Search Results

Search found 30347 results on 1214 pages for 'public speaking'.

Page 282/1214 | < Previous Page | 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289  | Next Page >

• Implications on automatically "open" third party domain aliasing to one of my subdomains

  - by Giovanni

  I have a domain, let's call it www.mydomain.com where I have a portal with an active community of users. In this portal users cooperate in a wiki way to build some "kind of software". These software applications can then be run by accessing "public.mydomain.com/softwarename" I then want to let my users run these applications from their own subdomains. I know I can do that by automatically modifying the.htaccess file. This is not a problem. I want to let these users create dns aliases to let them access one specific subdomain. So if a user "pippo" that owns "www.pippo.com" wants to run software HelloWorld from his own subdomains he has to: Register to my site Create his own subdomain on his own site, run.pippo.com From his DNS control panel, he creates a CNAME record "run.pippo.com" pointing to "public.mydomain.com" He types in a browser http://run.pippo.com/HelloWorld When the software(that is physically run on my server) is called, first it checks that the originating domain is a trusted one. I don't do any other kind of check that restricts software execution. From a SEO perspective, I care about Google indexing of www.mydomain.com but I don't care about indexing of public.mydomain.com What are the possible security implications of doing this for my site? Is there a better way to do this or software that already does this that I can use?

  Read the article

• Self-referencing anonymous closures: is JavaScript incomplete?

  - by Tom Auger

  Does the fact that anonymous self-referencing function closures are so prevelant in JavaScript suggest that JavaScript is an incomplete specification? We see so much of this: (function () { /* do cool stuff */ })(); and I suppose everything is a matter of taste, but does this not look like a kludge, when all you want is a private namespace? Couldn't JavaScript implement packages and proper classes? Compare to ActionScript 3, also based on EMACScript, where you get package com.tomauger { import bar; class Foo { public function Foo(){ // etc... } public function show(){ // show stuff } public function hide(){ // hide stuff } // etc... } } Contrast to the convolutions we perform in JavaScript (this, from the jQuery plugin authoring documentation): (function( $ ){ var methods = { init : function( options ) { // THIS }, show : function( ) { // IS }, hide : function( ) { // GOOD }, update : function( content ) { // !!! } }; $.fn.tooltip = function( method ) { // Method calling logic if ( methods[method] ) { return methods[ method ].apply( this, Array.prototype.slice.call( arguments, 1 )); } else if ( typeof method === 'object' || ! method ) { return methods.init.apply( this, arguments ); } else { $.error( 'Method ' + method + ' does not exist on jQuery.tooltip' ); } }; })( jQuery ); I appreciate that this question could easily degenerate into a rant about preferences and programming styles, but I'm actually very curious to hear how you seasoned programmers feel about this and whether it feels natural, like learning different idiosyncrasies of a new language, or kludgy, like a workaround to some basic programming language components that are just not implemented?

  Read the article

• The Endeca UI Design Pattern Library Returns

  - by Joe Lamantia

  I'm happy to announce that the Endeca UI Design Pattern Library - now titled the Endeca Discovery Pattern Library - is once again providing guidance and good practices on the design of discovery experiences.  Launched publicly in 2010 following several years of internal development and usage, the Endeca Pattern Library is a unique and valued source of industry-leading perspective on discovery - something I've come to appreciate directly through  fielding the consistent stream of inquiries about the library's status, and requests for its rapid return to public availability. Restoring the library as a public resource is only the first step!  For the next stage of the library's evolution, we plan to increase the scope of the guidance it offers beyond user interface design to the broader topic of discovery.  This could include patterns for architecture at the systems, user experience, and business levels; information and process models; analytical method and activity patterns for conducting discovery; and organizational and resource patterns for provisioning discovery capability in different settings.  We'd like guidance from the community on the kinds of patterns that are most valuable - so make sure to let us know. And we're also considering ways to increase the number of patterns the library offers, possibly by expanding the set of contributors and the authoring mechanisms. If you'd like to contribute, please get in touch. Here's the new address of the library: http://www.oracle.com/goto/EndecaDiscoveryPatterns And I should say 'Many thanks' to the UXDirect team and all the others within the Oracle family who helped - literally - keep the library alive, and restore it as a public resource.

  Read the article

• Creating user UI using Flixel

  - by Jamie Read

  I am new to game development but familiar with programming languages. I have started using Flixel and have a working Breakout game with score and lives. What I am trying to do is add a Start Screen before actually loading the game. I have a create function that adds all the game elements to the stage: override public function create():void // all game elements { How can I add this pre-load Start Screen? I'm not sure if I have to add in the code to this create function or somewhere else and what code to actually add. Eventually I would also like to add saving, loading, options and upgrades too. So any advice with that would be great. Here is my main game.as: package { import org.flixel.*; public class Game extends FlxGame { private const resolution:FlxPoint = new FlxPoint(640, 480); private const zoom:uint = 2; private const fps:uint = 60; public function Game() { super(resolution.x / zoom, resolution.y / zoom, PlayState, zoom); FlxG.flashFramerate = fps; } } } Thanks.

  Read the article

• Design guideline for saving big byte stream in c# [migrated]

  - by Praveen

  I have an application where I am receiving big byte array very fast around per 50 miliseconds. The byte array contains some information like file name etc. The data (byte array ) may come from several sources. Each time I receive the data, I have to find the file name and save the data to that file name. I need some guide lines to how should I design it so that it works efficient. Following is my code... public class DataSaver { private static Dictionary<string, FileStream> _dictFileStream; public static void SaveData(byte[] byteArray) { string fileName = GetFileNameFromArray(byteArray); FileStream fs = GetFileStream(fileName); fs.Write(byteArray, 0, byteArray.Length); } private static FileStream GetFileStream(string fileName) { FileStream fs; bool hasStream = _dictFileStream.TryGetValue(fileName, out fs); if (!hasStream) { fs = new FileStream(fileName, FileMode.Append); _dictFileStream.Add(fileName, fs); } return fs; } public static void CloseSaver() { foreach (var key in _dictFileStream.Keys) { _dictFileStream[key].Close(); } } } How can I improve this code ? I need to create a thread maybe to do the saving.

  Read the article

• How To Scale Canvas In Android

  - by Daniel Braithwaite

  I am writing a android game using Canvas as the way to draw everything, the problem is that when i run it on different android phones the canvas dosn't change size i tried using canvas.scale() but that didn't make a i difference. The code i use for drawing is ... public void draw( Canvas c, int score ) { Obstical2[] obstmp = Queue.toArray(this.o); Coin[] cointmp = QueueC.toArray(this.c); for( int i = 0; i < obstmp.length; i++ ) { obstmp[i].draw(c); } for( int i = 0; i < cointmp.length; i++ ) { cointmp[i].draw(c); } c.drawText(String.format("%d", score ), 20, 50, textPaint); if( isWon && isStarted ) c.drawText("YOU WON", 20, 400, resPaint); else if( isLost && isStarted ) c.drawText("YOU LOST", 20, 400, resPaint); } The function above calls the draw functions for the entity's on the screen, theses function are as follows Draw Function For Obstical : public void draw( Canvas c ) { Log.i("D", "COIN"); coin.draw(c); } Draw Function For Coin : public void draw( Canvas c ) { obstical.draw(c); } How could i make the canvas re-size to it would look the same on any screen ? Cheers Daniel

  Read the article

• Initializing OpenFeint for Android outside the main Application

  - by Ef Es

  I am trying to create a generic C++ bridge to use OpenFeint with Cocos2d-x, which is supposed to be just "add and run" but I am finding problems. OpenFeint is very exquisite when initializing, it requires a Context parameter that MUST be the main Application, in the onCreate method, never the constructor. Also, the main Apps name must be edited into the manifest. I am trying to fix this. So far I have tried to create a new Application that calls my Application to test if just the type is needed, but you do really need the main Android application. I also tried using a handler for a static initialization but I found pretty much the same problem. Has anybody been able to do it? This is my working-but-not-as-intended code snippet public class DerpHurr extends Application{ @Override public void onCreate() { super.onCreate(); initializeOpenFeint("TestApp", "edthedthedthedth", "aeyaetyet", "65462"); } public void initializeOpenFeint(String appname, String key, String secret, String id){ Map<String, Object> options = new HashMap<String, Object>(); options.put(OpenFeintSettings.SettingCloudStorageCompressionStrategy, OpenFeintSettings.CloudStorageCompressionStrategyDefault); OpenFeintSettings settings = new OpenFeintSettings(appname, key, secret, id, options); //RIGHT HERE OpenFeint.initialize(***this***, settings, new OpenFeintDelegate() { }); System.out.println("OpenFeint Started"); } } Manifest <application android:debuggable="true" android:label="@string/app_name" android:name=".DerpHurr">

  Read the article

• Better solution then simple factory method when concrete implementations have different attributes

  - by danip

  abstract class Animal { function eat() {..} function sleep() {..} function isSmart() } class Dog extends Animal { public $blnCanBark; function isSmart() { return $this->blnCanBark; } } class Cat extends Animal { public $blnCanJumpHigh; function isSmart() { return $this->blnCanJumpHigh; } } .. and so on up to 10-20 animals. Now I created a factory using simple factory method and try to create instances like this: class AnimalFactory { public static function create($strName) { switch($strName) { case 'Dog': return new Dog(); case 'Cat': return new Cat(); default: break; } } } The problem is I can't set the specific attributes like blnCanBark, blnCanJumpHigh in an efficient way. I can send all of them as extra params to create but this will not scale to more then a few classes. Also I can't break the inheritance because a lot of the basic functionality is the same. Is there a better pattern to solve this?

  Read the article

• Relative encapsulation design

  - by taher1992

  Let's say I am doing a 2D application with the following design: There is the Level object that manages the world, and there are world objects which are entities inside the Level object. A world object has a location and velocity, as well as size and a texture. However, a world object only exposes get properties. The set properties are private (or protected) and are only available to inherited classes. But of course, Level is responsible for these world objects, and must somehow be able to manipulate at least some of its private setters. But as of now, Level has no access, meaning world objects must change its private setters to public (violating encapsulation). How to tackle this problem? Should I just make everything public? Currently what I'm doing is having a inner class inside game object that does the set work. So when Level needs to update an objects location it goes something like this: void ChangeObject(GameObject targetObject, int newX, int newY){ // targetObject.SetX and targetObject.SetY cannot be set directly var setter = new GameObject.Setter(targetObject); setter.SetX(newX); setter.SetY(newY); } This code feels like overkill, but it doesn't feel right to have everything public so that anything can change an objects location for example.

  Read the article

• How can I resolve component types in a way that supports adding new types relatively easily?

  - by John

  I am trying to build an Entity Component System for an interactive application developed using C++ and OpenGL. My question is quite simple. In my GameObject class I have a collection of Components. I can add and retrieve components. class GameObject: public Object { public: GameObject(std::string objectName); ~GameObject(void); Component * AddComponent(std::string name); Component * AddComponent(Component componentType); Component * GetComponent (std::string TypeName); Component * GetComponent (<Component Type Here>); private: std::map<std::string,Component*> m_components; }; I will have a collection of components that inherit from the base Components class. So if I have a meshRenderer component and would like to do the following GameObject * warship = new GameObject("myLovelyWarship"); MeshRenderer * meshRenderer = warship->AddComponent(MeshRenderer); or possibly MeshRenderer * meshRenderer = warship->AddComponent("MeshRenderer"); I could be make a Component Factory like this: class ComponentFactory { public: static Component * CreateComponent(const std::string &compTyp) { if(compTyp == "MeshRenderer") return new MeshRenderer; if(compTyp == "Collider") return new Collider; return NULL; } }; However, I feel like I should not have to keep updating the Component Factory every time I want to create a new custom Component but it is an option. Is there a more proper way to add and retrieve these components? Is standard templates another solution?

  Read the article

• Oracle has some very helpful and free code...I think

  - by Casey

  I found that some of the code that Oracle uses is very useful so I don't have to re-invent the wheel. Given this is at the top of the file where the code in question is: /* * Copyright (c) 1997, 2006, Oracle and/or its affiliates. All rights reserved. * DO NOT ALTER OR REMOVE COPYRIGHT NOTICES OR THIS FILE HEADER. * * This code is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it * under the terms of the GNU General Public License version 2 only, as * published by the Free Software Foundation. Oracle designates this * particular file as subject to the "Classpath" exception as provided * by Oracle in the LICENSE file that accompanied this code. * * This code is distributed in the hope that it will be useful, but WITHOUT * ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of MERCHANTABILITY or * FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the GNU General Public License * version 2 for more details (a copy is included in the LICENSE file that * accompanied this code). * * You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License version * 2 along with this work; if not, write to the Free Software Foundation, * Inc., 51 Franklin St, Fifth Floor, Boston, MA 02110-1301 USA. * * Please contact Oracle, 500 Oracle Parkway, Redwood Shores, CA 94065 USA * or visit www.oracle.com if you need additional information or have any * questions. */ If I leave the text intact, put it in my C++ header, and credit oracle for each method, and package the source into a static library...is it still a no-no?

  Read the article

• Using PreApplicationStartMethod for ASP.NET 4.0 Application to Initialize assemblies

  - by ChrisD

  Sometimes your ASP.NET application needs to hook up some code before even the Application is started. Assemblies supports a custom attribute called PreApplicationStartMethod which can be applied to any assembly that should be loaded to your ASP.NET application, and the ASP.NET engine will call the method you specify within it before actually running any of code defined in the application. Lets discuss how to use it using Steps : 1. Add an assembly to an application and add this custom attribute to the AssemblyInfo.cs. Remember, the method you speicify for initialize should be public static void method without any argument. Lets define a method Initialize. You need to write : [assembly:PreApplicationStartMethod(typeof(MyInitializer.InitializeType), "InitializeApp")] 2. After you define this to an assembly you need to add some code inside InitializeType.InitializeApp method within the assembly. public static class InitializeType {     public static void InitializeApp()     {           // Initialize application     } } 3. You must reference this class library so that when the application starts and ASP.NET starts loading the dependent assemblies, it will call the method InitializeApp automatically. Warning Even though you can use this attribute easily, you should be aware that you can define these kind of method in all of your assemblies that you reference, but there is no guarantee in what order each of the method to be called. Hence it is recommended to define this method to be isolated and without side effect of other dependent assemblies. The method InitializeApp will be called way before the Application_start event or even before the App_code is compiled. This attribute is mainly used to write code for registering assemblies or build providers. Read Documentation I hope this post would come helpful.

  Read the article

• Generic Repositories with DI & Data Intensive Controllers

  - by James

  Usually, I consider a large number of parameters as an alarm bell that there may be a design problem somewhere. I am using a Generic Repository for an ASP.NET application and have a Controller with a growing number of parameters. public class GenericRepository<T> : IRepository<T> where T : class { protected DbContext Context { get; set; } protected DbSet<T> DbSet { get; set; } public GenericRepository(DbContext context) { Context = context; DbSet = context.Set<T>(); } ...//methods excluded to keep the question readable } I am using a DI container to pass in the DbContext to the generic repository. So far, this has met my needs and there are no other concrete implmentations of IRepository<T>. However, I had to create a dashboard which uses data from many Entities. There was also a form containing a couple of dropdown lists. Now using the generic repository this makes the parameter requirments grow quickly. The Controller will end up being something like public HomeController(IRepository<EntityOne> entityOneRepository, IRepository<EntityTwo> entityTwoRepository, IRepository<EntityThree> entityThreeRepository, IRepository<EntityFour> entityFourRepository, ILogError logError, ICurrentUser currentUser) { } It has about 6 IRepositories plus a few others to include the required data and the dropdown list options. In my mind this is too many parameters. From a performance point of view, there is only 1 DBContext per request and the DI container will serve the same DbContext to all of the Repositories. From a code standards/readability point of view it's ugly. Is there a better way to handle this situation? Its a real world project with real world time constraints so I will not dwell on it too long, but from a learning perspective it would be good to see how such situations are handled by others.

  Read the article

• Take care to unhook Anonymous Delegates

  - by David Vallens

  Anonymous delegates are great, they elimiante the need for lots of small classes that just pass values around, however care needs to be taken when using them, as they are not automatically unhooked when the function you created them in returns. In fact after it returns there is no way to unhook them. Consider the following code.   using System; using System.Collections.Generic; using System.Linq; using System.Text; using System.Diagnostics; namespace ConsoleApplication1 { class Program { static void Main(string[] args) { SimpleEventSource t = new SimpleEventSource(); t.FireEvent(); FunctionWithAnonymousDelegate(t); t.FireEvent(); } private static void FunctionWithAnonymousDelegate(SimpleEventSource t) { t.MyEvent += delegate(object sender, EventArgs args) { Debug.WriteLine("Anonymous delegate called"); }; t.FireEvent(); } } public class SimpleEventSource { public event EventHandler MyEvent; public void FireEvent() { if (MyEvent == null) { Debug.WriteLine("Attempting to fire event - but no ones listening"); } else { Debug.WriteLine("Firing event"); MyEvent(this, EventArgs.Empty); } } } } If you expected the anonymous delegates do die with the function that created it then you would expect the output Attempting to fire event - but no ones listeningFiring eventAnonymous delegate calledAttempting to fire event - but no ones listening However what you actually get is Attempting to fire event - but no ones listeningFiring eventAnonymous delegate calledFiring eventAnonymous delegate called In my example the issue is just slowing things down, but if your delegate modifies objects, then you could end up with dificult to diagnose bugs. A solution to this problem is to unhook the delegate within the function var myDelegate = delegate(){Console.WriteLine("I did it!");}; MyEvent += myDelegate; // .... later MyEvent -= myDelegate;

  Read the article

• About shared (static) Members and its behavior

  - by Allende

  I just realized that I can access shared members from instances of classes (probably this is not correct, but compile and run), and also learn/discover that, I can modify shared members, then create a new instance and access the new value of the shared member. My question is, what happens to the shared members, when it comes back to the "default" value (class declaration), how dangerous is it do this ? is it totally bad ? is it valid in some cases ?. If you want to test my point here is the code (console project vb.net) that I used to test shared members, as you can see/compile/run, the shared member "x" of the class "Hello" has default value string "Default", but at runtime it changes it, and after creating a new object of that class, this object has the new value of the shared member. Module Module1 Public Class hello Public Shared x As String = "Default" Public Sub New() End Sub End Class Sub Main() Console.WriteLine("hello.x=" & hello.x) Dim obj As New hello() Console.WriteLine("obj.x=" & obj.x) obj.x = "Default shared memeber, modified in object" Console.WriteLine("obj.x=" & obj.x) hello.x = "Defaul shared member, modified in class" Console.WriteLine("hello.x=" & hello.x) Dim obj2 As New hello() Console.WriteLine("obj2.x=" & obj2.x) Console.ReadLine() End Sub End Module UPDATE: First at all, thanks to everyone, each answer give feedback, I suppose, by respect I should choose one as "the answer", I don't want to be offensive to anyone, so please don't take it so bad if I didn't choose you answer.

  Read the article

• Augmenting functionality of subclasses without code duplication in C++

  - by Rob W

  I have to add common functionality to some classes that share the same superclass, preferably without bloating the superclass. The simplified inheritance chain looks like this: Element -> HTMLElement -> HTMLAnchorElement Element -> SVGElement -> SVGAlement The default doSomething() method on Element is no-op by default, but there are some subclasses that need an actual implementation that requires some extra overridden methods and instance members. I cannot put a full implementation of doSomething() in Element because 1) it is only relevant for some of the subclasses, 2) its implementation has a performance impact and 3) it depends on a method that could be overridden by a class in the inheritance chain between the superclass and a subclass, e.g. SVGElement in my example. Especially because of the third point, I wanted to solve the problem using a template class, as follows (it is a kind of decorator for classes): struct Element { virtual void doSomething() {} }; // T should be an instance of Element template<class T> struct AugmentedElement : public T { // doSomething is expensive and uses T virtual void doSomething() override {} // Used by doSomething virtual bool shouldDoSomething() = 0; }; class SVGElement : public Element { /* ... */ }; class SVGAElement : public AugmentedElement<SVGElement> { // some non-trivial check bool shouldDoSomething() { /* ... */ return true; } }; // Similarly for HTMLAElement and others I looked around (in the existing (huge) codebase and on the internet), but didn't find any similar code snippets, let alone an evaluation of the effectiveness and pitfalls of this approach. Is my design the right way to go, or is there a better way to add common functionality to some subclasses of a given superclass?

  Read the article

• Mocking concrete class - Not recommended

  - by Mik378

  I've just read an excerpt of "Growing Object-Oriented Software" book which explains some reasons why mocking concrete class is not recommended. Here some sample code of a unit-test for the MusicCentre class: public class MusicCentreTest { @Test public void startsCdPlayerAtTimeRequested() { final MutableTime scheduledTime = new MutableTime(); CdPlayer player = new CdPlayer() { @Override public void scheduleToStartAt(Time startTime) { scheduledTime.set(startTime); } } MusicCentre centre = new MusicCentre(player); centre.startMediaAt(LATER); assertEquals(LATER, scheduledTime.get()); } } And his first explanation: The problem with this approach is that it leaves the relationship between the objects implicit. I hope we've made clear by now that the intention of Test-Driven Development with Mock Objects is to discover relationships between objects. If I subclass, there's nothing in the domain code to make such a relationship visible, just methods on an object. This makes it harder to see if the service that supports this relationship might be relevant elsewhere and I'll have to do the analysis again next time I work with the class. I can't figure out exactly what he means when he says: This makes it harder to see if the service that supports this relationship might be relevant elsewhere and I'll have to do the analysis again next time I work with the class. I understand that the service corresponds to MusicCentre's method called startMediaAt. What does he mean by "elsewhere"? The complete excerpt is here: http://www.mockobjects.com/2007/04/test-smell-mocking-concrete-classes.html

  Read the article

• How bad is it to have two methods with the same name but different signatures in two classes?

  - by Super User

  I have a design problem related to a public interface, the names of methods, and the understanding of my API and code. I have two classes like this: class A: ... function collision(self): .... ... class B: .... function _collision(self, another_object, l, r, t, b): .... The first class has one public method named collision, and the second has one private method called _collision. The two methods differs in argument type and number. As an example let's say that _collision checks if the object is colliding with another object with certain conditions l, r, t, b (collide on the left side, right side, etc) and returns true or false. The public collision method, on the other hand, resolves all the collisions of the object with other objects. The two methods have the same name because I think it's better to avoid overloading the design with different names for methods that do almost the same thing, but in distinct contexts and classes. Is this clear enough to the reader or I should change the method's name?

  Read the article

• which style of member-access is preferable

  - by itwasntpete

  the purpose of oop using classes is to encapsulate members from the outer space. i always read that accessing members should be done by methods. for example: template<typename T> class foo_1 { T state_; public: // following below }; the most common doing that by my professor was to have a get and set method. // variant 1 T const& getState() { return state_; } void setState(T const& v) { state_ = v; } or like this: // variant 2 // in my opinion it is easier to read T const& state() { return state_; } void state(T const& v) { state_ = v; } assume the state_ is a variable, which is checked periodically and there is no need to ensure the value (state) is consistent. Is there any disadvantage of accessing the state by reference? for example: // variant 3 // do it by reference T& state() { return state_; } or even directly, if I declare the variable as public. template<typename T> class foo { public: // variant 4 T state; }; In variant 4 I could even ensure consistence by using c++11 atomic. So my question is, which one should I prefer?, Is there any coding standard which would decline one of these pattern? for some code see here

  Read the article

• In MVC , DAO should be called from Controller or Model

  - by tito

  I have seen various arguments against the DAO being called from the Controller class directly and also the DAO from the Model class.Infact I personally feel that if we are following the MVC pattern , the controller should not coupled with the DAO , but the Model class should invoke the DAO from within and controller should invoke the model class.Why because , we can decouple the model class apart from a webapplication and expose the functionalities for various ways like for a REST service to use our model class. If we write the DAO invocation in the controller , it would not be possible for a REST service to reuse the functionality right ? I have summarized both the approaches below. Approach #1 public class CustomerController extends HttpServlet { proctected void doPost(....) { Customer customer = new Customer("xxxxx","23",1); new CustomerDAO().save(customer); } } Approach #2 public class CustomerController extends HttpServlet { proctected void doPost(....) { Customer customer = new Customer("xxxxx","23",1); customer.save(customer); } } public class Customer { ........... private void save(Customer customer){ new CustomerDAO().save(customer); } } Note- Here is what a definition of Model is : Model: The model manages the behavior and data of the application domain, responds to requests for information about its state (usually from the view), and responds to instructions to change state (usually from the controller). In event-driven systems, the model notifies observers (usually views) when the information changes so that they can react. I would need an expert opinion on this because I find many using #1 or #2 , So which one is it ?

  Read the article

• my application did not show toast mesage when network is not available [closed]

  - by Smart Guy

  my application did no show toast message when network is disable if (position == 2) { final ConnectivityManager connMgr = (ConnectivityManager) getSystemService(Context.CONNECTIVITY_SERVICE); NetworkInfo activeNetworkInfo = connMgr .getActiveNetworkInfo(); android.net.NetworkInfo mobile1 = connMgr.getNetworkInfo(ConnectivityManager.TYPE_MOBILE); if (activeNetworkInfo == null) { Toast.makeText(LoginScreen.this, "No Active Network",Toast.LENGTH_LONG).show(); } else { if (activeNetworkInfo.isConnected()) { btnLogin.setOnClickListener(new OnClickListener() { public void onClick(View view) { String pinemptycheck = pin.getText().toString(); String mobileemptycheck = mobile.getText().toString(); if (pinemptycheck.trim().equals("")||(mobileemptycheck.trim().equals(""))) { Toast.makeText(getApplicationContext(), "Please Enter Correct Information", Toast.LENGTH_LONG).show(); } else { showProgress(); postLoginData(); } } }); } else if (activeNetworkInfo.isConnectedOrConnecting()) { Toast.makeText(LoginScreen.this, "network is Connecting", Toast.LENGTH_LONG) .show(); else if (mobile1.isAvailable()) { btnLogin.setOnClickListener(new OnClickListener() { public void onClick(View view) { showProgress(); postLoginData(); } }); } else if (!mobile1.isAvailable()) { Toast.makeText(LoginScreen.this,"No other Connection Found ",Toast.LENGTH_LONG).show(); btnLogin.setOnClickListener(new OnClickListener() { public void onClick(View v) { Toast.makeText(LoginScreen.this," No other Connection Found", Toast.LENGTH_LONG).show(); } }); }}}

  Read the article

• On developing deep programming knowledge

  - by Robert Harvey

  Occasionally I see questions about edge cases and other weirdness on Stack Overflow that are easily answered by the likes of Jon Skeet and Eric Lippert, demonstrating a deep knowledge of the language and its many intricacies, like this one: You might think that in order to use a foreach loop, the collection you are iterating over must implement IEnumerable or IEnumerable<T>. But as it turns out, that is not actually a requirement. What is required is that the type of the collection must have a public method called GetEnumerator, and that must return some type that has a public property getter called Current and a public method MoveNext that returns a bool. If the compiler can determine that all of those requirements are met then the code is generated to use those methods. Only if those requirements are not met do we check to see if the object implements IEnumerable or IEnumerable<T>. That's cool stuff to know. I can understand why Eric knows this; he's on the compiler team, so he has to know. But what about those who demonstrate such deep knowledge who are not insiders? How do mere mortals (who are not on the C# compiler team) find out about stuff like this? Specifically, are there methods these folks use to systematically root out such knowledge, explore it and internalize it (make it their own)?

  Read the article

• Updating sprite location with controls

  - by iQue

  So ive got a character in a 2D game using surfaceView that I want to be able to move using a button(eventually a joystick), but my game crashes as soon as I try to move my sprite. This is my onTouch-method for my steering button: public void handleActionDown(int eventX, int eventY) { if (eventX >= (x - bitmap.getWidth() / 2) && (eventX <= (x + bitmap.getWidth()/2))) { if (eventY >= (y - bitmap.getHeight() / 2) && (y <= (y + bitmap.getHeight() / 2))) { setTouched(true); } else { setTouched(false); } } else { setTouched(false); } and if I try to put this in my update-method: public void update() { x += (speed.getXv() * speed.getxDirection()); y += (speed.getYv() * speed.getyDirection()); } the sprite moves on its own just fine, but as soon as I add: public void update() { if(steering.isTouched()){ x += (speed.getXv() * speed.getxDirection()); y += (speed.getYv() * speed.getyDirection()); } the game crashes. Does any1 know why this is or how to fix it? I cannot figure it out. Im using MotionEvent.ACTION_DOWN to check if the user if pressing the screen. }

  Read the article

• Live Updates in PrimeFaces Line Chart

  - by Geertjan

  In the Facelets file: <p:layoutUnit position="center"> <h:form> <p:poll interval="3" update=":chartPanel" autoStart="true" /> </h:form> <p:panelGrid columns="1" id="chartPanel"> <p:lineChart xaxisLabel="Time" yaxisLabel="Position" value="#{chartController.linearModel}" legendPosition="nw" animate="true" style="height:400px;width: 1000px;"/> </p:panelGrid> </p:layoutUnit> The controler: import java.io.Serializable; import javax.inject.Named; import org.primefaces.model.chart.CartesianChartModel; import org.primefaces.model.chart.ChartSeries; @Named public class ChartController implements Serializable { private CartesianChartModel model; private ChartSeries data; public ChartController() { createLinearModel(); } private void createLinearModel() { model = new CartesianChartModel(); model.addSeries(getStockChartData("Stock Chart")); } private ChartSeries getStockChartData(String label) { data = new ChartSeries(); data.setLabel(label); for (int i = 1; i <= 20; i++) { data.getData().put(i, (int) (Math.random() * 1000)); } return data; } public CartesianChartModel getLinearModel() { return model; } } Based on this sample.

  Read the article

• Java's Object.wait method with nanoseconds: Is this a joke or am I missing something

  - by Krumia

  I was checking out the Java API source code (Java 8) just out of curiosity. And I found this in java/lang/Object.java. There are three methods named wait: public final native void wait(long timeout): This is the core of all wait methods, which has a native implementation. public final void wait(): Just calls wait(0). And then there is public final void wait(long timeout, int nanos). The JavaDoc for the particular method tells me that, This method is similar to the wait method of one argument, but it allows finer control over the amount of time to wait for a notification before giving up. The amount of real time, measured in nanoseconds, is given by: 1000000*timeout+nanos But this is how the methods achieves "finer control over the amount of time to wait": if (nanos >= 500000 || (nanos != 0 && timeout == 0)) { timeout++; } wait(timeout); So this method basically does a crude rounding up of nanoseconds to milliseconds. Not to mention that anything below 500000ns/0.5ms will be ignored. Is this piece of code bad/unnecessary code, or am I missing some unseen virtue of declaring this method, and it's no argument cousin as the way they are?

  Read the article

< Previous Page | 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289  | Next Page >