Search Results

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

Page 26/184 | < Previous Page | 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33  | Next Page >

  • Java constructor using generic types

    - by user37903
    I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around Java generic types. Here's a simple piece of code that in my mind should work, but I'm obviously doing something wrong. Eclipse reports this error in BreweryList.java: The method initBreweryFromObject() is undefined for the type <T> The idea is to fill a Vector with instances of objects that are a subclass of the Brewery class, so the invocation would be something like: BreweryList breweryList = new BreweryList(BrewerySubClass.class, list); BreweryList.java package com.beerme.test; import java.util.Vector; public class BreweryList<T extends Brewery> extends Vector<T> { public BreweryList(Class<T> c, Object[] j) { super(); for (int i = 0; i < j.length; i++) { T item = c.newInstance(); // initBreweryFromObject() is an instance method // of Brewery, of which <T> is a subclass (right?) c.initBreweryFromObject(); // "The method initBreweryFromObject() is undefined // for the type <T>" } } } Brewery.java package com.beerme.test; public class Brewery { public Brewery() { super(); } protected void breweryMethod() { } } BrewerySubClass.java package com.beerme.test; public class BrewerySubClass extends Brewery { public BrewerySubClass() { super(); } public void androidMethod() { } } I'm sure this is a complete-generics-noob question, but I'm stuck. Thanks for any tips!

    Read the article

  • Keyword 'this'(Me) is not available calling the base constructor

    - by serhio
    In the inherited class I use the base constructor, but can't use class's members calling this base constructor. In this example I have a PicturedLabel that knows it's own color and has a image. A TypedLabel : PictureLabel knows it's type but uses the base color. The (base)image that uses TypedLabel should be colored with the (base)color, however, I can't obtain this color: Error: Keyword 'this' is not available in the current context A workaround? /// base class public class PicturedLabel : Label { PictureBox pb = new PictureBox(); public Color LabelColor; public PicturedLabel() { // initialised here in a specific way LabelColor = Color.Red; } public PicturedLabel(Image img) : base() { pb.Image = img; this.Controls.Add(pb); } } public enum LabelType { A, B } /// derived class public class TypedLabel : PicturedLabel { public TypedLabel(LabelType type) : base(GetImageFromType(type, this.LabelColor)) //Error: Keyword 'this' is not available in the current context { } public static Image GetImageFromType(LabelType type, Color c) { Image result = new Bitmap(10, 10); Rectangle rec = new Rectangle(0, 0, 10, 10); Pen pen = new Pen(c); Graphics g = Graphics.FromImage(result); switch (type) { case LabelType.A: g.DrawRectangle(pen, rec); break; case LabelType.B: g.DrawEllipse(pen, rec); break; } return result; } }

    Read the article

  • Member initialization while using delegated constructor

    - by Anton
    I've started trying out the C++11 standard and i found this question which describes how to call your ctor from another ctor in the same class to avoid having a init method or the like. Now i'm trying the same thing with code that looks like this: hpp: class Tokenizer { public: Tokenizer(); Tokenizer(std::stringstream *lines); virtual ~Tokenizer() {}; private: std::stringstream *lines; }; cpp: Tokenizer::Tokenizer() : expected('=') { } Tokenizer::Tokenizer(std::stringstream *lines) : Tokenizer(), lines(lines) { } But this is giving me the error: In constructor ‘config::Tokenizer::Tokenizer(std::stringstream*)’: /path/Tokenizer.cpp:14:20: error: mem-initializer for ‘config::Tokenizer::lines’ follows constructor delegation I've tried moving the Tokenizer() part first and last in the list but that didn't help. What's the reason behind this and how should i fix it? I've tried moving the lines(lines) to the body with this->lines = lines; instead and it works fine. But i would really like to be able to use the initializer list. Thanks in advance!

    Read the article

  • How to avoid using this in a constructor

    - by Paralife
    I have this situation: interface MessageListener { void onMessageReceipt(Message message); } class MessageReceiver { MessageListener listener; public MessageReceiver(MessageListener listener, other arguments...) { this.listener = listener; } loop() { Message message = nextMessage(); listener.onMessageReceipt(message); } } and I want to avoid the following pattern: (Using the this in the Client constructor) class Client implements MessageListener { MessageReceiver receiver; MessageSender sender; public Client(...) { receiver = new MessageReceiver(this, other arguments...); sender = new Sender(...); } . . . @Override public void onMessageReceipt(Message message) { if(Message.isGood()) sender.send("Congrtulations"); else sender.send("Boooooooo"); } } The reason why i need the above functionality is because i want to call the sender inside the onMessageReceipt() function, for example to send a reply. But I dont want to pass the sender into a listener, so the only way I can think of is containing the sender in a class that implements the listener, hence the above resulting Client implementation. Is there a way to achive this without the use of 'this' in the constructor? It feels bizare and i dont like it, since i am passing myself to an object(MessageReceiver) before I am fully constructed. On the other hand, the MessageReceiver is not passed from outside, it is constructed inside, but does this 'purifies' the bizarre pattern? I am seeking for an alternative or an assurance of some kind that this is safe, or situations on which it might backfire on me.

    Read the article

  • java - powermock whenNew doesnt seem to work, calls the actual constructor

    - by user1331243
    I have two final classes that are used in my unit test. I am trying to use whenNew on the constructor of a final class, but I see that it calls the actual constructor. The code is @PrepareForTest({A.class, B.class, Provider.class}) @Test public void testGetStatus() throws Exception { B b = mock(B.class); when(b.getStatus()).thenReturn(1); whenNew(B.class).withArguments(anyString()).thenReturn(b); Provider p = new Provider(); int val = p.getStatus(); assertTrue((val == 1)); } public class Provider { public int getStatus() { B b = new B("test"); return b.getStatus(); } } public final class A { private void init() { // ...do soemthing } private static A a; private A() { } public static A getInstance() { if (a == null) { a = new A(); a.init(); } return a; } } public final class B { public B() { } public B(String s) { this(A.getInstance(), s); } public B(A a, String s) { } public int getStatus() { return 0; } } On debug, I find that its the actual class B instance created and not the mock instance that is returned for new usage and assertion fails. Any pointers on how to get this working. Thanks

    Read the article

  • Constructor initializer list: code from the C++ Primer, chapter 16

    - by Alexandros Gezerlis
    Toward the end of Chapter 16 of the "C++ Primer" I encountered the following code (I've removed a bunch of lines): class Sales_item { public: // default constructor: unbound handle Sales_item(): h() { } private: Handle<Item_base> h; // use-counted handle }; My problem is with the Sales_item(): h() { } line. For the sake of completeness, let me also quote the parts of the Handle class template that I think are relevant to my question (I think I don't need to show the Item_base class): template <class T> class Handle { public: // unbound handle Handle(T *p = 0): ptr(p), use(new size_t(1)) { } private: T* ptr; // shared object size_t *use; // count of how many Handles point to *ptr }; I would have expected something like either: a) Sales_item(): h(0) { } which is a convention the authors have used repeatedly in earlier chapters, or b) Handle<Item_base>() if the intention was to invoke the default constructor of the Handle class. Instead, what the book has is Sales_item(): h() { }. My gut reaction is that this is a typo, since h() looks suspiciously similar to a function declaration. On the other hand, I just tried compiling under g++ and running the example code that uses this class and it seems to be working correctly. Any thoughts?

    Read the article

  • Java NullPointerException In the constructor's class

    - by AndreaF
    I have made a Java class where I have defined a constructor and some methods but I get a NullPointer Exception, and I don't know how I could fix It. public class Job { String idJob; int time; int timeRun; Job j1; List<Job> startBeforeStart; List<Job> restricted; Job(String idJob, int time){ this.idJob=idJob; this.time=time; } public boolean isRestricted() { return restricted.size() != 0; } public void startsBeforeStartOf(Job job){ startBeforeStart.add(job); job.restricted.add(this); } public void startsAfterStartOf(Job job){ job.startsBeforeStartOf(this); } public void checkRestrictions(){ if (!isRestricted()){ System.out.println("+\n"); } else{ Iterator<Job> itR = restricted.iterator(); while(itR.hasNext()){ Job j1 = itR.next(); if(time>timeRun){ System.out.println("-\n"); time--; } else { restricted.remove(j1); } } } } @Override public boolean equals(Object obj) { return obj instanceof Job && ((Job) obj).idJob.equals(idJob); } public void run() { timeRun++; } } PS Looking in a forum a user says that to fix the error I should make an ArrayList inside the constructor (without modify the received parameters that should remain String id and int time), but I haven't understand what He mean.

    Read the article

  • Calling an Overridden Method from a Parent-Class Constructor

    - by Vaibhav Bajpai
    I tried calling an overridden method from a constructor of a parent class and noticed different behavior across languages. C++ - echoes A.foo() class A{ public: A(){foo();} virtual void foo(){cout<<"A.foo()";} }; class B : public A{ public: B(){} void foo(){cout<<"B.foo()";} }; int main(){ B *b = new B(); } Java - echoes B.foo() class A{ public A(){foo();} public void foo(){System.out.println("A.foo()");} } class B extends A{ public void foo(){System.out.println("B.foo()");} } class Demo{ public static void main(String args[]){ B b = new B(); } } C# - echoes B.foo() class A{ public A(){foo();} public virtual void foo(){Console.WriteLine("A.foo()");} } class B : A{ public override void foo(){Console.WriteLine("B.foo()");} } class MainClass { public static void Main (string[] args) { B b = new B(); } } I realize that in C++ objects are created from top-most parent going down the hierarchy, so when the constructor calls the overridden method, B does not even exist, so it calls the A' version of the method. However, I am not sure why I am getting different behavior in Java and C#.

    Read the article

  • Windsor dependency

    - by jack
    I have a class with constructor like this: public UserRepository(IBlockRepository blockRepos) { } and again, I have another class with the constructor like this: public BlockRepository(IUserRepository userRepo) { } this causes the Windsor error: Castle.MicroKernel.Handlers.HandlerException: Can't create component 'UserRepository' as it has dependencies to be satisfied. UserRepository is waiting for the following dependencies How do I fix this?

    Read the article

  • Can't make my WCF extension work

    - by Sergio Romero
    I have a WCF solution that consists of the following class libraries: Exercise.Services: Contains the implementation classes for the services. Exercise.ServiceProxy: Contains the classes that are instantiated in the client. Exercise.HttpHost: Contains the services (*.svc files). I'm calling the service from a console application and the "first version" works really well so I took the next step which is to create a custom ServiceHostFactory, ServiceHost, and InstanceProvider so I can use constructor injection in my services as it is explained in this article. These classes are implemented in yet another class library: 4. Exercise.StructureMapWcfExtension Now even though I've modified my service this: <%@ ServiceHost Language="C#" Debug="true" Factory="Exercise.StructureMapWcfExtension.StructureMapServiceHostFactory" Service="Exercise.Services.PurchaseOrderService" %> I always get the following exception: System.ServiceModel.CommunicationException Security negotiation failed because the remote party did not send back a reply in a timely manner. This may be because the underlying transport connection was aborted. It fails in this line of code: public class PurchaseOrderProxy : ClientBase<IPurchaseOrderService>, IPurchaseOrderService { public PurchaseOrderResponse CreatePurchaseOrder(PurchaseOrderRequest purchaseOrderRequest) { return base.Channel.CreatePurchaseOrder(purchaseOrderRequest); //Fails here } } But that is not all, I added a trace to the web.config file and this is the error that appears in the log file: System.InvalidOperationException The service type provided could not be loaded as a service because it does not have a default (parameter-less) constructor. To fix the problem, add a default constructor to the type, or pass an instance of the type to the host. So this means that my ServiceHostFactory is never being hit, I even set a breakpoint in both its constructor and its method and they never get hit. I've added a reference of the StructureMapWcfExtension library to all the other ones (even the console client), one by one to no avail. I also tried to use the option in the host's web.config file to configure the factory like so: <serviceHostingEnvironment> <serviceActivations> <add service="Exercise.Services.PurchaseOrderService" relativeAddress="PurchaseOrderService.svc" factory="Exercise.StructureMapWcfExtension.StructureMapServiceHostFactory"/> </serviceActivations> </serviceHostingEnvironment> That didn't work either. Please I need help in getting this to work so I can incorporate it to our project. Thank you. UPDATE: Here's the service host factory's code: namespace Exercise.StructureMapWcfExtension { public class StructureMapServiceHostFactory : ServiceHostFactory { private readonly Container Container; public StructureMapServiceHostFactory() { Container = new Container(); new ContainerConfigurer().Configure(Container); } protected override ServiceHost CreateServiceHost(Type serviceType, Uri[] baseAddresses) { return new StructureMapServiceHost(Container, serviceType, baseAddresses); } } public class ContainerConfigurer { public void Configure(Container container) { container.Configure(r => r.For<IPurchaseOrderFacade>().Use<PurchaseOrderFacade>()); } } }

    Read the article

  • Dynamically register constructor methods in an AbstractFactory at compile time using C++ templates

    - by Horacio
    When implementing a MessageFactory class to instatiate Message objects I used something like: class MessageFactory { public: static Message *create(int type) { switch(type) { case PING_MSG: return new PingMessage(); case PONG_MSG: return new PongMessage(); .... } } This works ok but every time I add a new message I have to add a new XXX_MSG and modify the switch statement. After some research I found a way to dynamically update the MessageFactory at compile time so I can add as many messages as I want without need to modify the MessageFactory itself. This allows for cleaner and easier to maintain code as I do not need to modify three different places to add/remove message classes: #include <stdio.h> #include <stdlib.h> #include <string.h> #include <inttypes.h> class Message { protected: inline Message() {}; public: inline virtual ~Message() { } inline int getMessageType() const { return m_type; } virtual void say() = 0; protected: uint16_t m_type; }; template<int TYPE, typename IMPL> class MessageTmpl: public Message { enum { _MESSAGE_ID = TYPE }; public: static Message* Create() { return new IMPL(); } static const uint16_t MESSAGE_ID; // for registration protected: MessageTmpl() { m_type = MESSAGE_ID; } //use parameter to instanciate template }; typedef Message* (*t_pfFactory)(); class MessageFactory· { public: static uint16_t Register(uint16_t msgid, t_pfFactory factoryMethod) { printf("Registering constructor for msg id %d\n", msgid); m_List[msgid] = factoryMethod; return msgid; } static Message *Create(uint16_t msgid) { return m_List[msgid](); } static t_pfFactory m_List[65536]; }; template <int TYPE, typename IMPL> const uint16_t MessageTmpl<TYPE, IMPL >::MESSAGE_ID = MessageFactory::Register( MessageTmpl<TYPE, IMPL >::_MESSAGE_ID, &MessageTmpl<TYPE, IMPL >::Create); class PingMessage: public MessageTmpl < 10, PingMessage > {· public: PingMessage() {} virtual void say() { printf("Ping\n"); } }; class PongMessage: public MessageTmpl < 11, PongMessage > {· public: PongMessage() {} virtual void say() { printf("Pong\n"); } }; t_pfFactory MessageFactory::m_List[65536]; int main(int argc, char **argv) { Message *msg1; Message *msg2; msg1 = MessageFactory::Create(10); msg1->say(); msg2 = MessageFactory::Create(11); msg2->say(); delete msg1; delete msg2; return 0; } The template here does the magic by registering into the MessageFactory class, all new Message classes (e.g. PingMessage and PongMessage) that subclass from MessageTmpl. This works great and simplifies code maintenance but I still have some questions about this technique: Is this a known technique/pattern? what is the name? I want to search more info about it. I want to make the array for storing new constructors MessageFactory::m_List[65536] a std::map but doing so causes the program to segfault even before reaching main(). Creating an array of 65536 elements is overkill but I have not found a way to make this a dynamic container. For all message classes that are subclasses of MessageTmpl I have to implement the constructor. If not it won't register in the MessageFactory. For example commenting the constructor of the PongMessage: class PongMessage: public MessageTmpl < 11, PongMessage > { public: //PongMessage() {} /* HERE */ virtual void say() { printf("Pong\n"); } }; would result in the PongMessage class not being registered by the MessageFactory and the program would segfault in the MessageFactory::Create(11) line. The question is why the class won't register? Having to add the empty implementation of the 100+ messages I need feels inefficient and unnecessary.

    Read the article

  • C++ array initialization without assignment

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

    Read the article

  • I'm following Qt Tutorials and got a simple question

    - by nzer0
    If I want to create my own class MyWidget which inherits from QWidget Tutorial tells me to write constructor like this... MyWidget::MyWidget(QWidget *parent) : QWidget(parent){....} I'm wondering what is the role of : QWidget(parent) Does it mean explicit call for QWidget's constructor?

    Read the article

  • C++ class is not recognizing string data type

    - by reallythecrash
    I'm working on a program from my C++ textbook, and this this the first time I've really run into trouble. I just can't seem to see what is wrong here. Visual Studio is telling me Error: identifier "string" is undefined. I separated the program into three files. A header file for the class specification, a .cpp file for the class implementation and the main program file. These are the instructions from my book: Write a class named Car that has the following member variables: year. An int that holds the car's model year. make. A string that holds the make of the car. speed. An int that holds the car's current speed. In addition, the class should have the following member functions. Constructor. The constructor should accept the car's year and make as arguments and assign these values to the object's year and make member variables. The constructor should initialize the speed member variable to 0. Accessors. Appropriate accessor functions should be created to allow values to be retrieved from an object's year, make and speed member variables. There are more instructions, but they are not necessary to get this part to work. Here is my source code: // File Car.h -- Car class specification file #ifndef CAR_H #define CAR_H class Car { private: int year; string make; int speed; public: Car(int, string); int getYear(); string getMake(); int getSpeed(); }; #endif // File Car.cpp -- Car class function implementation file #include "Car.h" // Default Constructor Car::Car(int inputYear, string inputMake) { year = inputYear; make = inputMake; speed = 0; } // Accessors int Car::getYear() { return year; } string Car::getMake() { return make; } int Car::getSpeed() { return speed; } // Main program #include <iostream> #include <string> #include "Car.h" using namespace std; int main() { } I haven't written anything in the main program yet, because I can't get the class to compile. I've only linked the header file to the main program. Thanks in advance to all who take the time to investigate this problem for me.

    Read the article

  • Correct way of using/testing event service in Eclipse E4 RCP

    - by Thorsten Beck
    Allow me to pose two coupled questions that might boil down to one about good application design ;-) What is the best practice for using event based communication in an e4 RCP application? How can I write simple unit tests (using JUnit) for classes that send/receive events using dependency injection and IEventBroker ? Let’s be more concrete: say I am developing an Eclipse e4 RCP application consisting of several plugins that need to communicate. For communication I want to use the event service provided by org.eclipse.e4.core.services.events.IEventBroker so my plugins stay loosely coupled. I use dependency injection to inject the event broker to a class that dispatches events: @Inject static IEventBroker broker; private void sendEvent() { broker.post(MyEventConstants.SOME_EVENT, payload) } On the receiver side, I have a method like: @Inject @Optional private void receiveEvent(@UIEventTopic(MyEventConstants.SOME_EVENT) Object payload) Now the questions: In order for IEventBroker to be successfully injected, my class needs access to the current IEclipseContext. Most of my classes using the event service are not referenced by the e4 application model, so I have to manually inject the context on instantiation using e.g. ContextInjectionFactory.inject(myEventSendingObject, context); This approach works but I find myself passing around a lot of context to wherever I use the event service. Is this really the correct approach to event based communication across an E4 application? how can I easily write JUnit tests for a class that uses the event service (either as a sender or receiver)? Obviously, none of the above annotations work in isolation since there is no context available. I understand everyone’s convinced that dependency injection simplifies testability. But does this also apply to injecting services like the IEventBroker? This article describes creation of your own IEclipseContext to include the process of DI in tests. Not sure if this could resolve my 2nd issue but I also hesitate running all my tests as JUnit Plug-in tests as it appears impractible to fire up the PDE for each unit test. Maybe I just misunderstand the approach. This article speaks about “simply mocking IEventBroker”. Yes, that would be great! Unfortunately, I couldn’t find any information on how this can be achieved. All this makes me wonder whether I am still on a "good path" or if this is already a case of bad design? And if so, how would you go about redesigning? Move all event related actions to dedicated event sender/receiver classes or a dedicated plugin?

    Read the article

  • Parameterized SQL statements vs. very simple method

    - by Philipp G
    When I started to write the first SQL-Statements in my programs I felt quite comfortable with protecting myself against SQL-Injection with a very simple method that a colleague showed me. It replaced all single quotes with two single quotes. So for example there is a searchfield in which you can enter a customername to search in the customertable. If you would enter Peter's Barbershop The SELECT Statement would look like SELECT * FROM Customers WHERE Customername = 'Peter''s Barbershop' If now an attacker would insert this: ';DROP TABLE FOO; -- The statement would look like: SELECT * FROM Customers WHERE Customername = ''';DROP TABLE FOO;--' It would not drop any table, but search the customertable for the customername ';DROP TABLE FOO;-- which, I suppose, won't be found ;-) Now after a while of writing statements and protecting myself against SQL-Injection with this method, I read that many developers use parameterized statements, but I never read an article where "our" method was used. So definitely there is a good reason for it. What scenarios would parameterized statements cover but our method doesn't? What are the advantages of parameterized statements compared to our method? Thanks Philipp

    Read the article

  • How to override the behavior of Spring @Autowired

    - by Mark
    Hi a little background: I am Using Spring 2.5, and specifically spring IOC and annotations. I am using @Autowired in my code (the Autowiring is done by type) and use @Component for exposing Classes to the Automatic wiring. The situation described bellow arose while i tried to test my code. now to the problem: Note: i use a different Spring Context for the Test environment. I have a class FOO which is @Autowired but in the test context i want to use a different class of the same type MockFoo (extends FOO) The Spring Setup of course fails do so automatically due to multiple options for the Dependency Injection of the FOO class (both FOO and MockFOO comply to the Type check) I am looking for a way to inject the test bean instead of the original bean. I expected Spring to allow using the Context configurion file to override a bean injection or to order Spring not to autowire a specific bean BUT All these option seem to exists only for the beans which were originally defined in the Spring Context Configuration file

    Read the article

  • How do I protect myself?

    - by ved
    I was poking around at my work computer this evening and was looking at my timesheets. I noticed that all my timesheets had variables in the URLs and I could figure out the numbering scheme for the pages. Then I got a little curious about SQL injection and thought of trying out adding simple SQL injections like "OR 1=1" etc. to see how protected we really were with our timesheet info. One of these strings yielded a friendly error page saying that an error email was sent to the developer. I am concerned that my ID, and request will be seen by the developer , immediately recognized as SQL injection and will be reported to network security officer as a malicious attempt by an employee to hack the timesheet dB. what is my defense? I am really worried.

    Read the article

  • Unity and web service

    - by zachary
    I had this awesome idea... but I am afraid maybe it is actually a bad idea.... we use unity for dependency injection. I make interfaces from my web services using partial classes for the purpose of mocking and web services.... What I want to do is put my web services into unity and get them via dependency injection... What do you think? Is there too much overhead somewhere? Memory leaks? Is this a bad idea?

    Read the article

  • Can a plain servlet be configured as a seam component?

    - by stacker
    I created a plain servlet within a seam-gen (2.1.2) application, now I would like to use injection. Thus I annotated it with @Name and it's recognized as component: INFO [Component] Component: ConfigReport, scope: EVENT, type: JAVA_BEAN, class: com.mycompany.servlet.ConfigReport Unfortunatly the injection of the logger doesn't work NullPointerException in init() import org.jboss.seam.annotations.Logger; import org.jboss.seam.annotations.Name; import org.jboss.seam.log.Log; @Name("ConfigReport") public class ConfigReport extends HttpServlet { @Logger private Log log; public void init(ServletConfig config) throws ServletException { log.info( "BOOM" ); } } Is my approach abusive? What would be the alternatives (the client sending requests to the servlet is curl, not a browser)?

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33  | Next Page >