Search Results

Search found 9278 results on 372 pages for 'generic handler'.

Page 28/372 | < Previous Page | 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35  | Next Page >

• Accessing and inheriting Windows Message for other Windows Message in Delphi

  - by HX_unbanned

  I am using WMSysCommand messages to modify Caption bar button ( Maximize / Minimize ) behaivor and recent update requiered to use WMNCHitTest, but I do not want to split these two related messages in multiplie procedures because of lengthy code. Can I access private declaration ( message ) from other message? And if I can - How to do it? procedure TForm1.WMNCHitTest(var Msg: TWMNCHitTest) ; begin SendMessage(Handle, HTCAPTION, WM_NCHitTest, 0); // or other wParam or lParam ???? end; procedure TForm1.WMSysCommand; begin if (Msg.CmdType = SC_MAXIMIZE or 61488) or (Msg.Result = htCaption or 2) then // if command is Maximize or reciever message of Caption Bar click begin if CheckWin32Version(6, 0) then Constraints.MaxHeight := 507 else Constraints.MaxHeight := 499; Constraints.MaxWidth := 0; end else if (Msg.CmdType = SC_MINIMIZE or 61472) or (Msg.Result = htCaption or 2) then // if command is Minimize begin if (EnsureRange(Width, 252, 510) >= (510 / 2)) then PreviewOpn.Caption := '<' else PreviewOpn.Caption := '>'; end; DefaultHandler(Msg); // reset Message handler to default ( Application ) end; Soo ... do I think correctly and sipmly do not know correct commands or I am thinking total bullsh*t? Regards. Thanks for any help...

  Read the article

• How are the conceptual pairs Abstract/Concrete, Generic/Specific, and Complex/Simple related to one another in software architecture?

  - by tjb1982

  (= 2 (+ 1 1)) take the above. The requirement of the '=' predicate is that its arguments be comparable. Any two structures are comparable in this case, and so the contract/requirement is pretty generic. The '+' predicate requires that its arguments be numbers. That's more specific. (socket domain type protocol) the arguments here are much more specific (even though the arguments are still just numbers and the function itself returns a file descriptor, which is itself an int), but the arguments are more abstract, and the implementation is built up from other functions whose abstractions are less abstract, which are themselves built from less and less abstract abstractions. To the point where the requirements are something like move from one location to another, observe whether the switch at that location is on or off, turn the switch on or off, or leave it the same, etc. But are functions also less and less complex the less abstract they are? And is there a relationship between the number and range of arguments of a function and the complexity of its implementation, as you go from more abstract to less abstract, and vice versa? (= 2 (+ 1 1) 2r10) the '=' predicate is more generic than the '+' predicate, and thus could be more complex in its implementation. The '+' predicate's contract is less generic, and so could be less complex in its implementation. Is this even a little correct? What about the 'socket' function? Each of those arguments is a number of some kind. What they represent, though, is something more elaborate. It also returns a number (just like the others do), which is also a representation of something conceptually much more elaborate than a number. To boil it down, I'm asking if there is a relationship between the following dimensions, and why: Abstract/Concrete Complex/Simple Generic/Specific And more specifically, do different configurations of these dimensions have a specific, measurable impact on the number and range of the arguments (i.e., the contract) of a function?

  Read the article

• How set EnqueueCallBack to my generic callback

  - by CrazyJoe

  using System; using System.Windows; using System.Windows.Controls; using System.Windows.Documents; using System.Windows.Ink; using System.Windows.Input; using System.Windows.Media; using System.Windows.Media.Animation; using System.Windows.Shapes; using Microsistec.Domain; using Microsistec.Client; using Microsoft.VisualStudio.TestTools.UnitTesting; using System.Collections.Generic; using Microsistec.Tools; using System.Json; using Microsistec.SystemConfig; using System.Threading; using Microsoft.Silverlight.Testing; namespace Test { [TestClass] public class SampleTest : SilverlightTest { [TestMethod, Asynchronous] public void login() { List<PostData> data = new List<PostData>(); data.Add(new PostData("email", "xxx")); data.Add(new PostData("password", MD5.GetHashString("xxx"))); WebClient.sendData(Config.DataServerURL + "/user/login", data, LoginCallBack); EnqueueCallback(?????????); EnqueueTestComplete(); } [Asynchronous] public void LoginCallBack(object sender, System.Net.UploadStringCompletedEventArgs e) { string json = Microsistec.Client.WebClient.ProcessResult(e); var result = JsonArray.Parse(json); Assert.Equals("1", result["value"].ToString()); TestComplete(); } } Im tring to set ???????? value but my callback is generic, it is setup on my WebClient .SendData, how i implement my EnqueueCallback to a my already functio LoginCallBack???

  Read the article

• Reflective Generic Detection

  - by Aren B

  Trying to find out if a provided Type is of a given generic type (with any generic types inside) Let me Explain: bool IsOfGenericType(Type baseType, Type sampleType) { /// ... } Such that: IsOfGenericType(typeof(Dictionary<,>), typeof(Dictionary<string, int>)); // True IsOfGenericType(typeof(IDictionary<,>), typeof(Dictionary<string, int>)); // True IsOfGenericType(typeof(IList<>), typeof(Dictionary<string,int>)); // False However, I played with some reflection in the intermediate window, here were my results: typeof(Dictionary<,>) is typeof(Dictionary<string,int>) Type expected typeof(Dictionary<string,int>) is typeof(Dictionary<string,int>) Type expected typeof(Dictionary<string,int>).IsAssignableFrom(typeof(Dictionary<,>)) false typeof(Dictionary<string,int>).IsSubclassOf(typeof(Dictionary<,>)) false typeof(Dictionary<string,int>).IsInstanceOfType(typeof(Dictionary<,>)) false typeof(Dictionary<,>).IsInstanceOfType(typeof(Dictionary<string,int>)) false typeof(Dictionary<,>).IsAssignableFrom(typeof(Dictionary<string,int>)) false typeof(Dictionary<,>).IsSubclassOf(typeof(Dictionary<string,int>)) false typeof(Dictionary<,>) is typeof(Dictionary<string,int>) Type expected typeof(Dictionary<string,int>) is typeof(Dictionary<string,int>) Type expected typeof(Dictionary<string,int>).IsAssignableFrom(typeof(Dictionary<,>)) false typeof(Dictionary<string,int>).IsSubclassOf(typeof(Dictionary<,>)) false typeof(Dictionary<string,int>).IsInstanceOfType(typeof(Dictionary<,>)) false typeof(Dictionary<,>).IsInstanceOfType(typeof(Dictionary<string,int>)) false typeof(Dictionary<,>).IsAssignableFrom(typeof(Dictionary<string,int>)) false typeof(Dictionary<,>).IsSubclassOf(typeof(Dictionary<string,int>)) false So now I'm at a loss because when you look at the base.Name on typeof(Dictionary) you get Dictionary`2 Which is the same as typeof(Dictionary<,>).Name

  Read the article

• Generic wrapper for System.Web.Caching.Cache functions

  - by David Neale

  I've created a generic wrapper for using the Cache object: public class Cache<T> where T : class { public Cache Cache {get;set;} public CachedKeys Key {get;set;} public Cache(Cache cache, CachedKeys key){ Cache = cache; Key = key; } public void AddToCache(T obj){ Cache.Add(Key.ToString(), obj, null, DateTime.Now.AddMinutes(5), System.Web.Caching.Cache.NoSlidingExpiration, System.Web.Caching.CacheItemPriority.Normal, null); } public bool TryGetFromCache(out T cachedData) { cachedData = Cache[Key.ToString()] as T; return cachedData != null; } public void RemoveFromCache() { Cache.Remove(Key.ToString()); } } The CachedKeys enumeration is just a list of keys that can be used to cache data. The trouble is, to call it is quite convuluted: var cache = new Cache<MyObject>(Page.Cache, CachedKeys.MyKey); MyObject myObject = null; if(!cache.TryGetFromCache(out myObject)){ //get data... cache.AddToCache(data); //add to cache return data; } return myObject; I only store one instance of each of my objects in the cache. Therefore, is there any way that I can create an extension method that accepts the type of object to Cache and uses (via Reflection) its Name as the cache key? public static Cache<T> GetCache(this Cache cache, Type cacheType){ Cache<cacheType> Cache = new Cache<cacheType>(cache, cacheType.Name); } Of course, there's two errors here: Extension methods must be defined in a non-generic static class The type or namespace name 'cacheType' could not be found This is clearly not the right approach but I thought I'd show my working. Could somebody guide me in the right direction?

  Read the article

• Problem with MessageContract, Generic return types and clientside naming

  - by Soeteman

  I'm building a web service which uses MessageContracts, because I want to add custom fields to my SOAP header. In a previous topic, I learned that a composite response has to be wrapped. For this purpose, I devised a generic ResponseWrapper class. [MessageContract(WrapperNamespace = "http://mynamespace.com", WrapperName="WrapperOf{0}")] public class ResponseWrapper<T> { [MessageBodyMember(Namespace = "http://mynamespace.com")] public T Response { get; set; } } I made a ServiceResult base class, defined as follows: [MessageContract(WrapperNamespace = "http://mynamespace.com")] public class ServiceResult { [MessageBodyMember] public bool Status { get; set; } [MessageBodyMember] public string Message { get; set; } [MessageBodyMember] public string Description { get; set; } } To be able to include the request context in the response, I use a derived class of ServiceResult, which uses generics: [MessageContract(WrapperNamespace = "http://mynamespace.com", WrapperName = "ServiceResultOf{0}")] public class ServiceResult<TRequest> : ServiceResult { [MessageBodyMember] public TRequest Request { get; set; } } This is used in the following way [OperationContract()] ResponseWrapper<ServiceResult<HCCertificateRequest>> OrderHealthCertificate(RequestContext<HCCertificateRequest> context); I expected my client code to be generated as ServiceResultOfHCCertificateRequest OrderHealthCertificate(RequestContextOfHCCertificateRequest context); Instead, I get the following: ServiceResultOfHCCertificateRequestzSOTD_SSj OrderHealthCertificate(CompType1 c1, CompType2 c2, HCCertificateRequest context); CompType1 and CompType2 are properties of the RequestContext class. The problem is that a hash is added to the end of ServiceResultOfHCCertificateRequestzSOTD_SSj. How do I need define my generic return types in order for the client type to be generated as expected (without the hash)?

  Read the article

• How do I get my ActivityUnitTestCases to sync with the MessageQueue thread and call my Handler?

  - by Ricardo Gladwell

  I'm writing unit tests for a ListActivity in Android that uses a handler to update a ListAdapter. While my activity works in the Android emulator, running the same code in a unit test doesn't update my adapter: calls to sendEmptyMessage do not call handleMessage in my activity's Handler. How do I get my ActivityUnitTestCase to sync with the MessageQueue thread and call my Handler? The code for the Activity is somewhat like this: public class SampleActivity extends ListActivity implements SampleListener { List samples = new ArrayList(); public void onCreate(Bundle savedInstanceState) { super.onCreate(savedInstanceState); setContentView(R.layout.sample_list); listView.setEmptyView(findViewById(R.id.empty)); } private final Handler handler = new Handler() { @Override public void handleMessage(Message msg) { // unit test never reaches here sharesAdapter = new SampleAdapter(SampleActivity.this, samples); setListAdapter(sharesAdapter); } }; public void handleSampleUpdate(SampleEvent event) { samples.add(event.getSample()); handler.sendEmptyMessage(0); } } The code for my unit test is somewhat like this: public class SampleActivityTest extends ActivityUnitTestCase<SampleActivity> { public SampleActivityTest() { super(SampleActivity.class); } @MediumTest public void test() throws Exception { final SampleActivity activity = startActivity(new Intent(Intent.ACTION_MAIN), null, null); final ListView listView = (ListView) activity.findViewById(android.R.id.list); activity.handleSampleUpdate(new SampleEvent(this)); // unit test assert fails on this line: assertTrue(listView.getCount() == 1); } }

  Read the article

• Generic list typecasting problem

  - by AJ

  Hello, I'm new to C# and am stuck on the following. I have a Silverlight web service that uses LINQ to query a ADO.NET entity object. e.g.: [OperationContract] public List<Customer> GetData() { using (TestEntities ctx = new TestEntities()) { var data = from rec in ctx.Customer select rec; return data.ToList(); } } This works fine, but what I want to do is to make this more abstract. The first step would be to return a List<EntityObject> but this gives a compiler error, e.g.: [OperationContract] public List<EntityObject> GetData() { using (TestEntities ctx = new TestEntities()) { var data = from rec in ctx.Customer select rec; return data.ToList(); } } The error is: Error 1 Cannot implicitly convert type 'System.Collections.Generic.List<SilverlightTest.Web.Customer>' to 'System.Collections.Generic.IEnumerable<System.Data.Objects.DataClasses.EntityObject>'. An explicit conversion exists (are you missing a cast?) What am i doing wrong? Thanks, AJ

  Read the article

• Best Practice - Removing item from generic collection in C#

  - by Matt Davis

  I'm using C# in Visual Studio 2008 with .NET 3.5. I have a generic dictionary that maps types of events to a generic list of subscribers. A subscriber can be subscribed to more than one event. private static Dictionary<EventType, List<ISubscriber>> _subscriptions; To remove a subscriber from the subscription list, I can use either of these two options. Option 1: ISubscriber subscriber; // defined elsewhere foreach (EventType event in _subscriptions.Keys) { if (_subscriptions[event].Contains(subscriber)) { _subscriptions[event].Remove(subscriber); } } Option 2: ISubscriber subscriber; // defined elsewhere foreach (EventType event in _subscriptions.Keys) { _subscriptions[event].Remove(subscriber); } I have two questions. First, notice that Option 1 checks for existence before removing the item, while Option 2 uses a brute force removal since Remove() does not throw an exception. Of these two, which is the preferred, "best-practice" way to do this? Second, is there another, "cleaner," more elegant way to do this, perhaps with a lambda expression or using a LINQ extension? I'm still getting acclimated to these two features. Thanks. EDIT Just to clarify, I realize that the choice between Options 1 and 2 is a choice of speed (Option 2) versus maintainability (Option 1). In this particular case, I'm not necessarily trying to optimize the code, although that is certainly a worthy consideration. What I'm trying to understand is if there is a generally well-established practice for doing this. If not, which option would you use in your own code?

  Read the article

• Generic object to object mapping with parametrized constructor

  - by Rody van Sambeek

  I have a data access layer which returns an IDataRecord. I have a WCF service that serves DataContracts (dto's). These DataContracts are initiated by a parametrized constructor containing the IDataRecord as follows: [DataContract] public class DataContractItem { [DataMember] public int ID; [DataMember] public string Title; public DataContractItem(IDataRecord record) { this.ID = Convert.ToInt32(record["ID"]); this.Title = record["title"].ToString(); } } Unfortanately I can't change the DAL, so I'm obliged to work with the IDataRecord as input. But in generat this works very well. The mappings are pretty simple most of the time, sometimes they are a bit more complex, but no rocket science. However, now I'd like to be able to use generics to instantiate the different DataContracts to simplify the WCF service methods. I want to be able to do something like: public T DoSomething<T>(IDataRecord record) { ... return new T(record); } So I'd tried to following solutions: Use a generic typed interface with a constructor. doesn't work: ofcourse we can't define a constructor in an interface Use a static method to instantiate the DataContract and create a typed interface containing this static method. doesn't work: ofcourse we can't define a static method in an interface Use a generic typed interface containing the new() constraint doesn't work: new() constraint cannot contain a parameter (the IDataRecord) Using a factory object to perform the mapping based on the DataContract Type. does work, but: not very clean, because I now have a switch statement with all mappings in one file. I can't find a real clean solution for this. Can somebody shed a light on this for me? The project is too small for any complex mapping techniques and too large for a "switch-based" factory implementation.

  Read the article

• What is the best way to save the environment from before an alarm handler goes off when the alarm do

  - by EpsilonVector

  I'm trying to implement user threads on a 2.4 Linux kernel (homework) and the trick for context switch seems to be using an alarm that goes off every x milliseconds and sends us to an alarm handler from which we can longjmp to the next thread. What I'm having difficulties with is figuring out how to save the environment to return to later. Basically I have an array of jmp_buffs, and every time a "context switch" using the alarm happens I want to save the previous context to the appropriate entry of the array and longjmp to the next one. However, just the fact that I need to do this from the event handler means that just using setjmp in the event handler won't give me exactly the kind of environment I want (as far as stack and program counter are involved) because the stack has the event handler call in it and the pc is in the event handler. I suppose I can look at the stack and alter it to fit my needs, but that feels a bit cumbersome. Another idea I had is to somehow pass the environment before the jump to event handler as a parameter to the event handler, but I can't figure out if this is possible. So I guess my question is- how do I do this right?

  Read the article

• Passing Derived Class Instances as void* to Generic Callbacks in C++

  - by Matthew Iselin

  This is a bit of an involved problem, so I'll do the best I can to explain what's going on. If I miss something, please tell me so I can clarify. We have a callback system where on one side a module or application provides a "Service" and clients can perform actions with this Service (A very rudimentary IPC, basically). For future reference let's say we have some definitions like so: typedef int (*callback)(void*); // This is NOT in our code, but makes explaining easier. installCallback(string serviceName, callback cb); // Really handled by a proper management system sendMessage(string serviceName, void* arg); // arg = value to pass to callback This works fine for basic types such as structs or builtins. We have an MI structure a bit like this: Device <- Disk <- MyDiskProvider class Disk : public virtual Device class MyDiskProvider : public Disk The provider may be anything from a hardware driver to a bit of glue that handles disk images. The point is that classes inherit Disk. We have a "service" which is to be notified of all new Disks in the system, and this is where things unravel: void diskHandler(void *p) { Disk *pDisk = reinterpret_cast<Disk*>(p); // Uh oh! // Remainder is not important } SomeDiskProvider::initialise() { // Probe hardware, whatever... // Tell the disk system we're here! sendMessage("disk-handler", reinterpret_cast<void*>(this)); // Uh oh! } The problem is, SomeDiskProvider inherits Disk, but the callback handler can't receive that type (as the callback function pointer must be generic). Could RTTI and templates help here? Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated.

  Read the article

• hadoop implementing a generic list writable

  - by Guruprasad Venkatesh

  I am working on building a map reduce pipeline of jobs(with one MR job's output feeding to another as input). The values being passed around are fairly complex, in that there are lists of different types and hash maps with values as lists. Hadoop api does not seem to have a ListWritable. Am trying to write a generic one, but it seems i can't instantiate a generic type in my readFields implementation, unless i pass in the class type itself: public class ListWritable<T extends Writable> implements Writable { private List<T> list; private Class<T> clazz; public ListWritable(Class<T> clazz) { this.clazz = clazz; list = new ArrayList<T>(); } @Override public void write(DataOutput out) throws IOException { out.writeInt(list.size()); for (T element : list) { element.write(out); } } @Override public void readFields(DataInput in) throws IOException{ int count = in.readInt(); this.list = new ArrayList<T>(); for (int i = 0; i < count; i++) { try { T obj = clazz.newInstance(); obj.readFields(in); list.add(obj); } catch (InstantiationException e) { e.printStackTrace(); } catch (IllegalAccessException e) { e.printStackTrace(); } } } } But hadoop requires all writables to have a no argument constructor to read the values back. Has anybody tried to do the same and solved this problem? TIA.

  Read the article

• Catching specific vs. generic exceptions in c#

  - by Scott Vercuski

  This question comes from a code analysis run against an object I've created. The analysis says that I should catch a more specific exception type than just the basic Exception. Do you find yourself using just catching the generic Exception or attempting to catch a specific Exception and defaulting to a generic Exception using multiple catch blocks? One of the code chunks in question is below: internal static bool ClearFlags(string connectionString, Guid ID) { bool returnValue = false; SqlConnection dbEngine = new SqlConnection(connectionString); SqlCommand dbCmd = new SqlCommand("ClearFlags", dbEngine); SqlDataAdapter dataAdapter = new SqlDataAdapter(dbCmd); dbCmd.CommandType = CommandType.StoredProcedure; try { dbCmd.Parameters.AddWithValue("@ID", ID.ToString()); dbEngine.Open(); dbCmd.ExecuteNonQuery(); dbEngine.Close(); returnValue = true; } catch (Exception ex) { ErrorHandler(ex); } return returnValue; } Thank you for your advice EDIT: Here is the warning from the code analysis Warning 351 CA1031 : Microsoft.Design : Modify 'ClearFlags(string, Guid)' to catch a more specific exception than 'Exception' or rethrow the exception

  Read the article

• LinQ XML mapping to a generic type

  - by Manuel Navarro

  I´m trying to use an external XML file to map the output from a stored procedure into an instance of a class. The problem is that my class is of a generic type: public class MyValue<T> { public T Value { get; set; } } Searching through a lot of blogs an articles I've managed to get this: <?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" ?> <Database Name="" xmlns="http://schemas.microsoft.com/linqtosql/mapping/2007"> <Table Name="MyValue" Member="MyNamespace.MyValue`1" > <Type Name="MyNamespace.MyValue`1"> <Column Name="Category" Member="Value" DbType="VarChar(100)" /> </Type> </Table> <Function Method="GetResourceCategories" Name="myprefix_GetResourceCategories" > <ElementType Name="MyNamespace.MyValue`1"/> </Function> </Database> The MyNamespace.MyValue`1 trick works fine, and the class is recognized. I expect four rows from the stored procedure, and I'm getting four MyValue<string> instances, but the big problem is that the property Value for the all four instances is null. The property is not getting mapped and I don't really get why. Maybe worth noting that the property Value is generic, and that when the mapping is done using attributes it works perfect. Anyone have a clue? BTW the method GetResourceCategories: public ISingleResult<MyValue<string>> GetResourceCategories() { IExecuteResult result = this.ExecuteMethodCall( this, (MethodInfo)MethodInfo.GetCurrentMethod()); return (ISingleResult<MyValue<string>>)result.ReturnValue; }

  Read the article

• PHP Function needed for GENERIC sorting of a recordset array

  - by donbriggs

  Somebody must have come up with a solution for this by now. I wrote a PHP class to display a recordset as an HTML table/datagrid, and I wish to expand it so that we can sort the datagrid by whichever column the user selects. In the below example data, we may need to sort the recordset array by Name, Shirt, Assign, or Age fields. I will take care of the display part, I just need help with sorting the data array. As usual, I query a database to get a result, iterate throught he result, and put the records into an assciateiave array. So, we end up with an array of arrays. (See below.) I need to be able to sort by any column in the dataset. However, I will not know the column names at design time, nor will I know if the colums will be string or numeric values. I have seen a ton of solutions to this, but I have not seen a GOOD and GENERIC solution Can somebody please suggest a way that I can sort the recordset array that is GENERIC, and will work on any recordset? Again, I will not know the fields names or datatypes at design time. The array presented below is ONLY an example. Array ( [0] = Array ( [name] = Kirk [shrit] = Gold [assign] = Bridge ) [1] => Array ( [name] => Spock [shrit] => Blue [assign] => Bridge ) [2] => Array ( [name] => Uhura [shrit] => Red [assign] => Bridge ) [3] => Array ( [name] => Scotty [shrit] => Red [assign] => Engineering ) [4] => Array ( [name] => McCoy [shrit] => Blue [assign] => Sick Bay ) )

  Read the article

• Namespace constraint with generic class decleration

  - by SomeGuy

  Good afternoon people, I would like to know if (and if so how) it is possible to define a namespace as a constraint parameter in a generic class declaration. What I have is this: namespace MyProject.Models.Entities <-- Contains my classes to be persisted in db namespace MyProject.Tests.BaseTest <-- Obvious i think Now the decleration of my 'BaseTest' class looks like so; public class BaseTest<T> This BaseTest does little more (at the time of writing) than remove all entities that were added to the database during testing. So typically I will have a test class declared as: public class MyEntityRepositoryTest : BaseTest<MyEntity> What i would LIKE to do is something similar to the following: public class BaseTest<T> where T : <is of the MyProject.Models.Entities namespace> Now i am aware that it would be entirely possible to simply declare a 'BaseEntity' class from which all entities created within the MyProject.Models.Entities namespace will inherit from; public class BaseTest<T> where T : MyBaseEntity but...I dont actually need to, or want to. Plus I am using an ORM and mapping entities with inheritance, although possible, adds a layer of complexity that is not required. So, is it possible to constrain a generic class parameter to a namespace and not a specific type ? Thank you for your time.

  Read the article

• "A generic error occurred in GDI+" error while showing uploaded images

  - by Prasad

  i am using the following code to show the image that has been saved in my database from my asp.net mvc(C#) application:. public ActionResult GetSiteHeaderLogo() { SiteHeader _siteHeader = new SiteHeader(); Image imgImage = null; long userId = Utility.GetUserIdFromSession(); if (userId > 0) { _siteHeader = this.siteBLL.GetSiteHeaderLogo(userId); if (_siteHeader.Logo != null && _siteHeader.Logo.Length > 0) { byte[] _imageBytes = _siteHeader.Logo; if (_imageBytes != null) { using (System.IO.MemoryStream imageStream = new System.IO.MemoryStream(_imageBytes)) { imgImage = Image.FromStream(imageStream); } } string sFileExtension = _siteHeader.FileName.Substring(_siteHeader.FileName.IndexOf('.') + 1, _siteHeader.FileName.Length - (_siteHeader.FileName.IndexOf('.') + 1)); Response.ContentType = Utility.GetContentTypeByExtension(sFileExtension.ToLower()); Response.Cache.SetCacheability(HttpCacheability.NoCache); Response.BufferOutput = false; if (imgImage != null) { ImageFormat _imageFormat = Utility.GetImageFormat(sFileExtension.ToLower()); imgImage.Save(Response.OutputStream, _imageFormat); imgImage.Dispose(); } } } return new EmptyResult(); } It works fine when i upload original image. But when i upload any downloaded images, it throws the following error: System.Runtime.InteropServices.ExternalException: A generic error occurred in GDI+. System.Runtime.InteropServices.ExternalException: A generic error occurred in GDI+. at System.Drawing.Image.Save(Stream stream, ImageCodecInfo encoder, EncoderParameters encoderParams) at System.Drawing.Image.Save(Stream stream, ImageFormat format) For. Ex: When i upload the original image, it shows as logo in my site and i downloaded that logo from the site and when i re-upload the same downloaded image, it throws the above error. It seems very weird to me and not able to find why its happening. Any ideas on this?

  Read the article

• Semi-generic function

  - by Fredrik Ullner

  I have a bunch of overloaded functions that operate on certain data types such as int, double and strings. Most of these functions perform the same action, where only a specific set of data types are allowed. That means I cannot create a simple generic template function as I lose type safety (and potentially incurring a run-time problem for validation within the function). Is it possible to create a "semi-generic compile time type safe function"? If so, how? If not, is this something that will come up in C++0x? An (non-valid) idea; template <typename T, restrict: int, std::string > void foo(T bar); ... foo((int)0); // OK foo((std::string)"foobar"); // OK foo((double)0.0); // Compile Error Note: I realize I could create a class that has overloaded constructors and assignment operators and pass a variable of that class instead to the function.

  Read the article

• Improve this generic abstract class

  - by Keivan

  I have the following abstract class design, I was wondering if anyone can suggest any improvements in terms of stronger enforcement of our requirements or simplifying implementing of the ControllerBase. //Dependency Provider base public abstract class ControllerBase<TContract, TType> where TType : TContract, class { public static TContract Instance { get { return ComponentFactory.GetComponent<TContract, TType>(); } } public TContract GetComponent<TContract, TType>() where TType : TContract, class { component = (TType)Activator.CreateInstance(typeof(TType), true); RegisterComponentInstance<TContract>(component); } } //Contract public interface IController { void DoThing(); } //Actual Class Logic public class Controller: ControllerBase<IController,Controller> { public void DoThing(); //internal constructor internal Controller(){} } //Usage public static void Main() { Controller.Instance.DoThing(); } The following facts should always be true, TType should always implement TContract (Enforced using a generic constraint) TContract must be an interface (Can't find a way to enforce it) TType shouldn't have public constructor, just an internal one, is there any way to Enforce that using ControllerBase? TType must be an concrete class (Didn't include New() as a generic constrain since the constructors should be marked as Internal)

  Read the article

• Casting Type array to Generic array?

  - by George R

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

  Read the article

• Java: using generic wildcards with subclassing

  - by gibberish

  Say I have a class Foo, a class A and some subclass B of A. Foo accepts A and its sublclasses as the generic type. A and B both require a Foo instance in their constructor. I want A's Foo to be of type A , and B's Foo to be of type B or a superclass of B. So in effect, So I only want this: Foo<X> bar = new Foo<X>; new B(bar); to be possible if X is either A, B, or a both subclass of A and superclass of B. So far this is what I have: class Foo<? extends A>{ //construct } class A(Foo<A> bar){ //construct } class B(Foo<? super B> bar){ super(bar); //construct } The call to super(...) doesn't work, because <A> is stricter than <? super B>. Is it somehow possible to use the constructor (or avoid code duplication by another means) while enforcing these types? Edit: Foo keeps a collection of elements of the generic parameter type, and these elements and Foo have a bidirectional link. It should therefore not be possible to link an A to a Foo.

  Read the article

• Stored procedure for generic MERGE

  - by GilliVilla

  I have a set of 10 tables in a database (DB1). And there are 10 tables in another database (DB2) with exact same schema on the same SQL Server 2008 R2 database server machine. The 10 tables in DB1 are frequently updated with data. I intend to write a stored procedure that would run once every day for synchronizing the 10 tables in DB1 with DB2. The stored procedure would make use of the MERGE statement. Now, my aim is to make this as generic and parametrized as possible. That is, accommodate for more tables down the line... and accommodate different source and target DB names. Definitely no hard coding is intended. This is my algorithm so far: Have the database names as parameters Have the first query within the stored procedure... result in giving the names of the 10 tables from a lookup table (this can be 10, 20 or whatever) Have a generic MERGE statement that does the sync for each of the above set of tables (based on primary key?) This is where I need more inputs on. What is the best way to achieve this stored procedure? SQL syntax would be helpful.

  Read the article

• Visual Studio 2008 having problems with namespaces when used as type in Generic coolection

  - by patrick

  I just upgraded last week from Visual Studio 2005 to 2008. I am having an issue with compiler resolving namespaces when I use a class as a type in a Generic collection. Intellisense recognizes the class and the compiler generates no errors when I use the class except when it is a type in a Generic collection declaration either as return type for a Property or as a parameter to a method. This is happening in my only project that is targeting the 3.5 framework, but changing the project containing the class to use the 3.5 framework doesn't fix the problem. Examples Compile fine MyClass myClass = new MyClass(); SortedList <DateTime,MyClass> listOfClasses = new SortedList<DateTime,MyClass> Compile error - Namespace could not be found public SortedList<DateTime,MyClass> ClassList { get; set; } private void DoSomethingToLists(SortedList<DateTime,MyClass> classList) Intellisense has no problem resolving the namespace, only the compiler. Is this a known bug or am I missing something obvious? Will SP1 fix it? I was able to create a new library containing just this class targeting 3.5 and am now able to successfully use this in both 3.5 and 2.0 projects. My guess is that even though I tried to change the target of my original library, since it was still referencing 2.0 projects there was some conflict.

  Read the article

• Creating a sort function for a generic list

  - by Andrey

  I have a method for sorting generic lists by the object fields: public static IQueryable<T> SortTable<T>(IQueryable<T> q, string sortfield, bool ascending) { var p = Expression.Parameter(typeof(T), "p"); if (typeof(T).GetProperty(sortfield).PropertyType == typeof(int?)) { var x = Expression.Lambda<Func<T, int?>>(Expression.Property(p, sortfield), p); if (ascending) q = q.OrderBy(x); else q = q.OrderByDescending(x); } else if (typeof(T).GetProperty(sortfield).PropertyType == typeof(int)) { var x = Expression.Lambda<Func<T, int>>(Expression.Property(p, sortfield), p); if (ascending) q = q.OrderBy(x); else q = q.OrderByDescending(x); } else if (typeof(T).GetProperty(sortfield).PropertyType == typeof(DateTime)) { var x = Expression.Lambda<Func<T, DateTime>>(Expression.Property(p, sortfield), p); if (ascending) q = q.OrderBy(x); else q = q.OrderByDescending(x); } // many more for every type return q; } Is there any way I can collapse those ifs to a single generic statement? The main problem is that for the part Expression.Lambda<Func<T, int>> I am not sure how to write it generically.

  Read the article

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