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 >

  • 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

  • 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

  • Html.Editor() helper in ASP.NET MVC 3 does not work as expected with array in model

    - by SlimShaggy
    In my ASP.NET MVC 3 application I have classes like the following: public class Localization<T> { public int VersionID { get; set; } public T Value { get; set; } ... } public class Localizable<T> { public Localization<T>[] Name { get; set; } ... } Then, I have the following view: @model dynamic ... @for (int i = 0; i < VersionCount; i++) { ... @Html.Editor(string.Format("Name[{0}.Value", i)) ... } Now, when I display this view, passing a subclass of Localizable<string> as the model, the textboxes for the strings are rendered, but they are empty. If I replace @Html.Editor(string.Format("Name[{0}.Value", i)) with @InputExtensions.TextBox(Html, string.Format("Name[{0}].Value", i), Model.Name[i].Value), the textboxes are correctly filled with values from the model. However, using TextBox instead of Editor is not an option for me, because I want to use different editor templates for different types of T. So, what am I doing wrong, or is it a bug in MVC, and is there any workaround?

    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

  • 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

  • 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

  • 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

  • Generic Dictionary - Getting Conversion Error

    - by pm_2
    The following code is giving me an error: // GetDirectoryList() returns Dictionary<string, DirectoryInfo> Dictionary<string, DirectoryInfo> myDirectoryList = GetDirectoryList(); // The following line gives a compile error foreach (Dictionary<string, DirectoryInfo> eachItem in myDirectoryList) The error it gives is as follows: Cannot convert type 'System.Collections.Generic.KeyValuePair<string,System.IO.DirectoryInfo>' to 'System.Collections.Generic.Dictionary<string,System.IO.DirectoryInfo>’ My question is: why is it trying to perform this conversion? Can I not use a foreach loop on this type of object?

    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

  • scala 2.8 CanBuildFrom

    - by oxbow_lakes
    Following on from another question I asked, I wanted to understand a bit more about the Scala method TraversableLike[A].map whose signature is as follows: def map[B, That](f: A => B)(implicit bf: CanBuildFrom[Repr, B, That]): That Notice a few things about this method: it takes a function turning each A in the traversable into a B it returns That and takes an implicit argument of type CanBuildFrom[Repr, B, That] I can call this as follows: > val s: Set[Int] = List("Paris", "London").map(_.length) s: Set[Int] Set(5,6) What I cannot quite grasp is how the fact that That is bound to B (i.e. it is some collection of B's) is being enforced by the compiler. The type parameters look to be independent in both the signature above and in the signature of the trait CanBuildFrom itself: trait CanBuildFrom[-From, -Elem, +To] How is the scala compiler ensuring that That cannot be forced into something which does not make sense? > val s: Set[String] = List("Paris", "London").map(_.length) //will not compile EDIT - this question of course boils down to: How does the compiler decide what implicit CanBuildFrom objects are in scope for the call?

    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

  • Is it possible to write a generic +1 method for numeric box types in Java?

    - by polygenelubricants
    This is NOT homework. Part 1 Is it possible to write a generic method, something like this: <T extends Number> T plusOne(T num) { return num + 1; // DOESN'T COMPILE! How to fix??? } Short of using a bunch of instanceof and casts, is this possible? Part 2 The following 3 methods compile: Integer plusOne(Integer num) { return num + 1; } Double plusOne(Double num) { return num + 1; } Long plusOne(Long num) { return num + 1; } Is it possible to write a generic version that bound T to only Integer, Double, or Long?

    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

  • 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

  • Finding the specific type held in an ArrayList<Object> (ie. Object = String, etc.)

    - by Christopher Griffith
    Say I have an ArrayList that I have cast to an ArrayList of objects. I know that all the objects that were in the ArrayList I cast were of the same type, but not what the type was. Now, if the ArrayList is not empty, I could take one of the objects in it and use the instanceof operator to learn what the actual type is. But what of the case where the ArrayList is empty? How do I determine what type Object actually is then? Is it possible?

    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

  • (Action<T>).Name does not return expected values

    - by Tomas Lycken
    I have the following method (used to generate friendly error messages in unit tests): protected string MethodName<TTestedType>(Action<TTestedType> call) { return string.Format("{0}.{1}", typeof(TTestedType).FullName, call.Method.Name); } But when I call it as follows, I don't get the expected results: var nm = MethodName<MyController>(ctrl => ctrl.Create()); After running this code, nm contains "<Create_CreateShowsView>b__8", and not (as expected) "Create". How should I change the code to obtain the expected result?

    Read the article

  • Comparing the values of two generic Numbers

    - by PartlyCloudy
    I want to compare to variables, both of type T extends Number. Now I want to know which of the two variables is greater than the other or equal. Unfortunately I don't know the exact type yet, I only know that it will be a subtype of java.lang.Number. How can I do that? 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

  • 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

  • Catch a generic exception in Java?

    - by Alex Baranosky
    We use JUnit 3 at work and there is no ExpectedException annotation. I wanted to add a utility to our code to wrap this: try { someCode(); fail("some error message"); } catch (SomeSpecificExceptionType ex) { } So I tried this: public static class ExpectedExceptionUtility { public static <T extends Exception> void checkForExpectedException(String message, ExpectedExceptionBlock<T> block) { try { block.exceptionThrowingCode(); fail(message); } catch (T ex) { } } } However, Java cannot use generic exception types in a catch block, I think. How can I do something like this, working around the Java limitation? Is there a way to check that the ex variable is of type T?

    Read the article

  • How to convet DataTable to List on runtype with out existin class property [closed]

    - by shamim
    Work on VS2010 C#,Have one DataTable ,want to convert this DataTable to List Suppose: Table dt; On run time want to create similar field from a datatable and fill fields in List.There is no existing class for list properties. ListName=TableName List property name=Table column name List Property type=Table column type List items=Table rows Note: Recently work on EF.To fullfill my project requirement, need to give flexibility to use to input and execute ESQL at runtime .I don’t want to put this execute result on datatable or List ,want to put this result on list. List has no existing class and property,don’t want to convert DataTable on list Type:DataRow If have any query please ask,Thanks in advanced.

    Read the article

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