Search Results

Search found 1008 results on 41 pages for 'generics'.

Page 29/41 | < Previous Page | 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36  | Next Page >

  • Why can't I enforce derived classes to have parameterless constructors?

    - by FrisbeeBen
    I am trying to do the following: public class foo<T> where T : bar, new() { public foo() { _t = new T(); } private T _t; } public abstract class bar { public abstract void someMethod(); // Some implementation } public class baz : bar { public overide someMethod(){//Implementation} } And I am attempting to use it as follows: foo<baz> fooObject = new foo<baz>(); And I get an error explaining that 'T' must be a non-abstract type with a public parameterless constructor in order to use it as parameter 'T' in the generic type or method. I fully understand why this must be, and also understand that I could pass a pre-initialized object of type 'T' in as a constructor argument to avoid having to 'new' it, but is there any way around this? any way to enforce classes that derive from 'bar' to supply parameterless constructors?

    Read the article

  • [C#] How do I make hierarchy of objects from two alternating classes?

    - by Millicent
    Here's the scenario: I have two classes ("Page" and "Field"), that are descended from a common class ("Pield"). They represent tags in an XML file and are in the following hierarchy: <page> <field> <page> ... </page> ... </field> ... </page> I.e.: Page and Field objects are in a hierarchy of alternating type (there may be more than one Page or Field to each rung of the hierarchy). Every Field and Page object has a parent property, which points to the respective parent object of the other type. This is not a problem unless the parent-child mechanism is controlled by the base class (Pield), which is shared by the two descended classes (Page and Field). Here is one try, that fails at the line "Pield child = new Pield(pchild, this);": class Pield<T> { private T _pield_parent; ... private void get_children() { ... Pield<Page> child = new Pield<Page>(pchild, this); ... } ... } class Page : Pield<Field> { ... } class Field : Pield<Page> { ... } Any ideas about how to solve this elegantly? Best, Millicent

    Read the article

  • A strange error in java generic.

    - by ???
    This is ok: Class<? extends String> stringClass = "a".getClass(); But this gets error: <T> void f(T obj) { Class<? extends T> objClass = obj.getClass(); } I know I can cast it like: <T> void f(T obj) { @SuppressWarnings("unchecked") Class<? extends T> objClass = (Class<? extends T>) obj.getClass(); } But why the previous error? Will the next release of Java 7 will support such usage?

    Read the article

  • Generic Func<> as parameter to base method

    - by WestDiscGolf
    I might be losing the plot, but I hope someone can point me in the right direction. What am I trying to do? I'm trying to write some base methods which take Func< and Action so that these methods handle all of the exception handling etc. so its not repeated all over the place but allow the derived classes to specify what actions it wants to execute. So far this is the base class. public abstract class ServiceBase<T> { protected T Settings { get; set; } protected ServiceBase(T setting) { Settings = setting; } public void ExecAction(Action action) { try { action(); } catch (Exception exception) { throw new Exception(exception.Message); } } public TResult ExecFunc<T1, T2, T3, TResult>(Func<T1, T2, T3, TResult> function) { try { /* what goes here?! */ } catch (Exception exception) { throw new Exception(exception.Message); } } } I want to execute an Action in the following way in the derived class (this seems to work): public void Delete(string application, string key) { ExecAction(() => Settings.Delete(application, key)); } And I want to execute a Func in a similar way in the derived class but for the life of me I can't seem to workout what to put in the base class. I want to be able to call it in the following way (if possible): public object Get(string application, string key, int? expiration) { return ExecFunc(() => Settings.Get(application, key, expiration)); } Am I thinking too crazy or is this possible? Thanks in advance for all the help.

    Read the article

  • Generic factory of generic containers

    - by Feuermurmel
    I have a generic abstract class Factory<T> with a method createBoxedInstance() which returns instances of T created by implementations of createInstance() wrapped in the generic container Box<T>. abstract class Factory<T> { abstract T createInstance(); public final Box<T> createBoxedInstance() { return new Box<T>(createInstance()); } public final class Box<T> { public final T content; public Box(T content) { this.content = content; } } } At some points I need a container of type Box<S> where S is an ancestor of T. Is it possible to make createBoxedInstance() itself generic so that it will return instances of Box<S> where S is chosen by the caller? Sadly, defining the function as follows does not work as a type parameter cannot be declared using the super keyword, only used. public final <S super T> Box<S> createBoxedInstance() { return new Box<S>(createInstance()); } The only alternative I see, is to make all places that need an instance of Box<S> accept Box<? extends S> which makes the container's content member assignable to S. Is there some way around this without re-boxing the instances of T into containers of type Box<S>? (I know I could just cast the Box<T> to a Box<S> but I would feel very, very guilty.)

    Read the article

  • How to check if TypeIdenitifier(T) is an Object?

    - by John
    I'm creating a generic list class that has a member of type Array(Array of ). The problem is the class descruction,because the class is supposed to be used for types from byte to types inheriting TObject. Specifically: destructor Destroy; var elem:T; begin /*if(T is Tobject) then //Check if T inherits TObject {Compiler error!} for elem in FData do TObject(elem).Free;*/ // do not know how to do it SetLength(FItems,0); //FItems : Array of T inherited Destroy; end; How do I check if T is TObject so I can free every member if the typeidenitifier is a class,for example?

    Read the article

  • Common type for generic classes of different types

    - by DinGODzilla
    I have (for example) Dictionary of different generic types (d1, d2, d3, d4) and I want to store them in something var d1 = new Dictionary<int, string>(); var d2 = new Dictionary<int, long>(); var d3 = new Dictionary<DateTime, bool>(); var d4 = new Dictionary<string, object>(); var something = ??? //new List<object> {d1, d2, d3, d4}; Is there any other way how to store that in something with common denominator different than object? Thanks :-)

    Read the article

  • Is it possible in Scala to force the caller to specify a type parameter for a polymorphic method ?

    - by Alex Kravets
    //API class Node class Person extends Node object Finder { def find[T <: Node](name: String): T = doFind(name).asInstanceOf[T] } //Call site (correct) val person = find[Person]("joe") //Call site (dies with a ClassCast inside b/c inferred type is Nothing) val person = find("joe") In the code above the client site "forgot" to specify the type parameter, as the API writer I want that to mean "just return Node". Is there any way to define a generic method (not a class) to achieve this (or equivalent). Note: using a manifest inside the implementation to do the cast if (manifest != scala.reflect.Manifest.Nothing) won't compile ... I have a nagging feeling that some Scala Wizard knows how to use Predef.<:< for this :-) Ideas ?

    Read the article

  • Delphi 2010 - Why can't I declare an abstract method with a generic type parameter?

    - by James
    I am trying to do the following in Delphi 2010: TDataConverter = class abstract public function Convert<T>(const AData: T): string; virtual; abstract; end; However, I keep getting the following compiler error: E2533 Virtual, dynamic and message methods cannot have type parameters I don't quite understand the reason why I can't do this. I can do this in C# e.g. public abstract class DataConverter { public abstract string Convert<T>(T data); } Anyone know the reasoning behind this?

    Read the article

  • Generic delegate instances

    - by Luc C
    I wonder if C# (or the underlying .NET framework) supports some kind of "generic delegate instances": that is a delegate instance that still has an unresolved type parameter, to be resolved at the time the delegate is invoked (not at the time the delegate is created). I suspect this isn't possible, but I'm asking it anyway... Here is an example of what I'd like to do, with some "???" inserted in places where the C# syntax seems to be unavailable for what I want. (Obviously this code doesn't compile) class Foo { public T Factory<T>(string name) { // implementation omitted } } class Test { public void TestMethod() { Foo foo = new Foo(); ??? magic = foo.Factory; // No type argument given here yet to Factory! // What would the '???' be here (other than 'var' :) )? string aString = magic<string>("name 1"); // type provided on call int anInt = magic<int>("name 2"); // another type provided on another call // Note the underlying calls work perfectly fine, these work, but i'd like to expose // the generic method as a delegate. string aString2 = foo.Factory<string>("name 1"); int anInt2 = foo.Factory<int>("name 2"); } } Is there a way to actually do something like this in C#? If not, is that a limitation in the language, or is it in the .NET framework?

    Read the article

  • returning a Void object

    - by Robert
    What is the correct way to return a Void type, when it isn't a primitive? Eg. I currently use null as below. interface B<E>{ E method(); } class A implements B<Void>{ public Void method(){ // do something return null; } }

    Read the article

  • Why isn't the new() generic constraint satisfied by a class with optional parameters in the construc

    - by Joshua Flanagan
    The following code fails to compile, producing a "Widget must be a non-abstract type with a public parameterless constructor" error. I would think that the compiler has all of the information it needs. Is this a bug? An oversight? Or is there some scenario where this would not be valid? public class Factory<T> where T : new() { public T Build() { return new T(); } } public class Widget { public Widget(string name = "foo") { Name = name; } public string Name { get; set; } } public class Program { public static void Main() { var widget = new Widget(); // this is valid var factory = new Factory<Widget>(); // compiler error } }

    Read the article

  • Java generic function for performing calculations on integer, on double?

    - by Daniel
    Is this possible? Surely if you passed in a double, any sort of function implementation code which casts an object to an Integer would not be able to work unless the cast 'Integer' was specifically used? I have a function like: public static void increment(Object o){ Integer one = (Integer)o; system.out.println(one++); } I cant see how this could be made generic for a double? I tried public static <E> void increment(E obj){ E one = (E)o; system.out.println(one++); } but it didn't like it?

    Read the article

  • unable to pas derived List<>

    - by Tarscher
    Hi all, I have class A {} class B : A {} I also have a method that expects a List parameter void AMethod(List<A> parameter) {} Why can't I List<B> bs = new List<B>(); AMethod(bs); And secondly what is the most elegant way to make this work? regards

    Read the article

  • Overriding inherited generic methods

    - by jess
    I have this code in base class protected virtual bool HasAnyStuff<TObject>(TObject obj) where TObject:class { return false; } In child class I am overriding protected override bool HasAnyStuff<Customer>(Customer obj) { //some stuff if Customer.sth etc return false; } I am getting this error '''Type parameter declaration must be an identifier not a type''' What is it I am doing wrong here?

    Read the article

  • If I use a facade class with generic methods to access the JPA API, how should I provide additional processing for specific types?

    - by Shaun
    Let's say I'm making a fairly simple web application using JAVA EE specs (I've heard this is possible). In this app, I only have about 10 domain/data objects, and these are represented by JPA Entities. Architecturally, I would consider the JPA API to perform the role of a DAO. Of course, I don't want to use the EntityManager directly in my UI (JSF) and I need to manage transactions, so I delegate these tasks to the so-called service layer. More specifically, I would like to be able to handle these tasks in a single DataService class (often also called CrudService) with generic methods. See this article by Adam Bien for an example interface: http://www.adam-bien.com/roller/abien/entry/generic_crud_service_aka_dao My project differs from that article in that I can't use EJBs, so my service classes are essentially just named beans and I handle transactions manually. Regardless, what I want is a single interface for simple CRUD operations on my data objects because having a different class for each data type would lead to a lot of duplicate and/or unnecessary code. Ideally, my views would be able to use a method such as public <T> List<T> findAll(Class<T> type) { ... } to retrieve data. Using JSF, it might look something like this: <h:dataTable value="#{dataService.findAll(data.class)}" var="d"> ... </h:dataTable> Similarly, after validating forms, my controller could submit the data with a method such as: public <T> void add(T entity) { ... } Granted, you'd probably actually want to return something useful to the caller. In any case, this works well if your data can be treated as homogenous in this manner. Alas, it breaks down when you need to perform additional processing on certain objects before passing them on to JPA. For example, let's say I'm dealing with Books and Authors which have a many-to-many relationship. Each Book has a set of IDs referring to its authors, and each Author has a set of IDs referring to their books. Normally, JPA can manage this kind of relationship for you, but in some cases it can't (for example, the google app engine JPA provider doesn't support this). Thus, when I persist a new book for example, I may need to update the corresponding author entities. My question, then, is if there's an elegant way to handle this or if I should reconsider the sanity of my whole design. Here's a couple ways I see of dealing with it: The instanceof operator. I could use this to target certain classes when special processing is needed. Perhaps maintainability suffers and it isn't beautiful code, but if there's only 10 or so domain objects it can't be all that bad... could it? Make a different service for each entity type (ie, BookService and AuthorService). All services would inherit from a generic DataService base class and override methods if special processing is needed. At this point, you could probably also just call them DAOs instead. As always, I appreciate the help. Let me know if any clarifications are needed, as I left out many smaller details.

    Read the article

  • Force calling the derived class implementation within a generic function in C#?

    - by Adam Hardy
    Ok so I'm currently working with a set of classes that I don't have control over in some pretty generic functions using these objects. Instead of writing literally tens of functions that essentially do the same thing for each class I decided to use a generic function instead. Now the classes I'm dealing with are a little weird in that the derived classes share many of the same properties but the base class that they are derived from doesn't. One such property example is .Parent which exists on a huge number of derived classes but not on the base class and it is this property that I need to use. For ease of understanding I've created a small example as follows: class StandardBaseClass {} // These are simulating the SMO objects class StandardDerivedClass : StandardBaseClass { public object Parent { get; set; } } static class Extensions { public static object GetParent(this StandardDerivedClass sdc) { return sdc.Parent; } public static object GetParent(this StandardBaseClass sbc) { throw new NotImplementedException("StandardBaseClass does not contain a property Parent"); } // This is the Generic function I'm trying to write and need the Parent property. public static void DoSomething<T>(T foo) where T : StandardBaseClass { object Parent = ((T)foo).GetParent(); } } In the above example calling DoSomething() will throw the NotImplemented Exception in the base class's implementation of GetParent(), even though I'm forcing the cast to T which is a StandardDerivedClass. This is contrary to other casting behaviour where by downcasting will force the use of the base class's implementation. I see this behaviour as a bug. Has anyone else out there encountered this?

    Read the article

  • What's the most efficient way to combine two List(Of String)?

    - by Jason Towne
    Let's say I've got: Dim los1 as New List(Of String) los1.Add("Some value") Dim los2 as New List(Of String) los2.Add("More values") What would be the most efficient way to combine the two into a single List(Of String)? Edit: While I'm loving the solutions everyone has provided so far, I probably should also mention I'm stuck using the .NET 2.0 framework. Any other suggestions?

    Read the article

  • Why can't these generic type parameters be inferred?

    - by Jon M
    Given the following interfaces/classes: public interface IRequest<TResponse> { } public interface IHandler<TRequest, TResponse> where TRequest : IRequest<TResponse> { TResponse Handle(TRequest request); } public class HandlingService { public TResponse Handle<TRequest, TResponse>(TRequest request) where TRequest : IRequest<TResponse> { var handler = container.GetInstance<IHandler<TRequest, TResponse>>(); return handler.Handle(request); } } public class CustomerResponse { public Customer Customer { get; set; } } public class GetCustomerByIdRequest : IRequest<CustomerResponse> { public int CustomerId { get; set; } } Why can't the compiler infer the correct types, if I try and write something like the following: var service = new HandlingService(); var request = new GetCustomerByIdRequest { CustomerId = 1234 }; var response = service.Handle(request); // Shouldn't this know that response is going to be CustomerResponse? I just get the 'type arguments cannot be inferred' message. Is this a limitation with generic type inference in general, or is there a way to make this work?

    Read the article

  • Java - How to pass a Generic parameter as Class<T> to a constructor

    - by Joe Almore
    I have a problem here that still cannot solve, the thing is I have this abstract class: public abstract class AbstractBean<T> { private Class<T> entityClass; public AbstractBean(Class<T> entityClass) { this.entityClass = entityClass; }... Now I have another class that inherits this abstract: @Stateless @LocalBean public class BasicUserBean<T extends BasicUser> extends AbstractBean<T> { private Class<T> user; public BasicUserBean() { super(user); // Error: cannot reference user before supertype contructor has been called. } My question is how can I make this to work?, I am trying to make the class BasicUserBean inheritable, so if I have class PersonBean which inherits BasicUserBean then I could set in the Generic the entity Person which also inherits the entity BasicUser. And it will end up being: @Stateless @LocalBean public class PersonBean extends BasicUserBean<Person> { public PersonBean() { super(Person.class); } ... I just want to inherit the basic functionality from BasicUserBean to all descendants, so I do not have to repeat the same code among all descendants. Thanks!.

    Read the article

  • Why does this static factory method involving implied generic types, work?

    - by Cheeso
    Consider public class Tuple<T1, T2> { public Tuple(T1 v1, T2 v2) { V1 = v1; V2 = v2; } public T1 V1 { get; set; } public T2 V2 { get; set; } } public static class Tuple { // MAGIC!! public static Tuple<T1, T2> New<T1, T2>(T1 v1, T2 v2) { return new Tuple<T1, T2>(v1, v2); } } Why does the part labeled "MAGIC" in the above work? It allows syntax like Tuple.New(1, "2") instead of new Tuple<int, string>(1, "2"), but ... how and why? Why do I not need Tuple.New<int,string>(1, "2") ??

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36  | Next Page >