Search Results

Search found 2390 results on 96 pages for 'concrete inheritance'.

Page 28/96 | < Previous Page | 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35  | Next Page >

  • Can I create a custom class that inherits from a strongly typed DataRow?

    - by Calvin Fisher
    I'm working on a huge, old project with a lot of brittle code, some of which has been around since the .NET 1.0 era, and it has been and will be worked on by other people... so I'd like to change as little as possible. I have one project in my solution that contains DataSet.xsd. This project compiles to a separate assembly (Data.dll). The database schema includes several tables arranged more or less hierarchically, but the only way the tables are actually linked together is through joins. I can get, e.g. DepartmentRow and EmployeeRow objects from the autogenerated code. EmployeeRow contains information from the employee's corresponding DepartmentRow through a join. I'm making a new report to view multiple departments and all their employees. If I use the existing data access scheme, all I will be able to get is a spreadsheet-like output where each employee is represented on one line, with department information repeated over and over in its appropriate columns. E.g.: Department1...Employee1... Department1...Employee2... Department2...Employee3... But what the customer would like is to have each department render like a heading, with a list of employees beneath each. E.g.: - Department1... Employee1... Employee2... + Department2... I'm trying to do this by inheriting hierarchical objects from the autogenerated Row objects. E.g.: public class Department : DataSet.DepartmentRow { public List<Employee> Employees; } That way I could nest the data in the report by using a collection of Department objects as the DataSource, each of which will put its list of Employees in a subreport. The problem is that this gives me a The type Data.DataSet.DepartmentRow has no constructors defined error. And when I try to make a constructor, e.g. public class Department : DataSet.DepartmentRow { private Department() { } public List<Employee> Employees; } I get a 'Data.DataSet.DepartmentRow(System.Data.DataRowBuilder)' is inaccessible due to its protection level. error in addition to the first one. Is there a way to accomplish what I'm trying to do? Or is there something else I should be trying entirely?

    Read the article

  • How to find the first declaring method for a reference method

    - by Oliver Gierke
    Suppose you have a generic interface and an implementation: public interface MyInterface<T> { void foo(T param); } public class MyImplementation<T> implements MyInterface<T> { void foo(T param) { } } These two types are frework types. In the next step I want allow users to extend that interface as well as redeclare foo(T param) to maybe equip it with further annotations. public interface MyExtendedInterface extends MyInterface<Bar> { @Override void foo(Bar param); // Further declared methods } I create an AOP proxy for the extended interface and intercept especially the calls to furtherly declared methods. As foo(…) is no redeclared in MyExtendedInterface I cannot execute it by simply invoking MethodInvocation.proceed() as the instance of MyImplementation only implements MyInterface.foo(…) and not MyExtendedInterface.foo(…). So is there a way to get access to the method that declared a method initially? Regarding this example is there a way to find out that foo(Bar param) was declared in MyInterface originally and get access to the accoriding Method instance? I already tried to scan base class methods to match by name and parameter types but that doesn't work out as generics pop in and MyImplementation.getMethod("foo", Bar.class) obviously throws a NoSuchMethodException. I already know that MyExtendedInterface types MyInterface to Bar. So If I could create some kind of "typed view" on MyImplementation my math algorithm could work out actually.

    Read the article

  • Why do pure virtual base classes get direct access to static data members while derived instances do

    - by Shamster
    I've created a simple pair of classes. One is pure virtual with a static data member, and the other is derived from the base, as follows: #include <iostream> template <class T> class Base { public: Base (const T _member) { member = _member; } static T member; virtual void Print () const = 0; }; template <class T> T Base<T>::member; template <class T> void Base<T>::Print () const { std::cout << "Base: " << member << std::endl; } template <class T> class Derived : public Base<T> { public: Derived (const T _member) : Base<T>(_member) { } virtual void Print () const { std::cout << "Derived: " << this->member << std::endl; } }; I've found from this relationship that when I need access to the static data member in the base class, I can call it with direct access as if it were a regular, non-static class member. i.e. - the Base::Print() method does not require a this- modifier. However, the derived class does require the this-member indirect access syntax. I don't understand why this is. Both class methods are accessing the same static data, so why does the derived class need further specification? A simple call to test it is: int main () { Derived<double> dd (7.0); dd.Print(); return 0; } which prints the expected "Derived: 7"

    Read the article

  • Two models, one STI and a Validation

    - by keruilin
    Let's say I have two tables -- Products and Orders. For the sake of simplicity assume that only one product can be purchased at a time so there is no join table like order_items. So the relationship is that Product has many orders, and Order belongs to product. Therefore, product_id is a fk in the Order table. The product table is STI -- with the subclasses being A, B, C. When the user orders subclass Product C, two special validations must be checked on the Order model fields order_details and order_status. These two fields can be nil for all other Product subclasses (ie A and B). In other words, no validation needs to run for these two fields when a user purchases A and B. My question is: How do I write validations (perhaps custom?) in the Order model so that the Order model knows to only run the validations for the two fields -- order_details and order_status -- when Product subclass C is being saved to the orders table?

    Read the article

  • In C#, can I hide/modify accessors in subclasses?

    - by Diego
    I'm not even sure what this principle is called or how to search for it, so I sincerely apologize if it has been brought up before, but the best way to do it is with an example. class Properties { public string Name { get; set; } } class MyClass { class SubProperties: Properties { public override Name { get { return GetActualName(); } set { _value = SetActualName(value); } } } public SubProperties ClassProperties; private GetActualName() { ClassProperties.Name = "name"; } private SetActualName(string s) { ClassProperties.Name = SomeOtherFunction(s); } } The idea is to have any object that instantiates MyClass have a fully accessible property ClassProperties. To that object, it would look exactly like a Properties object, but behind the scenes, MyClass is actually computing and modifying the results of the fields. This method of declaration is obviously wrong since I can't access GetActualName() and SetActualName() from within the SubProperties definition. How would I achieve something like this?

    Read the article

  • How to inherit constructors with arguments in .NET?

    - by Soumya92
    I have a "MustInherit" .NET class which declares a constructor with an integer parameter. However, Visual Studio gives me an error when I create any derived class stating that there is no constructor that can be called without any arguments. Is it possible to inherit the constructor with arguments? Right now, I have to use Public Sub New(ByVal A As Integer) MyBase.New(A) End Sub in the derived classes. Is there any way to avoid this?

    Read the article

  • Javascript static method intheritance

    - by Matteo Pagliazzi
    I want to create a javascript class/object that allow me to have various method: Model class Model.all() » static method Model.find() » static method Model delete() » instance method Model save() » instance method Model.create() » static that returns a new Model instance For static method I can define them using: Model.staticMethod(){ method } while for instance method is better to use: function Model(){ this.instanceMethod = function(){} } and then create a new instance or using prototype? var m = function Model(){ } m.prototype.method() = function(){ } Now let's say that I want to create a new class based on Model, how to inherit not only its prototypes but also its static methods?

    Read the article

  • Problems Allocating Objects of Derived Class Where Base Class has Abstract Virtual Functions

    - by user1743901
    I am trying to get this Zombie/Human agent based simulation running, but I am having problems with these derived classes (Human and Zombie) who have parent class "Creature". I have 3 virtual functions declared in "Creature" and all three of these are re-declared AND DEFINED in both "Human" and "Zombie". But for some reason when I have my program call "new" to allocate memory for objects of type Human or Zombie, it complains about the virtual functions being abstract. Here's the code: definitions.h #ifndef definitions_h #define definitions_h class Creature; class Item; class Coords; class Grid { public: Creature*** cboard; Item*** iboard; int WIDTH; int HEIGHT; Grid(int WIDTHVALUE, int HEIGHTVALUE); void FillGrid(); //initializes grid object with humans and zombies void Refresh(); //calls Creature::Die(),Move(),Attack(),Breed() on every square void UpdateBuffer(char** buffer); bool isEmpty(int startx, int starty, int dir); char CreatureType(int xcoord, int ycoord); char CreatureType(int startx, int starty, int dir); }; class Random { public: int* rptr; void Print(); Random(int MIN, int MAX, int LEN); ~Random(); private: bool alreadyused(int checkthis, int len, int* rptr); bool isClean(); int len; }; class Coords { public: int x; int y; int MaxX; int MaxY; Coords() {x=0; y=0; MaxX=0; MaxY=0;} Coords(int X, int Y, int WIDTH, int HEIGHT) {x=X; y=Y; MaxX=WIDTH; MaxY=HEIGHT; } void MoveRight(); void MoveLeft(); void MoveUp(); void MoveDown(); void MoveUpRight(); void MoveUpLeft(); void MoveDownRight(); void MoveDownLeft(); void MoveDir(int dir); void setx(int X) {x=X;} void sety(int Y) {y=Y;} }; class Creature { public: bool alive; Coords Location; char displayletter; Creature() {Location.x=0; Location.y=0;} Creature(int i, int j) {Location.setx(i); Location.sety(j);} virtual void Attack() =0; virtual void AttackCreature(Grid G, int attackdirection) =0; virtual void Breed() =0; void Die(); void Move(Grid G); int DecideSquare(Grid G); void MoveTo(Grid G, int dir); }; class Human : public Creature { public: bool armed; //if armed, chances of winning fight increased for next fight bool vaccinated; //if vaccinated, no chance of getting infected int bitecount; //if a human is bitten, bite count is set to a random number int breedcount; //if a human goes x steps without combat, will breed if next to a human int starvecount; //if a human does not eat in x steps, will die Human() {displayletter='H';} Human(int i, int j) {displayletter='H';} void Attack(Grid G); void AttackCreature(Grid G, int attackdirection); void Breed(Grid G); //will breed after x steps and next to human int DecideAttack(Grid G); }; class Zombie : public Creature { public: Zombie() {displayletter='Z';} Zombie(int i, int j) {displayletter='Z';} void Attack(Grid G); void AttackCreature(Grid G, int attackdirection); void Breed() {} //does nothing int DecideAttack(Grid G); void AttackCreature(Grid G, int attackdirection); }; class Item { }; #endif definitions.cpp #include <cstdlib> #include "definitions.h" Random::Random(int MIN, int MAX, int LEN) //constructor { len=LEN; rptr=new int[LEN]; //allocate array of given length for (int i=0; i<LEN; i++) { int random; do { random = rand() % (MAX-MIN+1) + MIN; } while (alreadyused(random,LEN,rptr)); rptr[i]=random; } } bool Random::alreadyused(int checkthis, int len, int* rptr) { for (int i=0; i<len; i++) { if (rptr[i]==checkthis) return 1; } return 0; } Random::~Random() { delete rptr; } Grid::Grid(int WIDTHVALUE, int HEIGHTVALUE) { WIDTH = WIDTHVALUE; HEIGHT = HEIGHTVALUE; //builds 2d array of creature pointers cboard = new Creature**[WIDTH]; for(int i=0; i<WIDTH; i++) { cboard[i] = new Creature*[HEIGHT]; } //builds 2d array of item pointers iboard = new Item**[WIDTH]; for (int i=0; i<WIDTH; i++) { iboard[i] = new Item*[HEIGHT]; } } void Grid::FillGrid() { /* For each creature pointer in grid, randomly selects whether to initalize as zombie, human, or empty square. This methodology can be changed to initialize different creature types with different probabilities */ int random; for (int i=0; i<WIDTH; i++) { for (int j=0; j<HEIGHT; j++) { Random X(1,100,1); //create a single random integer from [1,100] at X.rptr random=*(X.rptr); if (random < 20) cboard[i][j] = new Human(i,j); else if (random < 40) cboard[i][j] = new Zombie(i,j); else cboard[i][j] = NULL; } } //at this point every creature pointer should be pointing to either //a zombie, human, or NULL with varying probabilities } void Grid::UpdateBuffer(char** buffer) { for (int i=0; i<WIDTH; i++) { for (int j=0; j<HEIGHT; j++) { if (cboard[i][j]) buffer[i][j]=cboard[i][j]->displayletter; else buffer[i][j]=' '; } } } bool Grid::isEmpty(int startx, int starty, int dir) { Coords StartLocation(startx,starty,WIDTH,HEIGHT); switch(dir) { case 1: StartLocation.MoveUp(); if (cboard[StartLocation.x][StartLocation.y]) return 0; case 2: StartLocation.MoveUpRight(); if (cboard[StartLocation.x][StartLocation.y]) return 0; case 3: StartLocation.MoveRight(); if (cboard[StartLocation.x][StartLocation.y]) return 0; case 4: StartLocation.MoveDownRight(); if (cboard[StartLocation.x][StartLocation.y]) return 0; case 5: StartLocation.MoveDown(); if (cboard[StartLocation.x][StartLocation.y]) return 0; case 6: StartLocation.MoveDownLeft(); if (cboard[StartLocation.x][StartLocation.y]) return 0; case 7: StartLocation.MoveLeft(); if (cboard[StartLocation.x][StartLocation.y]) return 0; case 8: StartLocation.MoveUpLeft(); if (cboard[StartLocation.x][StartLocation.y]) return 0; } return 1; } char Grid::CreatureType(int xcoord, int ycoord) { if (cboard[xcoord][ycoord]) //if there is a creature at location xcoord,ycoord return (cboard[xcoord][ycoord]->displayletter); else //if pointer at location xcoord,ycoord is null, return null char return '\0'; } char Grid::CreatureType(int startx, int starty, int dir) { Coords StartLocation(startx,starty,WIDTH,HEIGHT); switch(dir) { case 1: StartLocation.MoveUp(); if (cboard[StartLocation.x][StartLocation.y]) return (cboard[StartLocation.x][StartLocation.y]->displayletter); case 2: StartLocation.MoveUpRight(); if (cboard[StartLocation.x][StartLocation.y]) return (cboard[StartLocation.x][StartLocation.y]->displayletter); case 3: StartLocation.MoveRight(); if (cboard[StartLocation.x][StartLocation.y]) return (cboard[StartLocation.x][StartLocation.y]->displayletter); case 4: StartLocation.MoveDownRight(); if (cboard[StartLocation.x][StartLocation.y]) return (cboard[StartLocation.x][StartLocation.y]->displayletter); case 5: StartLocation.MoveDown(); if (cboard[StartLocation.x][StartLocation.y]) return (cboard[StartLocation.x][StartLocation.y]->displayletter); case 6: StartLocation.MoveDownLeft(); if (cboard[StartLocation.x][StartLocation.y]) return (cboard[StartLocation.x][StartLocation.y]->displayletter); case 7: StartLocation.MoveLeft(); if (cboard[StartLocation.x][StartLocation.y]) return (cboard[StartLocation.x][StartLocation.y]->displayletter); case 8: StartLocation.MoveUpLeft(); if (cboard[StartLocation.x][StartLocation.y]) return (cboard[StartLocation.x][StartLocation.y]->displayletter); } //if function hasn't returned by now, square being looked at is pointer to null return '\0'; //return null char } void Coords::MoveRight() {(x==MaxX)? (x=0):(x++);} void Coords::MoveLeft() {(x==0)? (x=MaxX):(x--);} void Coords::MoveUp() {(y==0)? (y=MaxY):(y--);} void Coords::MoveDown() {(y==MaxY)? (y=0):(y++);} void Coords::MoveUpRight() {MoveUp(); MoveRight();} void Coords::MoveUpLeft() {MoveUp(); MoveLeft();} void Coords::MoveDownRight() {MoveDown(); MoveRight();} void Coords::MoveDownLeft() {MoveDown(); MoveLeft();} void Coords::MoveDir(int dir) { switch(dir) { case 1: MoveUp(); break; case 2: MoveUpRight(); break; case 3: MoveRight(); break; case 4: MoveDownRight(); break; case 5: MoveDown(); break; case 6: MoveDownLeft(); break; case 7: MoveLeft(); break; case 8: MoveUpLeft(); break; case 0: break; } } void Creature::Move(Grid G) { int movedir=DecideSquare(G); MoveTo(G,movedir); } int Creature::DecideSquare(Grid G) { Random X(1,8,8); //X.rptr now points to 8 unique random integers from [1,8] for (int i=0; i<8; i++) { int dir=X.rptr[i]; if (G.isEmpty(Location.x,Location.y,dir)) return dir; } return 0; } void Creature::MoveTo(Grid G, int dir) { Coords OldLocation=Location; Location.MoveDir(dir); G.cboard[Location.x][Location.y]=this; //point new location to this creature G.cboard[OldLocation.x][OldLocation.y]=NULL; //point old location to NULL } void Creature::Die() { if (!alive) { delete this; this=NULL; } } void Human::Breed(Grid G) { if (!breedcount) { Coords BreedLocation=Location; Random X(1,8,8); for (int i=0; i<8; i++) { BreedLocation.MoveDir(X.rptr[i]); if (!G.cboard[BreedLocation.x][BreedLocation.y]) { G.cboard[BreedLocation.x][BreedLocation.y])=new Human(BreedLocation.x,BreedLocation.y); return; } } } } int Human::DecideAttack(Grid G) { Coords AttackLocation=Location; Random X(1,8,8); int attackdir; for (int i=0; i<8; i++) { attackdir=X.rptr[i]; switch(G.CreatureType(Location.x,Location.y,attackdir)) { case 'H': break; case 'Z': return attackdir; case '\0': break; default: break; } } return 0; //no zombies! } int AttackRoll(int para1, int para2) { //outcome 1: Zombie wins, human dies //outcome 2: Human wins, zombie dies //outcome 3: Human wins, zombie dies, but human is bitten Random X(1,100,1); int roll= *(X.rptr); if (roll < para1) return 1; else if (roll < para2) return 2; else return 3; } void Human::AttackCreature(Grid G, int attackdirection) { Coords AttackLocation=Location; AttackLocation.MoveDir(attackdirection); int para1=33; int para2=33; if (vaccinated) para2=101; //makes attackroll > para 2 impossible, never gets infected if (armed) para1-=16; //reduces chance of zombie winning fight int roll=AttackRoll(para1,para2); //outcome 1: Zombie wins, human dies //outcome 2: Human wins, zombie dies //outcome 3: Human wins, zombie dies, but human is bitten switch(roll) { case 1: alive=0; //human (this) dies return; case 2: G.cboard[AttackLocation.x][AttackLocation.y]->alive=0; return; //zombie dies case 3: G.cboard[AttackLocation.x][AttackLocation.y]->alive=0; //zombie dies Random X(3,7,1); //human is bitten bitecount=*(X.rptr); return; } } int Zombie::DecideAttack(Grid G) { Coords AttackLocation=Location; Random X(1,8,8); int attackdir; for (int i=0; i<8; i++) { attackdir=X.rptr[i]; switch(G.CreatureType(Location.x,Location.y,attackdir)) { case 'H': return attackdir; case 'Z': break; case '\0': break; default: break; } } return 0; //no zombies! } void Zombie::AttackCreature(Grid G, int attackdirection) { int reversedirection; if (attackdirection < 9 && attackdirection>0) { (attackdirection<5)? (reversedirection=attackdirection+4):(reversedirection=attackdirection-4); } else reversedirection=0; //this should never happen //when a zombie attacks a human, the Human::AttackZombie() function is called //in the "reverse" direction, utilizing that function that has already been written Coords ZombieLocation=Location; Coords HumanLocation=Location; HumanLocation.MoveDir(attackdirection); if (G.cboard[HumanLocation.x][HumanLocation.y]) //if there is a human there, which there should be G.cboard[HumanLocation.x][HumanLocation.y]->AttackCreature(G,reversedirection); } void Zombie::Attack(Grid G) { int attackdirection=DecideAttack(G); AttackCreature(G,attackdirection); } main.cpp #include <cstdlib> #include <iostream> #include "definitions.h" using namespace std; int main(int argc, char *argv[]) { Grid G(500,500); system("PAUSE"); return EXIT_SUCCESS; }

    Read the article

  • Use super class's address/pointer in initialization list

    - by JQ
    context 1: class D : public B1, public B2{}; context 2: B2 takes B1 to initialize: B2( B1 * ) //B2's constructor my question is in D's initialization list: D::D() : B1(), B2( ? )... What should be in ? I don't want to put " (B1*)this " in the ? place, because it's no good to use "this" in initialization list. And since B1 part has been initialized, it makes sense to use it. What should I do ?

    Read the article

  • Is it possible to add JPA annotation to superclass instance variables?

    - by Kristofer Borgstrom
    Hi, I am creating entities that are the same for two different tables. In order do table mappings etc. different for the two entities but only have the rest of the code in one place - an abstract superclass. The best thing would be to be able to annotate generic stuff such as column names (since the will be identical) in the super class but that does not work because JPA annotations are not inherited by child classes. Here is an example: public abstract class MyAbstractEntity { @Column(name="PROPERTY") //This will not be inherited and is therefore useless here protected String property; public String getProperty() { return this.property; } //setters, hashCode, equals etc. methods } Which I would like to inherit and only specify the child-specific stuff, like annotations: @Entity @Table(name="MY_ENTITY_TABLE") public class MyEntity extends MyAbstractEntity { //This will not work since this field does not override the super class field, thus the setters and getters break. @Column(name="PROPERTY") protected String property; } Any ideas or will I have to create fields, getters and setters in the child classes? Thanks, Kris

    Read the article

  • Is there any way to manipulate variables passed in to a child class constructor before passing it of

    - by Matt
    Hi, Is there any way to delay calling a superclass constructor so you can manipulate the variables first? Eg. public class ParentClass { private int someVar; public ParentClass(int someVar) { this.someVar = someVar; } } public class ChildClass : ParentClass { public ChildClass(int someVar) : base(someVar) { someVar = someVar + 1 } } I want to be able to send the new value for someVar (someVar + 1) to the base class constructor rather than the one passed in to the ChildClass constructor. Is there any way to do this? Thanks, Matt

    Read the article

  • How can I bind events to strongly typed datasets of different types?

    My application contains several forms which consist of a strongly typed datagridview, a strongly typed bindingsource, and a strongly typed table adapter. I am using some code in each form to update the database whenever the user leaves the current row, shifts focus away from the datagrid or the form, or closes the form. This code is the same in each case, so I want to make a subclass of form, from which all of these forms can inherit. But the strongly typed data objects all inherit from component, which doesn't expose the events I want to bind to or the methods I want to invoke. The only way I can see of gaining access to the events is to use: Type(string Name).GetEvent(string EventName).AddEventHandler(object Target,Delegate Handler) Similarly, I want to call the Update method of the strongly typed table adapter, and am using Type(string Name).GetMethod(String name, Type[] params).Invoke(object target, object[] params). It works ok, but it seems very heavy handed. Is there a better way? Here is my code for the main class: using System; using System.Collections.Generic; using System.Linq; using System.Text; using System.Windows.Forms; using System.Data; using System.Data.SqlClient; using System.ComponentModel; namespace MyApplication { public class AutoSaveDataGridForm: Form { private DataRow PreviousRow; public Component Adapter { private get; set; } private Component dataGridView; public Component DataGridView { private get { return dataGridView; } set { dataGridView = value; Type t = dataGridView.GetType(); t.GetEvent("Leave").AddEventHandler(dataGridView, new EventHandler(DataGridView_Leave)); } } private Component bindingSource; public Component BindingSource { private get { return bindingSource; } set { bindingSource = value; Type t = bindingSource.GetType(); t.GetEvent("PositionChanged").AddEventHandler(bindingSource, new EventHandler(BindingSource_PositionChanged)); } } protected void Save() { if (PreviousRow != null && PreviousRow.RowState != DataRowState.Unchanged) { Type t = Adapter.GetType(); t.GetMethod("Update", new Type[] { typeof(DataRow[]) }).Invoke(Adapter, new object[] { new DataRow[] { PreviousRow } }); } } private void BindingSource_PositionChanged(object sender, EventArgs e) { BindingSource bindingSource = sender as BindingSource; DataRowView CurrentRowView = bindingSource.Current as DataRowView; DataRow CurrentRow = CurrentRowView.Row; if (PreviousRow != null && PreviousRow != CurrentRow) { Save(); } PreviousRow = CurrentRow; } private void InitializeComponent() { this.SuspendLayout(); // // AutoSaveDataGridForm // this.FormClosed += new System.Windows.Forms.FormClosedEventHandler(this.AutoSaveDataGridForm_FormClosed); this.Leave += new System.EventHandler(this.AutoSaveDataGridForm_Leave); this.ResumeLayout(false); } private void DataGridView_Leave(object sender, EventArgs e) { Save(); } private void AutoSaveDataGridForm_FormClosed(object sender, FormClosedEventArgs e) { Save(); } private void AutoSaveDataGridForm_Leave(object sender, EventArgs e) { Save(); } } } And here is a (partial) form which implements it: public partial class FileTypesInherited :AutoSaveDataGridForm { public FileTypesInherited() { InitializeComponent(); } private void FileTypesInherited_Load(object sender, EventArgs e) { // TODO: This line of code loads data into the 'sharedFoldersInformationV2DataSet.tblFileTypes' table. You can move, or remove it, as needed. this.tblFileTypesTableAdapter.Fill(this.sharedFoldersInformationV2DataSet.tblFileTypes); this.BindingSource = tblFileTypesBindingSource; this.Adapter = tblFileTypesTableAdapter; this.DataGridView = tblFileTypesDataGridView; } }

    Read the article

  • spring - constructor injection and overriding parent definition of nested bean

    - by mdma
    I've read the Spring 3 reference on inheriting bean definitions, but I'm confused about what is possible and not possible. For example, a bean that takes a collaborator bean, configured with the value 12 <bean name="beanService12" class="SomeSevice"> <constructor-arg index="0"> <bean name="beanBaseNested" class="SomeCollaborator"> <constructor-arg index="0" value="12"/> </bean> </constructor-arg> </bean> I'd then like to be able to create similar beans, with slightly different configured collaborators. Can I do something like <bean name="beanService13" parent="beanService12"> <constructor-arg index="0"> <bean> <constructor-arg index="0" value="13"/> </bean> </constructor> </bean> I'm not sure this is possible and, if it were, it feels a bit clunky. Is there a nicer way to override small parts of a large nested bean definition? It seems the child bean has to know quite a lot about the parent, e.g. constructor index. I'd prefer not to change the structure - the parent beans use collaborators to perform their function, but I can add properties and use property injection if that helps. This is a repeated pattern, would creating a custom schema help? Thanks for any advice!

    Read the article

  • Base class pointer vs inherited class pointer?

    - by Goose Bumper
    Suppose I have a class Dog that inherits from a class Animal. What is the difference between these two lines of code? Animal *a = new Dog(); Dog *d = new Dog(); In one, the pointer is for the base class, and in the other, the pointer is for the derived class. But when would this distinction become important? For polymorphism, either one would work exactly the same, right?

    Read the article

  • Static and overriding in Java

    - by Abhishek Jain
    public class B { static int i =1; public static int multiply(int a,int b) { return i; } public int multiply1(int a,int b) { return i; } public static void main(String args[]) { B b = new A(); System.out.println(b.multiply(5,2)); System.out.println(b.multiply1(5,2)); } } class A extends B { static int i =8; public static int multiply(int a,int b) { return 5*i; } public int multiply1(int a,int b) { return 5*i; } } Output: 1 40 Why is it so? Please explain.

    Read the article

  • .NET C# Explicit implementation of grandparent's interface method in the parent interface

    - by Cristi Diaconescu
    That title's a mouthful, isn't it?... Here's what I'm trying to do: public interface IBar { void Bar(); } public interface IFoo: IBar { void Foo(); } public class FooImpl: IFoo { void IFoo.Foo() { /*works as expected*/ } //void IFoo.Bar() { /*i'd like to do this, but it doesn't compile*/ } void IBar.Bar() { /*works as expected*/ } } So... Is there a way to declare IFoo.Bar(){...} in my class, other than basically merging the two interfaces into one? And, if not, why?

    Read the article

  • Why i can not acces the protected properties in my web application

    - by GigaPr
    Hi i have a web application which has a Base class in which i define all the properties common to the web pages. The base class extends System.Web.UI.Page Furthermore i have a Base User control class where are defined all the properties common to the user controls. the Base User Control extends System.Web.UI.UserControl all the properties in both base classes are protected. All the web pages extends the base class . All the controls extends the base user control class. The problem is i can not access the properties defined in the base class from the user controls and I can not extend two classes in the base user controls The question is how can i access the properties defined in the Base class from within the user controls? I hope i have been clear Thanks

    Read the article

  • Super class variables not printing through sub class

    - by Abhishek Singh
    Can u tell me why this code is not displaying any result on the console. class employee { protected String name; protected double salary; protected String dob; public employee(String name, double salary, String dob) { this.name = name; this.salary = salary; this.dob = dob; } public employee(String name, double salary) { this.name = name; this.salary = salary; } } public class Manage extends employee { String dept1; public Manage(String name, double salary, String dob, String dept1) { super(name, salary, dob); this.dept1 = dept1; } public Manage(String name, double salary, String dept1) { super(name, salary); this.dept1 = dept1; } public static void main(String args[]) { employee e = new employee("Vikas", 122345); employee e2 = new employee("Vikas", 122345, "12-2-1991"); Manage m = (Manage) new Manage("Vikas", 122345, "Sales"); Manage m2 = new Manage("Vikas", 122345, "12-2-1991", "sales"); m.display(); m2.display(); } public void display() { System.out.println("Name " + name); System.out.println("Salary " + salary); System.out.println("Birth " + dob); System.out.println("Department " + dept1); } }

    Read the article

  • AS3: Adding get/set methods to a class via prototype

    - by LiraNuna
    I'm looking for a way to extend a class via prototype by adding a get and set functions. The following code will add a function to the class' prototype: MyClass.prototype.newMethod = function(... args) { }; However I want to add both a get and set functions. I tried: MyClass.prototype.fakeProperty = get function(... args) { }; MyClass.prototype.fakeProperty = set function(... args) { }; But that seem to throw compile errors. Is this even possible? Is there some 'internal' naming convention for get/set functions? I am not looking for answers such as 'create a new class and new get/set functions there'.

    Read the article

  • Forward declaration of derived inner class

    - by Loom
    I ran into problem implementing some variations of factory method. // from IFoo.h struct IFoo { struct IBar { virtual ~IBar() = 0; virtual void someMethod() = 0; }; virtual IBar *createBar() = 0; }; // from Foo.h struct Foo : IFoo { // implementation of Foo, Bar in Foo.cpp struct Bar : IBar { virtual ~Bar(); virtual void someMethod(); }; virtual Bar *createBar(); // implemented in Foo.cpp }; I'd like to place declaration of Foo::Bar in Foo.cpp. For now I cannot succeed: struct Foo : IFoo { //struct Bar; //1. error: invalid covariant return type // for ‘virtual Foo::Bar* //struct Bar : IBar; //2. error: expected ‘{’ before ‘;’ token virtual Bar *createBar(); // virtual IBar *createBar(); // Is not acceptable by-design }; Is there a trick to have just forward declaration of Boo in Foo.hpp and to have full declaration in Foo.cpp?

    Read the article

  • Organizing a lot of models that use STI in rails

    - by DavidP6
    I have a scenario where I am going to be creating a large number of models that use STI and I'm wondering what the best way to organize this is. I already have other models using STI and I really do not want to add any more files to my models folder. Is there any way to create a folder and add the models using STI there (there could be upwards of 40 b/c each uses its own methods to scrape a different site, but they all save the same data)? This seems like it would be best, or I could add them all to one file but I would rather separate them.

    Read the article

  • Python: how to inherite and override

    - by Guy
    Consider this situation: I get an object of type A which has the function f. I.e: class A: def f(): print 'in f' def h(): print 'in h' and I get an instance of this class but I want to override the f function but save the rest of the functionality of A. So what I was thinking was something of the sort: class B(A): .... def f(): print 'in B->f' and the usage would be: def main(a): b = B(a) b.f() #prints "in B->f" b.h() #print "in h" How do you do such a thing?

    Read the article

  • Calling Subclass Method in Java

    - by destructo_gold
    Given the following situation (UML below), If Y has the method: public void PrintWs(); and X has: ArrayList <P> myPs = new ArrayList(); Y y = new Y(); Z z = new Z(); myPs.add(y); myPs.add(z); How do I loop through each myPs object and call all Ys PrintWs (without using instanceof)? http://starbucks.mirror.waffleimages.com/files/68/68c26b815e913acd00307bf27bde534c0f1f8bfb.jpg

    Read the article

  • Is there a way to automaticly call all versions of an inherited method?

    - by Eric
    I'm writing a plug-in for a 3D modeling program. I have a custom class that wraps instances of elements in the 3D model, and in turn derives it's properties from the element it wraps. When the element in the model changes I want my class(es) to update their properties based on the new geometry. In the simplified example below. I have classes AbsCurveBasd, Extrusion, and Shell which are all derived from one another. Each of these classes implement a RefreshFromBaseShape() method which updates specific properties based on the current baseShape the class is wrapping. I can call base.RefreshFromBaseShape() in each implementation of RefreshFromBaseShape() to ensure that all the properties are updated. But I'm wondering if there is a better way where I don't have to remember to do this in every implementation of RefershFromBaseShape()? For example because AbsCurveBased does not have a parameterless constructor the code wont even compile unless the constructors call the base class constructors. public abstract class AbsCurveBased { internal Curve baseShape; double Area{get;set;} public AbsCurveBased(Curve baseShape) { this.baseShape = baseShape; RefreshFromBaseShape(); } public virtual void RefreshFromBaseShape() { //sets the Area property from the baseShape } } public class Extrusion : AbsCurveBased { double Volume{get;set;} double Height{get;set;} public Extrusion(Curve baseShape):base(baseShape) { this.baseShape = baseShape; RefreshFromBaseShape(); } public override void RefreshFromBaseShape() { base.RefreshFromBaseShape(); //sets the Volume property based on the area and the height } } public class Shell : Extrusion { double ShellVolume{get;set;} double ShellThickness{get;set;} public Shell(Curve baseShape): base(baseShape) { this.baseShape = baseShape; RefreshFromBaseShape(); } public void RefreshFromBaseShape() { base.RefreshFromBaseShape(); //sets this Shell Volume from the Extrusion properties and ShellThickness property } }

    Read the article

  • How to prevent Visual Studio setting my default font sizes in an inherited control

    - by Colin
    I have a base class for all my textboxes and I want to set the default font in that class. So I started with this: public partial class MyTextBox : TextBox { public WmlTextBox() { InitializeComponent(); //Font for the whole application can be altered in the Appearance class Font = new Appearance().TextBoxFont; } } I then stripped out all the code in the form that was setting the font of the textboxes. Of course this worked fine until I altered an item on the page. Visual Studio picked up the default font for the application (set in the Appearance class), and generated code in the designer for all TextBoxes to set it to that specific font. How can I stop visual studio from generating code from my default font? I want to allow the developers to change the property, but I want to set the default font centrally.

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35  | Next Page >