Search Results

Search found 3493 results on 140 pages for 'constructor'.

Page 28/140 | < Previous Page | 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35  | Next Page >

  • Java: how to initialize private final int value with if-else in constructor?

    - by HH
    $ javac InitInt.java InitInt.java:7: variable right might not have been initialized InitInt(){} ^ 1 error $ cat InitInt.java import java.util.*; import java.io.*; public class InitInt { private final int right; InitInt(){} public static void main(String[] args) { // I don't want to assign any value. // just initialize it, how? InitInt test = new InitInt(); System.out.println(test.getRight()); // later assiging a value } public int getRight(){return right;} } Initialization problem with Constructor, due to if-else -loop InitInt{ // Still the error, "may not be initialized" // How to initialise it, without removing if-else? if(snippetBuilder.length()>(charwisePos+25)){ right=charwisePos+25; }else{ right=snippetBuilder.length()-1; } }

    Read the article

  • Overriding Page class constructor in ASP.NET code-behind file -- when is it called?

    - by CSharp Noob
    If I override the System.Web.UI.Page constructor, as shown, when does DoSomething() get called in terms of the page lifecycle? I can't seem to find this documented anywhere. namespace NameSpace1 { public partial class MyClass : System.Web.UI.Page { public MyClass() { DoSomething(); } protected void Page_Load(object sender, EventArgs e) { } } } For reference, here is the ASP.NET Page Lifecycle Overview: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms178472.aspx Turns out the best answer was right in the MSDN article. I just had to look carefully at the diagram.

    Read the article

  • Is there a pattern that allows a constructor to be called only from a specific factory and from nowh

    - by willem
    We have a class, say LegacyUserSettingsService. LegacyUserSettingsService implements an interface, IUserSettingsService. You can get an instance of the IUserSettingsService by calling our ApplicationServicesFactory. The factory uses Spring.NET to construct the concrete LegacyUserSettingsService. The trouble is that new developers sometimes do their own thing and construct new instances of the LegacyUserSettingsService directly (instead of going via the factory). Is there a way to protect the constructor of the concrete class so it can only be called from the factory? A well-known pattern perhaps? Note that the concrete class resides in a different assembly (separate from the Factory's assembly, so the internal keyword is not a solution). The factory assembly references the other assembly that contains the concrete class. Any ideas?

    Read the article

  • Best way to insert items from a Derived class's constructor into a Base class's private std::vector?

    - by Will
    I have these classes: class Base { ... private: std::vector<X> v; }; class Derived { Derived(X*, int n); } where the constructor of Derived is passed an array of item Xs, which I need to insert into my vector v in the Base class. (X is a smart pointer) Currently I see two ways to do this: 1) Create a function in Base: InsertItem(X*) that will insert an item into the vector. 2) Create a vector in Derived that contains the full list, then get it into Base by moving the entire vector. I dont see any advantages to #2, but was wondering if #1 was a good solution, or if there are better ways to do this. Thanks!

    Read the article

  • How to define a static array without a contant size in a constructor of a class? (C++)

    - by Keand64
    I have a class defined as: class Obj { public: int width, height; Obj(int w, int h); } and I need it to contain a static array like so: int presc[width][height]; however, I cannot define within the class, so it it possible to create a pointer to a 2D array (and, out of curiosity, 3, 4, and 5D arrays), have that as a member of the class, and intitalize it in the constructor like: int ar[5][6]; Obj o(5, 6, &ar); If that isn't possible, is there any way to get a static array without a contant size in a class, or am I going to have to use a dynamic array? (Something I don't want to do because I don't plan on ever changing the size of the array after it's created.)

    Read the article

  • Why does jQuery do this in its constructor function implementation?

    - by mattcodes
    If we look at the latest jQuery source at http://code.jquery.com/jquery-latest.js we see the following: var jQuery = function( selector, context ) { // The jQuery object is actually just the init constructor 'enhanced' return new jQuery.fn.init( selector, context ); } My understanding of the new keyword in Javascript is essentially JavaScript passes the function an empty object {} and the function sets stuff on it via this.blah. Also from my understanding new differs from .call/.apply etc.. in that the return object also has the prototype set to that of the function. So the return value should have a prototype that the same as jQuery.prototype.init.prototype (or jQuery.fn.init.prototype). However from what I see its prototype is set to jQuery.prototype thus all the commands available to work on the set. Why is this? What am I missing in my understanding?

    Read the article

  • ASP.NET MVC View Not posting back to Post method and expecting a parameterless Constructor?

    - by VJ
    Hi, I am trying to post back some data using a viewmodel i have created and it works for me for one of the projects.But I am doin this right now public ActionResult Foo(string userkey) { vm.Value="Xvalue"; return View(vm); } [HttpPost] public ActionResult Foo( MyViewModel vm) { // process input if (inputOK) string value=vm.Value return RedirectToAction("Index"); return View(); } public class MyViewModel { public string Value { get; set; } public SomeClass newobj {get;set;} } public class SomeClass { public int id{get;set;} public string str{get;set;} } So it on debugging never goes into the parameter method for Post although on the view i have added a form and a button that submits and the page inherits from the viewmodel.I get an error saying it expects a parameterless constructor how do I fix this ? . I wrote an post method with no parameters and it does go into that method

    Read the article

  • C#, Can I move dictionary initial code out from the constructor?

    - by 5YrsLaterDBA
    Here is my code right now. But I would like to move those "Add" out from the constructor. Can we initialize Dictionary when we new it? or you have another better idea. Basically I want to define few characters which are used in many places. public class User { public enum actionEnum { In, Out, Fail } public static Dictionary<actionEnum, String> loginAction = new Dictionary<actionEnum, string>(); public User() { loginAction.Add(actionEnum.In, "I"); loginAction.Add(actionEnum.Out, "O"); loginAction.Add(actionEnum.Fail, "F"); } ..... }

    Read the article

  • will destroyed() be emitted if the constructor of a class derived from QObject throws?

    - by PorkyBrain
    Ive seen Qt GUI syntax like the following all over the place: myDialog::myDialog(QWidget *parent, Qt::WFlags flags):QDialog(parent, flags) { QPushButton *button = new QPushButton("&Download", this); QVBoxLayout *layout = new QVBoxLayout(this); //something that can throw here layout ->addWidget(button ); setLayout(layout); } I've always wondered if this can leak in the event of an exception because the "this" I'm giving as a parent to button and layout is not fully constructed so it might not destroy its children. I tried it out in MSVC2010 Qt4.8.3 and it looks like as soon as the base QObject class is fully created (which is done first of course) it is ok to pass "this" to other objects in the constructor, they will destroyed correctly. I haven't found the spot in the Qt docs guaranteeing this though, can someone point me to it so I have assurance that this will not change in the future?

    Read the article

  • why can not create instance from any class out side of constructor?

    - by Phsika
    why i generate instance outside of class. i give inheritance snifC to sinifD i need to create instance sinifC sinifc= new sinifC() in SinifD out side of constructor? public class sinifC { public void method3() { Console.WriteLine("Deneme3"); } } public class sinifD : sinifC { void method4() { Console.WriteLine("Deneme4"); } public sinifD() { sinifC sinifc = new sinifC(); sinifc.method3(); } } i want to make it below: public class sinifC { public void method3() { Console.WriteLine("Deneme3"); } } public class sinifD : sinifC { void method4() { Console.WriteLine("Deneme4"); } sinifC sinifc = new sinifC(); sinifc.method3(); } Error: Invalid token '(' in class, struct, or interface member declaration

    Read the article

  • Spring security ldap authentication with different ldap for authorities

    - by wuntee
    I am trying to set up an ldap authentication context where the authorities is a separate ldap instance (with the same principal name). I am having trouble setting up the authentication part, the logs dont show any search results for the following context. Can anyone see what I am doing wrong? <beans:bean id="ldapAuthProvider" class="org.springframework.security.ldap.authentication.LdapAuthenticationProvider"> <beans:constructor-arg> <beans:bean class="org.springframework.security.ldap.authentication.BindAuthenticator"> <beans:constructor-arg ref="adContextSource" /> <beans:property name="userSearch"> <beans:bean class="org.springframework.security.ldap.search.FilterBasedLdapUserSearch"> <beans:constructor-arg index="0" value=""/> <beans:constructor-arg index="1" value="(samaccountname={0})"/> <beans:constructor-arg index="2" ref="adContextSource" /> <beans:property name="searchSubtree" value="true" /> <beans:property name="returningAttributes"> <beans:list> <beans:value>DN</beans:value> </beans:list> </beans:property> </beans:bean> </beans:property> </beans:bean> </beans:constructor-arg> <beans:constructor-arg> <beans:bean class="org.springframework.security.ldap.userdetails.DefaultLdapAuthoritiesPopulator"> <beans:constructor-arg ref="cadaContextSource" /> <beans:constructor-arg value="ou=groups" /> <beans:property name="groupRoleAttribute" value="cn" /> </beans:bean> </beans:constructor-arg> </beans:bean> The logs simply show this when trying to authenticate: [DEBUG,UsernamePasswordAuthenticationFilter] Request is to process authentication [DEBUG,ProviderManager] Authentication attempt using org.springframework.security.ldap.authentication.LdapAuthenticationProvider [DEBUG,LdapAuthenticationProvider] Processing authentication request for user: wuntee [DEBUG,FilterBasedLdapUserSearch] Searching for user 'wuntee', with user search [ searchFilter: '(samaccountname={0})', searchBase: '', scope: subtree, searchTimeLimit: 0, derefLinkFlag: false ] [DEBUG,AbstractContextSource] Got Ldap context on server 'ldap://adapps.cable.comcast.com:3268/dc=comcast,dc=com/dc=comcast,dc=com' [DEBUG,XmlWebApplicationContext] Publishing event in Root WebApplicationContext: org.springframework.security.authentication.event.AuthenticationFailureServiceExceptionEvent[source=org.springframework.security.authentication.UsernamePasswordAuthenticationToken@b777617d: Principal: wuntee; Password: [PROTECTED]; Authenticated: false; Details: org.springframework.security.web.authentication.WebAuthenticationDetails@12afc: RemoteIpAddress: 127.0.0.1; SessionId: 191F70ED4E8351F8638868C34C6A076A; Not granted any authorities] [DEBUG,DefaultListableBeanFactory] Returning cached instance of singleton bean 'org.springframework.security.core.session.SessionRegistryImpl#0' [DEBUG,UsernamePasswordAuthenticationFilter] Authentication request failed: org.springframework.security.authentication.AuthenticationServiceException: Failed to parse DN; nested exception is org.springframework.ldap.core.TokenMgrError: Lexical error at line 1, column 21. Encountered: "=" (61), after : "" [DEBUG,UsernamePasswordAuthenticationFilter] Updated SecurityContextHolder to contain null Authentication [DEBUG,UsernamePasswordAuthenticationFilter] Delegating to authentication failure handlerorg.springframework.security.web.authentication.SimpleUrlAuthenticationFailureHandler@28651c

    Read the article

  • How should an object that uses composition set its composed components?

    - by Casey
    After struggling with various problems and reading up on component-based systems and reading Bob Nystrom's excellent book "Game Programming Patterns" and in particular the chapter on Components I determined that this is a horrible idea: //Class intended to be inherited by all objects. Engine uses Objects exclusively. class Object : public IUpdatable, public IDrawable { public: Object(); Object(const Object& other); Object& operator=(const Object& rhs); virtual ~Object() =0; virtual void SetBody(const RigidBodyDef& body); virtual const RigidBody* GetBody() const; virtual RigidBody* GetBody(); //Inherited from IUpdatable virtual void Update(double deltaTime); //Inherited from IDrawable virtual void Draw(BITMAP* dest); protected: private: }; I'm attempting to refactor it into a more manageable system. Mr. Nystrom uses the constructor to set the individual components; CHANGING these components at run-time is impossible. It's intended to be derived and be used in derivative classes or factory methods where their constructors do not change at run-time. i.e. his Bjorne object is just a call to a factory method with a specific call to the GameObject constructor. Is this a good idea? Should the object have a default constructor and setters to facilitate run-time changes or no default constructor without setters and instead use a factory method? Given: class Object { public: //...See below for constructor implementation concerns. Object(const Object& other); Object& operator=(const Object& rhs); virtual ~Object() =0; //See below for Setter concerns IUpdatable* GetUpdater(); IDrawable* GetRenderer(); protected: IUpdatable* _updater; IDrawable* _renderer; private: }; Should the components be read-only and passed in to the constructor via: class Object { public: //No default constructor. Object(IUpdatable* updater, IDrawable* renderer); //...remainder is same as above... }; or Should a default constructor be provided and then the components can be set at run-time? class Object { public: Object(); //... SetUpdater(IUpdater* updater); SetRenderer(IDrawable* renderer); //...remainder is same as above... }; or both? class Object { public: Object(); Object(IUpdater* updater, IDrawable* renderer); //... SetUpdater(IUpdater* updater); SetRenderer(IDrawable* renderer); //...remainder is same as above... };

    Read the article

  • operator new for array of class without default constructor......

    - by skydoor
    For a class without default constructor, operator new and placement new can be used to declare an array of such class. When I read the code in More Effective C++, I found the code as below(I modified some part)..... My question is, why [] after the operator new is needed? I test it without it, it still works. Can any body explain that? class A { public: int i; A(int i):i(i) {} }; int main() { void *rawMemory = operator new[] (10 * sizeof(A)); // Why [] needed here? A *p = static_cast<A*>(rawMemory); for(int i = 0 ; i < 10 ; i++ ) { new(&p[i])A(i); } for(int i = 0 ; i < 10 ; i++ ) { cout<<p[i].i<<endl; } for(int i = 0 ; i < 10 ; i++ ) { p[i].~A(); } return 0; }

    Read the article

  • Should I map a domain object to a view model using an optional constructor?

    - by Byron Sommardahl
    I'd like to be able to map a domain model to a view model by newing up a view model and passing in the contributing domain model as a parameter (like the code below). My motivation is to keep from re-using mapping code AND to provide a simple way to map (not using automapper yet). A friend says the view model should not know anything about the "payment" domain model that's being passed into the optional constructor. What do you think? public class LineItemsViewModel { public LineItemsViewModel() { } public LineItemsViewModel(IPayment payment) { LineItemColumnHeaders = payment.MerchantContext.Profile.UiPreferences.LineItemColumnHeaders; LineItems = LineItemDomainToViewModelMapper.MapToViewModel(payment.LineItems); ConvenienceFeeAmount = payment.ConvenienceFee.Fee; SubTotal = payment.PaymentAmount; Total = payment.PaymentAmount + payment.ConvenienceFee.Fee; } public IEnumerable<Dictionary<int, string>> LineItems { get; set; } public Dictionary<int, string> LineItemColumnHeaders { get; set; } public decimal SubTotal { get; set; } public decimal ConvenienceFeeAmount { get; set; } public decimal Total { get; set; } }

    Read the article

  • Why is there a constructor method if you can assign the values to variables?

    - by Joel
    I'm just learning PHP, and I'm confused about what the purpose of the __construct() method? If I can do this: class Bear { // define properties public $name = 'Bill'; public $weight = 200; // define methods public function eat($units) { echo $this->name." is eating ".$units." units of food... <br />"; $this->weight += $units; } } Then why do it with a constructor instead? : class Bear { // define properties public $name; public $weight; public function __construct(){ $this->name = 'Bill'; $this->weight = 200; } // define methods public function eat($units) { echo $this->name." is eating ".$units." units of food... <br />"; $this->weight += $units; } }

    Read the article

  • Why compiling in Flash IDE I cannot access stage in a Sprite constructor before addChild while if I

    - by yuri
    I've created this simple class (omissing package directive and imports) public class Viewer extends Sprite { public function Viewer():void { trace(stage); } } then in Flash IDE I import in first frame this AS: import Viewer var viewer = new Viewer(); stage.addChild(viewer); trace(viewer.stage); and this works as I expected: the first trace called in constructor say stage is "null" because I haven't yet add viewer to a DisplayObjectContainer. The second one output the stage object. So I created a project using AXDT eclipse plugin, I've recreated and compiled only the first class (trashed the AS init script used in Flash IDE because is not needed) and on the first trace ... wow ... the stage is filled with the stage Object. I seems to me that the compiler used by AXDT (Flex4 SDK open source) add the class... before construct it (!?).. to a DisplayObjectContainer already attached to a Stage. I want to understand how can reproduce this behaviour using compiler in Flash IDE so I can directrly access Stage in construction.

    Read the article

  • Can't access resource from Generic.xaml within the Custom Control constructor.

    - by myermian
    I'm not sure why this is doing this, but I can't access the resource from within my constructor. XTabItem.cs using System; using System.ComponentModel; using System.Windows; using System.Windows.Controls; using System.Windows.Media; namespace MyStuff { public class XTabItem : TabItem { public static readonly DependencyProperty XTabItemNormalBackgroundProperty; /// <summary> /// Visual Property: Normal Background /// </summary> [Description("Determines the visibility of the close button."), Category("XTabItem Visual")] public Brush XTabItemNormalBackground { get { return (Brush)GetValue(XTabItemNormalBackgroundProperty); } set { SetValue(XTabItemNormalBackgroundProperty, value); } } static XTabItem() { DefaultStyleKeyProperty.OverrideMetadata(typeof(XTabItem), new FrameworkPropertyMetadata(typeof(XTabItem))); XTabItemNormalBackgroundProperty = DependencyProperty.Register("XTabItemNormalBackground", typeof(Brush), typeof(XTabItem), new UIPropertyMetadata(null)); } public XTabItem() { //XTabItemNormalBackground = (Brush)this.TryFindResource("XTabItemNormalBackgroundBrush"); //THIS DOES NOT WORK?? } public override void OnApplyTemplate() { base.OnApplyTemplate(); } } } Generic.xaml <ResourceDictionary xmlns="http://schemas.microsoft.com/winfx/2006/xaml/presentation" xmlns:x="http://schemas.microsoft.com/winfx/2006/xaml" xmlns:local="clr-namespace:MyStuff" xmlns:con="clr-namespace:MyStuff.Converters" > <SolidColorBrush x:Key="XTabItemNormalBackgroundBrush" Color="BlueViolet" /> <Style TargetType="{x:Type local:XTabItem}"> <Setter Property="Template"> <Setter.Value> <ControlTemplate TargetType="{x:Type local:XTabItem}"> <!-- CONTENT TEMPLATE --> <Grid SnapsToDevicePixels="True"> <Border x:Name="_Border" Background="{Binding Path=XTabItemNormalBackground, RelativeSource={RelativeSource Mode=TemplatedParent}}" BorderBrush="{TemplateBinding BorderBrush}" BorderThickness="1,1,1,0"> ... </Border> </Grid> </Style> </ResourceDictionary>

    Read the article

  • How can I set the name of the class xml by constructor?

    - by spderosso
    Hi, I want to be able to do something like this: @Root(name="events") class XMLEvents { @ElementList(inline=true) ArrayList<XMLEvent> events = Lists.newArrayList(); XMLEvents(){ ... events.add(new XMLEvent(time, type, professorP)); events.add(new XMLEvent(time, type, student)); events.add(new XMLEvent(time, type, course)); ... } } The XMLEvent class to go something like: class XMLEvent { @Root(name="professor") XMLEvent(DateTime time, LogType type, Professor p){ ... } @Root(name="student") XMLEvent(DateTime time, LogType type, Student st){ ... } @Root(name="course") XMLEvent(DateTime time, LogType type, Course c){ ... } } For the output to be: <events> <professor> ... </professor> <student> ... </student> <course> ... </course> </events> So depending on the constructor I call to create a new XMLEvent the root name to which is mapped is different. Is this even possible? Of course the past example was just to transmit what I need. Putting the @Root annotation there didn't change anything Thanks!

    Read the article

  • Function with parameter type that has a copy-constructor with non-const ref chosen?

    - by Johannes Schaub - litb
    Some time ago I was confused by the following behavior of some code when I wanted to write a is_callable<F, Args...> trait. Overload resolution won't call functions accepting arguments by non-const ref, right? Why doesn't it reject in the following because the constructor wants a Test&? I expected it to take f(int)! struct Test { Test() { } // I want Test not be copyable from rvalues! Test(Test&) { } // But it's convertible to int operator int() { return 0; } }; void f(int) { } void f(Test) { } struct WorksFine { }; struct Slurper { Slurper(WorksFine&) { } }; struct Eater { Eater(WorksFine) { } }; void g(Slurper) { } void g(Eater) { } // chooses this, as expected int main() { // Error, why? f(Test()); // But this works, why? g(WorksFine()); } Error message is m.cpp: In function 'int main()': m.cpp:33:11: error: no matching function for call to 'Test::Test(Test)' m.cpp:5:3: note: candidates are: Test::Test(Test&) m.cpp:2:3: note: Test::Test() m.cpp:33:11: error: initializing argument 1 of 'void f(Test)' Can you please explain why one works but the other doesn't?

    Read the article

  • C#: System.Lazy&lt;T&gt; and the Singleton Design Pattern

    - by James Michael Hare
    So we've all coded a Singleton at one time or another.  It's a really simple pattern and can be a slightly more elegant alternative to global variables.  Make no mistake, Singletons can be abused and are often over-used -- but occasionally you find a Singleton is the most elegant solution. For those of you not familiar with a Singleton, the basic Design Pattern is that a Singleton class is one where there is only ever one instance of the class created.  This means that constructors must be private to avoid users creating their own instances, and a static property (or method in languages without properties) is defined that returns a single static instance. 1: public class Singleton 2: { 3: // the single instance is defined in a static field 4: private static readonly Singleton _instance = new Singleton(); 5:  6: // constructor private so users can't instantiate on their own 7: private Singleton() 8: { 9: } 10:  11: // read-only property that returns the static field 12: public static Singleton Instance 13: { 14: get 15: { 16: return _instance; 17: } 18: } 19: } This is the most basic singleton, notice the key features: Static readonly field that contains the one and only instance. Constructor is private so it can only be called by the class itself. Static property that returns the single instance. Looks like it satisfies, right?  There's just one (potential) problem.  C# gives you no guarantee of when the static field _instance will be created.  This is because the C# standard simply states that classes (which are marked in the IL as BeforeFieldInit) can have their static fields initialized any time before the field is accessed.  This means that they may be initialized on first use, they may be initialized at some other time before, you can't be sure when. So what if you want to guarantee your instance is truly lazy.  That is, that it is only created on first call to Instance?  Well, there's a few ways to do this.  First we'll show the old ways, and then talk about how .Net 4.0's new System.Lazy<T> type can help make the lazy-Singleton cleaner. Obviously, we could take on the lazy construction ourselves, but being that our Singleton may be accessed by many different threads, we'd need to lock it down. 1: public class LazySingleton1 2: { 3: // lock for thread-safety laziness 4: private static readonly object _mutex = new object(); 5:  6: // static field to hold single instance 7: private static LazySingleton1 _instance = null; 8:  9: // property that does some locking and then creates on first call 10: public static LazySingleton1 Instance 11: { 12: get 13: { 14: if (_instance == null) 15: { 16: lock (_mutex) 17: { 18: if (_instance == null) 19: { 20: _instance = new LazySingleton1(); 21: } 22: } 23: } 24:  25: return _instance; 26: } 27: } 28:  29: private LazySingleton1() 30: { 31: } 32: } This is a standard double-check algorithm so that you don't lock if the instance has already been created.  However, because it's possible two threads can go through the first if at the same time the first time back in, you need to check again after the lock is acquired to avoid creating two instances. Pretty straightforward, but ugly as all heck.  Well, you could also take advantage of the C# standard's BeforeFieldInit and define your class with a static constructor.  It need not have a body, just the presence of the static constructor will remove the BeforeFieldInit attribute on the class and guarantee that no fields are initialized until the first static field, property, or method is called.   1: public class LazySingleton2 2: { 3: // because of the static constructor, this won't get created until first use 4: private static readonly LazySingleton2 _instance = new LazySingleton2(); 5:  6: // Returns the singleton instance using lazy-instantiation 7: public static LazySingleton2 Instance 8: { 9: get { return _instance; } 10: } 11:  12: // private to prevent direct instantiation 13: private LazySingleton2() 14: { 15: } 16:  17: // removes BeforeFieldInit on class so static fields not 18: // initialized before they are used 19: static LazySingleton2() 20: { 21: } 22: } Now, while this works perfectly, I hate it.  Why?  Because it's relying on a non-obvious trick of the IL to guarantee laziness.  Just looking at this code, you'd have no idea that it's doing what it's doing.  Worse yet, you may decide that the empty static constructor serves no purpose and delete it (which removes your lazy guarantee).  Worse-worse yet, they may alter the rules around BeforeFieldInit in the future which could change this. So, what do I propose instead?  .Net 4.0 adds the System.Lazy type which guarantees thread-safe lazy-construction.  Using System.Lazy<T>, we get: 1: public class LazySingleton3 2: { 3: // static holder for instance, need to use lambda to construct since constructor private 4: private static readonly Lazy<LazySingleton3> _instance 5: = new Lazy<LazySingleton3>(() => new LazySingleton3()); 6:  7: // private to prevent direct instantiation. 8: private LazySingleton3() 9: { 10: } 11:  12: // accessor for instance 13: public static LazySingleton3 Instance 14: { 15: get 16: { 17: return _instance.Value; 18: } 19: } 20: } Note, you need your lambda to call the private constructor as Lazy's default constructor can only call public constructors of the type passed in (which we can't have by definition of a Singleton).  But, because the lambda is defined inside our type, it has access to the private members so it's perfect. Note how the Lazy<T> makes it obvious what you're doing (lazy construction), instead of relying on an IL generation side-effect.  This way, it's more maintainable.  Lazy<T> has many other uses as well, obviously, but I really love how elegant and readable it makes the lazy Singleton.

    Read the article

  • Anatomy of a .NET Assembly - Custom attribute encoding

    - by Simon Cooper
    In my previous post, I covered how field, method, and other types of signatures are encoded in a .NET assembly. Custom attribute signatures differ quite a bit from these, which consequently affects attribute specifications in C#. Custom attribute specifications In C#, you can apply a custom attribute to a type or type member, specifying a constructor as well as the values of fields or properties on the attribute type: public class ExampleAttribute : Attribute { public ExampleAttribute(int ctorArg1, string ctorArg2) { ... } public Type ExampleType { get; set; } } [Example(5, "6", ExampleType = typeof(string))] public class C { ... } How does this specification actually get encoded and stored in an assembly? Specification blob values Custom attribute specification signatures use the same building blocks as other types of signatures; the ELEMENT_TYPE structure. However, they significantly differ from other types of signatures, in that the actual parameter values need to be stored along with type information. There are two types of specification arguments in a signature blob; fixed args and named args. Fixed args are the arguments to the attribute type constructor, named arguments are specified after the constructor arguments to provide a value to a field or property on the constructed attribute type (PropertyName = propValue) Values in an attribute blob are limited to one of the basic types (one of the number types, character, or boolean), a reference to a type, an enum (which, in .NET, has to use one of the integer types as a base representation), or arrays of any of those. Enums and the basic types are easy to store in a blob - you simply store the binary representation. Strings are stored starting with a compressed integer indicating the length of the string, followed by the UTF8 characters. Array values start with an integer indicating the number of elements in the array, then the item values concatentated together. Rather than using a coded token, Type values are stored using a string representing the type name and fully qualified assembly name (for example, MyNs.MyType, MyAssembly, Version=1.0.0.0, Culture=neutral, PublicKeyToken=0123456789abcdef). If the type is in the current assembly or mscorlib then just the type name can be used. This is probably done to prevent direct references between assemblies solely because of attribute specification arguments; assemblies can be loaded in the reflection-only context and attribute arguments still processed, without loading the entire assembly. Fixed and named arguments Each entry in the CustomAttribute metadata table contains a reference to the object the attribute is applied to, the attribute constructor, and the specification blob. The number and type of arguments to the constructor (the fixed args) can be worked out by the method signature referenced by the attribute constructor, and so the fixed args can simply be concatenated together in the blob without any extra type information. Named args are different. These specify the value to assign to a field or property once the attribute type has been constructed. In the CLR, fields and properties can be overloaded just on their type; different fields and properties can have the same name. Therefore, to uniquely identify a field or property you need: Whether it's a field or property (indicated using byte values 0x53 and 0x54, respectively) The field or property type The field or property name After the fixed arg values is a 2-byte number specifying the number of named args in the blob. Each named argument has the above information concatenated together, mostly using the basic ELEMENT_TYPE values, in the same way as a method or field signature. A Type argument is represented using the byte 0x50, and an enum argument is represented using the byte 0x55 followed by a string specifying the name and assembly of the enum type. The named argument property information is followed by the argument value, using the same encoding as fixed args. Boxed objects This would be all very well, were it not for object and object[]. Arguments and properties of type object allow a value of any allowed argument type to be specified. As a result, more information needs to be specified in the blob to interpret the argument bytes as the correct type. So, the argument value is simple prepended with the type of the value by specifying the ELEMENT_TYPE or name of the enum the value represents. For named arguments, a field or property of type object is represented using the byte 0x51, with the actual type specified in the argument value. Some examples... All property signatures start with the 2-byte value 0x0001. Similar to my previous post in the series, names in capitals correspond to a particular byte value in the ELEMENT_TYPE structure. For strings, I'll simply give the string value, rather than the length and UTF8 encoding in the actual blob. I'll be using the following enum and attribute types to demonstrate specification encodings: class AttrAttribute : Attribute { public AttrAttribute() {} public AttrAttribute(Type[] tArray) {} public AttrAttribute(object o) {} public AttrAttribute(MyEnum e) {} public AttrAttribute(ushort x, int y) {} public AttrAttribute(string str, Type type1, Type type2) {} public int Prop1 { get; set; } public object Prop2 { get; set; } public object[] ObjectArray; } enum MyEnum : int { Val1 = 1, Val2 = 2 } Now, some examples: Here, the the specification binds to the (ushort, int) attribute constructor, with fixed args only. The specification blob starts off with a prolog, followed by the two constructor arguments, then the number of named arguments (zero): [Attr(42, 84)] 0x0001 0x002a 0x00000054 0x0000 An example of string and type encoding: [Attr("MyString", typeof(Array), typeof(System.Windows.Forms.Form))] 0x0001 "MyString" "System.Array" "System.Windows.Forms.Form, System.Windows.Forms, Version=4.0.0.0, Culture=neutral, PublicKeyToken=b77a5c561934e089" 0x0000 As you can see, the full assembly specification of a type is only needed if the type isn't in the current assembly or mscorlib. Note, however, that the C# compiler currently chooses to fully-qualify mscorlib types anyway. An object argument (this binds to the object attribute constructor), and two named arguments (a null string is represented by 0xff and the empty string by 0x00) [Attr((ushort)40, Prop1 = 12, Prop2 = "")] 0x0001 U2 0x0028 0x0002 0x54 I4 "Prop1" 0x0000000c 0x54 0x51 "Prop2" STRING 0x00 Right, more complicated now. A type array as a fixed argument: [Attr(new[] { typeof(string), typeof(object) })] 0x0001 0x00000002 // the number of elements "System.String" "System.Object" 0x0000 An enum value, which is simply represented using the underlying value. The CLR works out that it's an enum using information in the attribute constructor signature: [Attr(MyEnum.Val1)] 0x0001 0x00000001 0x0000 And finally, a null array, and an object array as a named argument: [Attr((Type[])null, ObjectArray = new object[] { (byte)2, typeof(decimal), null, MyEnum.Val2 })] 0x0001 0xffffffff 0x0001 0x53 SZARRAY 0x51 "ObjectArray" 0x00000004 U1 0x02 0x50 "System.Decimal" STRING 0xff 0x55 "MyEnum" 0x00000002 As you'll notice, a null object is encoded as a null string value, and a null array is represented using a length of -1 (0xffffffff). How does this affect C#? So, we can now explain why the limits on attribute arguments are so strict in C#. Attribute specification blobs are limited to basic numbers, enums, types, and arrays. As you can see, this is because the raw CLR encoding can only accommodate those types. Special byte patterns have to be used to indicate object, string, Type, or enum values in named arguments; you can't specify an arbitary object type, as there isn't a generalised way of encoding the resulting value in the specification blob. In particular, decimal values can't be encoded, as it isn't a 'built-in' CLR type that has a native representation (you'll notice that decimal constants in C# programs are compiled as several integer arguments to DecimalConstantAttribute). Jagged arrays also aren't natively supported, although you can get around it by using an array as a value to an object argument: [Attr(new object[] { new object[] { new Type[] { typeof(string) } }, 42 })] Finally... Phew! That was a bit longer than I thought it would be. Custom attribute encodings are complicated! Hopefully this series has been an informative look at what exactly goes on inside a .NET assembly. In the next blog posts, I'll be carrying on with the 'Inside Red Gate' series.

    Read the article

  • Problems with passing an anonymous temporary function-object to a templatized constructor.

    - by Akanksh
    I am trying to attach a function-object to be called on destruction of a templatized class. However, I can not seem to be able to pass the function-object as a temporary. The warning I get is (if the comment the line xi.data = 5;): warning C4930: 'X<T> xi2(writer (__cdecl *)(void))': prototyped function not called (was a variable definition intended?) with [ T=int ] and if I try to use the constructed object, I get a compilation error saying: error C2228: left of '.data' must have class/struct/union I apologize for the lengthy piece of code, but I think all the components need to be visible to assess the situation. template<typename T> struct Base { virtual void run( T& ){} virtual ~Base(){} }; template<typename T, typename D> struct Derived : public Base<T> { virtual void run( T& t ) { D d; d(t); } }; template<typename T> struct X { template<typename R> X(const R& r) { std::cout << "X(R)" << std::endl; ptr = new Derived<T,R>(); } X():ptr(0) { std::cout << "X()" << std::endl; } ~X() { if(ptr) { ptr->run(data); delete ptr; } else { std::cout << "no ptr" << std::endl; } } Base<T>* ptr; T data; }; struct writer { template<typename T> void operator()( const T& i ) { std::cout << "T : " << i << std::endl; } }; int main() { { writer w; X<int> xi2(w); //X<int> xi2(writer()); //This does not work! xi2.data = 15; } return 0; }; The reason I am trying this out is so that I can "somehow" attach function-objects types with the objects without keeping an instance of the function-object itself within the class. Thus when I create an object of class X, I do not have to keep an object of class writer within it, but only a pointer to Base<T> (I'm not sure if I need the <T> here, but for now its there). The problem is that I seem to have to create an object of writer and then pass it to the constructor of X rather than call it like X<int> xi(writer(); I might be missing something completely stupid and obvious here, any suggestions?

    Read the article

  • System.Security.Permissions.SecurityPermission and Reflection on Godaddy

    - by David Murdoch
    I have the following method: public static UserControl LoadControl(string UserControlPath, params object[] constructorParameters) { var p = new Page(); var ctl = p.LoadControl(UserControlPath) as UserControl; // Find the relevant constructor if (ctl != null) { ConstructorInfo constructor = ctl.GetType().BaseType.GetConstructor(constructorParameters.Select(constParam => constParam == null ? "".GetType() : constParam.GetType()).ToArray()); //And then call the relevant constructor if (constructor == null) { throw new MemberAccessException("The requested constructor was not found on : " + ctl.GetType().BaseType.ToString()); } constructor.Invoke(ctl, constructorParameters); } // Finally return the fully initialized UC return ctl; } Which when executed on a Godaddy shared host gives me System.Security.SecurityException: Request for the permission of type 'System.Security.Permissions.SecurityPermission, mscorlib, Version=2.0.0.0, Culture=neutral, PublicKeyToken=b77a5c561934e089' failed.

    Read the article

  • Intermittent NoClassDefFoundError error running Selenium JUnit tests

    - by Matt Sheppard
    For some time, I've been running a substantial set of JUnit / Selenium tests against a number of platforms on a nightly basis. Intermittently (about once in every 40 runs), all the tests for a given platform fail with a NoClassDefFoundError on the common superclass of all my tests as follows. java.lang.NoClassDefFoundError: [common super class of all my selenium tests] at java.lang.Class.getDeclaredConstructors0(Native Method) at java.lang.Class.privateGetDeclaredConstructors(Class.java:2389) at java.lang.Class.getConstructors(Class.java:1459) at java.lang.reflect.Constructor.newInstance(Constructor.java:513) at java.lang.reflect.Constructor.newInstance(Constructor.java:513) at java.lang.reflect.Constructor.newInstance(Constructor.java:513) Re-invoking the tests will generally get the tests running normally, so it's clearly something dependent on some condition I am not considering. What might be causing this error to occur seemingly randomly?

    Read the article

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