[] anotherArray = (AnyType[]) new Object[someArray.length]; ...some other code... } Thanks, CB

    Read the article

  • VB.NET Two different approaches to generic cross-threaded operations; which is better?

    - by BASnappl
    VB.NET 2010, .NET 4 Hello, I recently read about using SynchronizationContext objects to control the execution thread for some code. I have been using a generic subroutine to handle (possibly) cross-thread calls for things like updating UI controls that utilizes Invoke. I'm an amateur and have a hard time understanding the pros and cons of any particular approach. I am looking for some insight on which approach might be preferable and why. Update: This question is motivated, in part, by statements such as the following from the MSDN page on Control.InvokeRequired. An even better solution is to use the SynchronizationContext returned by SynchronizationContext rather than a control for cross-thread marshaling. Method 1: Public Sub InvokeControl(Of T As Control)(ByVal Control As T, ByVal Action As Action(Of T)) If Control.InvokeRequired Then Control.Invoke(New Action(Of T, Action(Of T))(AddressOf InvokeControl), New Object() {Control, Action}) Else Action(Control) End If End Sub Method 2: Public Sub UIAction(Of T As Control)(ByVal Control As T, ByVal Action As Action(Of Control)) SyncContext.Send(New Threading.SendOrPostCallback(Sub() Action(Control)), Nothing) End Sub Where SyncContext is a Threading.SynchronizationContext object defined in the constructor of my UI form: Public Sub New() InitializeComponent() SyncContext = WindowsFormsSynchronizationContext.Current End Sub Then, if I wanted to update a control (e.g., Label1) on the UI form, I would do: InvokeControl(Label1, Sub(x) x.Text = "hello") or UIAction(Label1, Sub(x) x.Text = "hello") So, what do y'all think? Is one way preferred or does it depend on the context? If you have the time, verbosity would be appreciated! Thanks in advance, Brian

    Read the article

  • How do I create a generic method with a generic in the where clause? (Man that's clear as mud!)

    - by Jordan
    Is there a way of doing this: protected void SubscribeToEvent<TEvent, TPayload>(Action<TPayload> a_action) where TEvent : CompositePresentationEvent<TPayload> { TEvent newEvent = _eventAggregator.GetEvent<TEvent>(); SubscriptionToken eventToken = newEvent.Subscribe(a_action); _lstEventSubscriptions.Add(new KeyValuePair<EventBase, SubscriptionToken>(newEvent, eventToken)); } without requiring the user to specify a TPayload parameter?

    Read the article

  • inconsistency between Sun JRE javac and Eclipse java compiler?

    - by Jason S
    This confuses me. The following compiles fine under Eclipse. package com.example.gotchas; public class GenericHelper1 { static <T> T fail() throws UnsupportedOperationException { throw new UnsupportedOperationException(); } /** * just calls fail() * @return something maybe */ public boolean argh() { return fail(); } public static void main(String[] args) { // TODO Auto-generated method stub } } But if I try to do a clean build with ant, or at the command line with javac, I get this: src\com\example\gotchas\GenericHelper1.java:14: type parameters of <T>T cannot be determined; no unique maximal instance exists for type variable T with upper bounds boolean,java.lang.Object public boolean argh() { return fail(); } ^ 1 error what gives, and how do I fix it?

    Read the article

  • Casting Type array to Generic array?

    - by George R
    The short version of the question - why can't I do this? I'm restricted to .NET 3.5. T[] genericArray; // Obviously T should be float! genericArray = new T[3]{ 1.0f, 2.0f, 0.0f }; // Can't do this either, why the hell not genericArray = new float[3]{ 1.0f, 2.0f, 0.0f }; Longer version - I'm working with the Unity engine here, although that's not important. What is - I'm trying to throw conversion between its fixed Vector2 (2 floats) and Vector3 (3 floats) and my generic Vector< class. I can't cast types directly to a generic array. using UnityEngine; public struct Vector { private readonly T[] _axes; #region Constructors public Vector(int axisCount) { this._axes = new T[axisCount]; } public Vector(T x, T y) { this._axes = new T[2] { x, y }; } public Vector(T x, T y, T z) { this._axes = new T[3]{x, y, z}; } public Vector(Vector2 vector2) { // This doesn't work this._axes = new T[2] { vector2.x, vector2.y }; } public Vector(Vector3 vector3) { // Nor does this this._axes = new T[3] { vector3.x, vector3.y, vector3.z }; } #endregion #region Properties public T this[int i] { get { return _axes[i]; } set { _axes[i] = value; } } public T X { get { return _axes[0];} set { _axes[0] = value; } } public T Y { get { return _axes[1]; } set { _axes[1] = value; } } public T Z { get { return this._axes.Length (Vector2 vector2) { Vector vector = new Vector(vector2); return vector; } public static explicit operator Vector(Vector3 vector3) { Vector vector = new Vector(vector3); return vector; } #endregion }

    Read the article

  • Linq-to-XML explicit casting in a generic method

    - by vlad
    I've looked for a similar question, but the only one that was close didn't help me in the end. I have an XML file that looks like this: <Fields> <Field name="abc" value="2011-01-01" /> <Field name="xyz" value="" /> <Field name="tuv" value="123.456" /> </Fields> I'm trying to use Linq-to-XML to get the values from these fields. The values can be of type Decimal, DateTime, String and Int32. I was able to get the fields one by one using a relatively simple query. For example, I'm getting the 'value' from the field with the name 'abc' using the following: private DateTime GetValueFromAttribute(IEnumerable<XElement> fields, String attName) { return (from field in fields where field.Attribute("name").Value == "abc" select (DateTime)field.Attribute("value")).FirstOrDefault() } this is placed in a separate function that simply returns this value, and everything works fine (since I know that there is only one element with the name attribute set to 'abc'). however, since I have to do this for decimals and integers and dates, I was wondering if I can make a generic function that works in all cases. this is where I got stuck. here's what I have so far: private T GetValueFromAttribute<T>(IEnumerable<XElement> fields, String attName) { return (from field in fields where field.Attribute("name").Value == attName select (T)field.Attribute("value").Value).FirstOrDefault(); } this doesn't compile because it doesn't know how to convert from String to T. I tried boxing and unboxing (i.e. select (T) (Object) field.Attribute("value").Value but that throws a runtime Specified cast is not valid exception as it's trying to convert the String to a DateTime, for instance. Is this possible in a generic function? can I put a constraint on the generic function to make it work? or do I have to have separate functions to take advantage of Linq-to-XML's explicit cast operators?

    Read the article

  • Is converting this ArrayList to a Generic List efficient?

    - by Greg
    The code I'm writing receives an ArrayList from unmanaged code, and this ArrayList will always contain one or more objects of type Grid_Heading_Blk. I've considered changing this ArrayList to a generic List, but I'm unsure if the conversion operation will be so expensive as to nullify the benefits of working with the generic list. Currently, I'm just running a foreach (Grid_Heading_Blk in myArrayList) operation to work with the ArrayList contents after passing the ArrayList to the class that will use it. Should I convert the ArrayList to a generic typed list? And if so, what is the most efficient way of doing so?

    Read the article

  • Autocomplete for generic types in Eclipse

    - by AvrDragon
    "Refer to objects by their interfaces" is a good practise, as mentioned in Effective Java. So for example i prefer List<String> al = new ArrayList<String>(); over ArrayList<String> al = new ArrayList<String>(); in my code. One annoying thing is that if i type ArrayList<String> al = new and then hit Ctrl+Space in Eclipse i get ArrayList<String>() as propostal. But if i type List al = new and then hit Ctrl+Space i will get only propostal to define anonymous inner class, but not propostals such as new ArrayList<String>(), what is 99% the case, or for example new Vector<String>(). Is there any way to get the subclasses as propostals for generic types?

    Read the article

  • Reusable non generic method for generic methods

    - by Jehof
    I have the following base interface public interface IHandler{ void Handle(IMessage message); } and an generic interface inheriting the base interface public interface IHandler<TMessage> : IHandler where TMessage : IMessage{ void Handle(TMessage message); } My classes can implement the interface IHandler<TMessage> mutiple times. IMessage is an base interface for messages and isn´t relevant here. Currently i´m implementing the interfaces as follows. public class ExampleHandler : IHandler<ExampleMessage>, IHandler<OtherExampleMessag>{ void IHandler.Handle(IMessage message){ ExampleMessage example = message as ExampleMessage; if (example != null) { Handle(example); } else { OtherExampleMessage otherExample = message as OtherExampleMessage; if (otherExample != null) { Handle(otherExample); } } public void Handle(ExampleMessage) { //handle message; } public void Handle(OtherExampleMessage) { //handle message; } } What bothers me is the way i have to implement the Handle(IMessage) method, cause in my opinion its many redundant code, and i have to extend the method each time when i implement a new IHandler<TMessage> interface on my class. What i´m looking for is a more generic way to implement the Handle(IMessage) method (maybe in a base class for Handlers), but i´m currently stuck how to do that.

    Read the article

  • Multiple generic types in one container

    - by Lirik
    I was looking at the answer of this question regarding multiple generic types in one container and I can't really get it to work: the properties of the Metadata class are not visible, since the abstract class doesn't have them. Here is a slightly modified version of the code in the original question: public abstract class Metadata { } public class Metadata<T> : Metadata { // ... some other meta data public T Function{ get; set; } } List<Metadata> metadataObjects; metadataObjects.Add(new Metadata<Func<double,double>>()); metadataObjects.Add(new Metadata<Func<int,double>>()); metadataObjects.Add(new Metadata<Func<double,int>>()); foreach( Metadata md in metadataObjects) { var tmp = md.Function; // <-- Error: does not contain a definition for Function } The exact error is: error CS1061: 'Metadata' does not contain a definition for 'Function' and no extension method 'Function' accepting a first argument of type 'Metadata' could be found (are you missing a using directive or an assembly reference?) I believe it's because the abstract class does not define the property Function, thus the whole effort is completely useless. Is there a way that we can get the properties?

    Read the article

  • Generic Constraints And Type Parameters Mess

    - by Dummy01
    Hi everyone, I have the following base abstract class defined as: public abstract class BaseObject<T> : IComparable, IComparable<T>, IEquatable<T> {} I also have an interface defined as: public interface ICode<T> where T : struct { T Code { get; } } Now I want to derive a class that is inherited from BaseObject<T> and includes interface ICode<T>. I tried to define it like that: public class DerivedObject<T, U> : BaseObject<T>, ICode<U> where T : DerivedObject<T, U> where U : struct { public DerivedObject(U code) { Code = code; } // From BaseObject protected override int InstanceCompareTo(T obj) { return Code.CompareTo(obj.Code); } // From BaseObject protected override bool InstanceEquals(T obj) { return Code.Equals(obj.Code); } // From ICode U _Code; public U Code { get { return _Code; } protected set { _Code = value; } } } The only error that comes from the compiler is for Code.CompareTo(obj.Code) with the message: 'U' does not contain a definition for 'CompareTo' and no extension method 'CompareTo' accepting a first argument of type 'U' could be found. But U is a value type and should know CompareTo. Have you any idea what I am doing wrong, or if I do all wrong? My final aim is to derive classes such these: public class Account : DerivedObject<Account, int> public class ItemGroup : DerivedObject<ItemGroup, string> Big Thanks In Advance!

    Read the article

  • How do I make lambda functions generic in Scala?

    - by Electric Coffee
    As most of you probably know you can define functions in 2 ways in scala, there's the 'def' method and the lambda method... making the 'def' kind generic is fairly straight forward def someFunc[T](a: T) { // insert body here what I'm having trouble with here is how to make the following generic: val someFunc = (a: Int) => // insert body here of course right now a is an integer, but what would I need to do to make it generic? val someFunc[T] = (a: T) => doesn't work, neither does val someFunc = [T](a: T) => Is it even possible to make them generic, or should I just stick to the 'def' variant?

    Read the article

  • Create instance of generic type in Java?

    - by David Citron
    Is it possible to create an instance of a generic type in Java? I'm thinking based on what I've seen that the answer is "no" (due to type erasure), but I'd be interested if anyone can see something I'm missing: class SomeContainer<E> { E createContents() { return what??? } } EDIT: It turns out that Super Type Tokens could be used to resolve my issue, but it requires a lot of reflection-based code, as some of the answers below have indicated. I'll leave this open for a little while to see if anyone comes up with anything dramatically different than Ian Robertson's Artima Article.

    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 | 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31  | Next Page >