Search Results

Search found 2069 results on 83 pages for 'anonymous delegates'.

Page 3/83 | < Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >

  • C# delegates problem

    - by Mick Taylor
    Hello I am getting the following error from my C# Windows Application: Error 1 No overload for 'CreateLabelInPanel' matches delegate 'WorksOrderStore.ProcessDbConnDetailsDelegate' H:\c\WorksOrderFactory\WorksOrderFactory\WorksOrderClient.cs 43 39 WorksOrderFactory I have 3 .cs files that essentially: Opens a windows Has an option for the users to connect to a db When that is selected, the system will go off and connect to the db, and load some data in (just test data for now) Then using a delegate, the system should do soemthing, which for testing will be to create a label. However I haven't coded this part yet. But I can't build until I get this error sorted. The 3 fiels are called: WorksOrderClient.cs (which is the MAIN) WorksOrderStore.cs LoginBox.cs Here's the code for each file: WorksOrderClient.cs using System; using System.Collections.Generic; using System.ComponentModel; using System.Data; using System.Drawing; using System.Linq; using System.Text; using System.Windows.Forms; using WorksOrderStore; namespace WorksOrderFactory { using WorksOrderStore; public partial class WorksOrderClient : Form { LoginBox lb = new LoginBox(); private static WorksOrderDB wodb = new WorksOrderDB(); private static int num_conns = 0; public WorksOrderClient() { InitializeComponent(); } private void connectToADBToolStripMenuItem_Click(object sender, EventArgs e) { lb.ShowDialog(); lb.Visible = true; } public static bool createDBConnDetObj(string username, string password, string database) { // increase the number of connections num_conns = num_conns + 1; // create the connection object wodb.AddDbConnDetails(username, password, database, num_conns); // create a new delegate object associated with the static // method WorksOrderClient.createLabelInPanel wodb.ProcessDbConnDetails(new ProcessDbConnDetailsDelegate(CreateLabelInPanel)); return true; } static void CreateLabelInPanel(DbConnDetails dbcd) { Console.Write("hellO"); string tmp = (string)dbcd.username; //Console.Write(tmp); } private void WorksOrderClient_Load(object sender, EventArgs e) { } } } WorksOrderStore.cs using System; using System.Collections.Generic; using System.Linq; using System.Text; using WorksOrderFactory; namespace WorksOrderStore { using System.Collections; // Describes a book in the book list: public struct WorksOrder { public string contractor_code { get; set; } // contractor ID public string email_address { get; set; } // contractors email address public string date_issued { get; set; } // date the works order was issued public string wo_ref { get; set; } // works order ref public string status { get; set; } // status ... not used public job_status js { get; set; } // status of this worksorder within this system public WorksOrder(string contractor_code, string email_address, string date_issued, string wo_ref) : this() { this.contractor_code = contractor_code; this.email_address = email_address; this.date_issued = date_issued; this.wo_ref = wo_ref; this.js = job_status.Pending; } } // Declare a delegate type for processing a WorksOrder: //public delegate void ProcessWorksOrderDelegate(WorksOrder worksorder); // Maintains a worksorder database. public class WorksOrderDB { // List of all worksorders in the database: ArrayList list = new ArrayList(); // Add a worksorder to the database: public void AddWorksOrder(string contractor_code, string email_address, string date_issued, string wo_ref) { list.Add(new WorksOrder(contractor_code, email_address, date_issued, wo_ref)); } // Call a passed-in delegate on each pending works order to process it: /*public void ProcessPendingWorksOrders(ProcessWorksOrderDelegate processWorksOrder) { foreach (WorksOrder wo in list) { if (wo.js.Equals(job_status.Pending)) // Calling the delegate: processWorksOrder(wo); } }*/ // Add a DbConnDetails to the database: public void AddDbConnDetails(string username, string password, string database, int conn_num) { list.Add(new DbConnDetails(username, password, database, conn_num)); } // Call a passed-in delegate on each dbconndet to process it: public void ProcessDbConnDetails(ProcessDbConnDetailsDelegate processDBConnDetails) { foreach (DbConnDetails wo in list) { processDBConnDetails(wo); } } } // statuses for worksorders in this system public enum job_status { Pending, InProgress, Completed } public struct DbConnDetails { public string username { get; set; } // username public string password { get; set; } // password public string database { get; set; } // database public int conn_num { get; set; } // this objects connection number. public ArrayList woList { get; set; } // list of works orders for this connection // this constructor just sets the db connection details // the woList array will get created later .. not a lot later but a bit. public DbConnDetails(string username, string password, string database, int conn_num) : this() { this.username = username; this.password = password; this.database = database; this.conn_num = conn_num; woList = new ArrayList(); } } // Declare a delegate type for processing a DbConnDetails: public delegate void ProcessDbConnDetailsDelegate(DbConnDetails dbConnDetails); } and LoginBox.cs using System; using System.Collections.Generic; using System.ComponentModel; using System.Drawing; using System.Data; using System.Linq; using System.Text; using System.Windows.Forms; namespace WorksOrderFactory { public partial class LoginBox : Form { public LoginBox() { InitializeComponent(); } private void LoginBox_Load(object sender, EventArgs e) { this.Visible = true; this.Show(); //usernameText.Text = "Username"; //new Font(usernameText.Font, FontStyle.Italic); } private void cancelBtn_Click(object sender, EventArgs e) { this.Close(); } private void loginBtn_Click(object sender, EventArgs e) { // set up a connection details object. bool success = WorksOrderClient.createDBConnDetObj(usernameText.Text, passwordText.Text, databaseText.Text); } private void LoginBox_Load_1(object sender, EventArgs e) { } } } Any ideas?? Cheers, m

    Read the article

  • Creating Delegates With Lambda Expressions in F#

    - by Matt H
    Why does... type IntDelegate = delegate of int -> unit type ListHelper = static member ApplyDelegate (l : int list) (d : IntDelegate) = l |> List.iter (fun x -> d.Invoke x) ListHelper.ApplyDelegate [1..10] (fun x -> printfn "%d" x) not compile, when: type IntDelegate = delegate of int -> unit type ListHelper = static member ApplyDelegate (l : int list, d : IntDelegate) = l |> List.iter (fun x -> d.Invoke x) ListHelper.ApplyDelegate ([1..10], (fun x -> printfn "%d" x)) does? The only difference that is that in the second one, ApplyDelegate takes its parameters as a tuple. Error 1 This function takes too many arguments, or is used in a context where a function is not expected

    Read the article

  • Implement delegates for Core Data or not

    - by Spanky
    What advantage is there to implementing the four delegate methods: (void)controllerWillChangeContent:(NSFetchedResultsController *)controller (void)controller:(NSFetchedResultsController *)controller didChangeSection:(id )sectionInfo atIndex:(NSUInteger)sectionIndex forChangeType:(NSFetchedResultsChangeType)type (void)controller:(NSFetchedResultsController *)controller didChangeObject:(id)anObject atIndexPath:(NSIndexPath *)indexPath forChangeType:(NSFetchedResultsChangeType)type newIndexPath:(NSIndexPath *)newIndexPath (void)controllerDidChangeContent:(NSFetchedResultsController *)controller rather than implement: (void)controllerDidChangeContent:(NSFetchedResultsController *)controller Any help appreciated // :)

    Read the article

  • Searching a Better Solution with Delegates

    - by spagetticode
    Hey All, I am a newbie in C# and curious about the better solution of my case. I have a method which gets the DataTable as a parameter and creates a List with MyClass's variables and returns it. public static List<Campaigns> GetCampaignsList(DataTable DataTable) { List<Campaigns> ListCampaigns = new List<Campaigns>(); foreach (DataRow row in DataTable.Rows) { Campaigns Campaign = new Campaigns(); Campaign.CampaignID = Convert.ToInt32(row["CampaignID"]); Campaign.CustomerID = Convert.ToInt32(row["CustomerID"]); Campaign.ClientID = Convert.ToInt32(row["ClientID"]); Campaign.Title = row["Title"].ToString(); Campaign.Subject = row["Subject"].ToString(); Campaign.FromName = row["FromName"].ToString(); Campaign.FromEmail = row["FromEmail"].ToString(); Campaign.ReplyEmail = row["ReplyEmail"].ToString(); Campaign.AddDate = Convert.ToDateTime(row["AddDate"]); Campaign.UniqueRecipients = Convert.ToInt32(row["UniqueRecipients"]); Campaign.ClientReportVisible = Convert.ToBoolean(row["ClientReportVisible"]); Campaign.Status = Convert.ToInt16(row["Status"]); ListCampaigns.Add(Campaign); } return ListCampaigns; } And one of my another DataTable method gets the DataTable from the database with given parameters. Here is the method. public static DataTable GetNewCampaigns() { DataTable dtCampaigns = new DataTable(); Campaigns Campaigns = new Campaigns(); dtCampaigns = Campaigns.SelectStatus(0); return dtCampaigns; } But the problem is that, this GetNewCampaigns method doesnt take parameters but other methods can take parameters. For example when I try to select a campaign with a CampaignID, I have to send CampaignID as parameter. These all Database methods do take return type as DataTable but different number of parameters. public static DataTable GetCampaignDetails(int CampaignID) { DataTable dtCampaigns = new DataTable(); Campaigns Campaigns = new Campaigns(); dtCampaigns = Campaigns.Select(CampaignID); return dtCampaigns; } At the end, I want to pass a Delegate to my first GetCampaignList Method as parameter which will decide which Database method to invoke. I dont want to pass DataTable as parameter as it is newbie programming. Could you pls help me learn some more advance features. I searched over it and got to Func< delegate but could not come up with a solution.

    Read the article

  • Delegates with explicit "this" pointer?

    - by Qwertie
    Is it possible to adapt a method like this function "F" class C { public void F(int i); } to a delegate like Action<C,int>? I have this vague recollection that Microsoft was working on supporting this kind of adaptation. But maybe I misremembered!

    Read the article

  • Different methods using Functors/Delegates in c#

    - by mo alaz
    I have a method that I call multiple times, but each time a different method with a different signature is called from inside. public void MethodOne() { //some stuff *MethodCall(); //some stuff } So MethodOne is called multiple times, each time with a different *MethodCall(). What I'm trying to do is something like this : public void MethodOne(Func<> MethodCall) { //some stuff *MethodCall; //some stuff } but the Methods that are called each have a different return type and different parameters. Is there a way to do this using Functors? If not, how would I go about doing this? Thank you!

    Read the article

  • Cannot iterate of a collection of Anonymous Types created from a LINQ Query in VB.NET

    - by Atari2600
    Ok everyone, I must be missing something here. Every LINQ example I have seen for VB.NET anonymous types claims I can do something like this: Dim Info As EnumerableRowCollection = pDataSet.Tables(0).AsEnumerable Dim Infos = From a In Info _ Select New With {.Prop1 = a("Prop1"), .Prop2 = a("Prop2"), .Prop3 = a("Prop3") } Now when I go to iterate through the collection(see example below), I get an error that says "Name "x" is not declared. For Each x in Infos ... Next It's like VB.NET doesn't understand that Infos is a collection of anonymous types created by LINQ and wants me to declare "x" as some type. (Wouldn't this defeat the purpose of an anonymous type?) I have added the references to System.Data.Linq and System.Data.DataSetExtensions to my project. Here is what I am importing with the class: Imports System.Linq Imports System.Linq.Enumerable Imports System.Linq.Queryable Imports System.Data.Linq Any ideas?

    Read the article

  • CascadingDropDownList not working with anonymous access

    - by Alessandro
    Hi everyone, I use a CascadingDropDownList of the AJAXControlToolkit in a ASP.NET MCMS 2002 web application. The CascadingDropDownList works as expected until "Anonymous access" and "Integrated Windows Authentication" flags are both checked (and this is the situation in the production environment) in the Directory Security settings on the website under IIS. The error I get is: 500 Internal Server Error No web service found at: If I uncheck the anonymous access or the windows authentication everything is ok. Any suggestions?

    Read the article

  • Silverlight 4 Data Binding with anonymous types.

    - by Anthony
    Does anyone know if you can use data binding with anonymous types in Silverlight 4? I know you can't in previous versions of silverlight, you can only databind to public class properties and anonymous type properties are internal. Just wondering if anyone has tried it in silverlight 4? Thanks in advanced

    Read the article

  • JavaScript check if anonymous object has a method

    - by Baddie
    How can I check if an anonymous object that was created as such: var myObj = { prop1: 'no', prop2: function () { return false; } } does indeed have a prop2 defined? prop2 will always be defined as a function, but for some objects it is not required and will not be defined. I tried what was suggested here: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/595766/how-to-determine-if-native-javascript-object-has-a-property-method but I don't think it works for anonymous objects .

    Read the article

  • Working with anonymous modules in Ruby

    - by Byron Park
    Suppose I make a module as follows: m = Module.new do class C end end Three questions: Other than a reference to m, is there a way I can access C and other things inside m? Can I give a name to the anonymous module after I've created it (just as if I'd typed "module ...")? How do I delete the anonymous module when I'm done with it, such that the constants it defines are no longer present?

    Read the article

  • Convert text file to dictionary or anonymous type object

    - by Robert Harvey
    I have a text file that looks like this: adapter 1: LPe11002 Factory IEEE: 10000000 C97A83FC Non-Volatile WWPN: 10000000 C93D6A8A , WWNN: 20000000 C93D6A8A adapter 2: LPe11002 Factory IEEE: 10000000 C97A83FD Non-Volatile WWPN: 10000000 C93D6A8B , WWNN: 20000000 C93D6A8B Is there a way to get this information into an anonymous type or dictionary object? The final anonymous type might look something like this, if it were composed in C# by hand: new { adapter1 = new { FactoryIEEE = "10000000 C97A83FC", Non-VolatileWWPN = "10000000 C93D6A8A", WWNN = "20000000 C93D6A8A" } adapter2 = new { FactoryIEEE = "10000000 C97A83FD", Non-VolatileWWPN = "10000000 C93D6A8B", WWNN = "20000000 C93D6A8B" } }

    Read the article

  • Using delegates in C# (Part 2)

    - by rajbk
    Part 1 of this post can be read here. We are now about to see the different syntaxes for invoking a delegate and some c# syntactic sugar which allows you to code faster. We have the following console application. 1: public delegate double Operation(double x, double y); 2:  3: public class Program 4: { 5: [STAThread] 6: static void Main(string[] args) 7: { 8: Operation op1 = new Operation(Division); 9: double result = op1.Invoke(10, 5); 10: 11: Console.WriteLine(result); 12: Console.ReadLine(); 13: } 14: 15: static double Division(double x, double y) { 16: return x / y; 17: } 18: } Line 1 defines a delegate type called Operation with input parameters (double x, double y) and a return type of double. On Line 8, we create an instance of this delegate and set the target to be a static method called Division (Line 15) On Line 9, we invoke the delegate (one entry in the invocation list). The program outputs 5 when run. The language provides shortcuts for creating a delegate and invoking it (see line 9 and 11). Line 9 is a syntactical shortcut for creating an instance of the Delegate. The C# compiler will infer on its own what the delegate type is and produces intermediate language that creates a new instance of that delegate. Line 11 uses a a syntactical shortcut for invoking the delegate by removing the Invoke method. The compiler sees the line and generates intermediate language which invokes the delegate. When this code is compiled, the generated IL will look exactly like the IL of the compiled code above. 1: public delegate double Operation(double x, double y); 2:  3: public class Program 4: { 5: [STAThread] 6: static void Main(string[] args) 7: { 8: //shortcut constructor syntax 9: Operation op1 = Division; 10: //shortcut invoke syntax 11: double result = op1(10, 2); 12: 13: Console.WriteLine(result); 14: Console.ReadLine(); 15: } 16: 17: static double Division(double x, double y) { 18: return x / y; 19: } 20: } C# 2.0 introduced Anonymous Methods. Anonymous methods avoid the need to create a separate method that contains the same signature as the delegate type. Instead you write the method body in-line. There is an interesting fact about Anonymous methods and closures which won’t be covered here. Use your favorite search engine ;-)We rewrite our code to use anonymous methods (see line 9): 1: public delegate double Operation(double x, double y); 2:  3: public class Program 4: { 5: [STAThread] 6: static void Main(string[] args) 7: { 8: //Anonymous method 9: Operation op1 = delegate(double x, double y) { 10: return x / y; 11: }; 12: double result = op1(10, 2); 13: 14: Console.WriteLine(result); 15: Console.ReadLine(); 16: } 17: 18: static double Division(double x, double y) { 19: return x / y; 20: } 21: } We could rewrite our delegate to be of a generic type like so (see line 2 and line 9). You will see why soon. 1: //Generic delegate 2: public delegate T Operation<T>(T x, T y); 3:  4: public class Program 5: { 6: [STAThread] 7: static void Main(string[] args) 8: { 9: Operation<double> op1 = delegate(double x, double y) { 10: return x / y; 11: }; 12: double result = op1(10, 2); 13: 14: Console.WriteLine(result); 15: Console.ReadLine(); 16: } 17: 18: static double Division(double x, double y) { 19: return x / y; 20: } 21: } The .NET 3.5 framework introduced a whole set of predefined delegates for us including public delegate TResult Func<T1, T2, TResult>(T1 arg1, T2 arg2); Our code can be modified to use this delegate instead of the one we declared. Our delegate declaration has been removed and line 7 has been changed to use the Func delegate type. 1: public class Program 2: { 3: [STAThread] 4: static void Main(string[] args) 5: { 6: //Func is a delegate defined in the .NET 3.5 framework 7: Func<double, double, double> op1 = delegate (double x, double y) { 8: return x / y; 9: }; 10: double result = op1(10, 2); 11: 12: Console.WriteLine(result); 13: Console.ReadLine(); 14: } 15: 16: static double Division(double x, double y) { 17: return x / y; 18: } 19: } .NET 3.5 also introduced lambda expressions. A lambda expression is an anonymous function that can contain expressions and statements, and can be used to create delegates or expression tree types. We change our code to use lambda expressions. 1: public class Program 2: { 3: [STAThread] 4: static void Main(string[] args) 5: { 6: //lambda expression 7: Func<double, double, double> op1 = (x, y) => x / y; 8: double result = op1(10, 2); 9: 10: Console.WriteLine(result); 11: Console.ReadLine(); 12: } 13: 14: static double Division(double x, double y) { 15: return x / y; 16: } 17: } C# 3.0 introduced the keyword var (implicitly typed local variable) where the type of the variable is inferred based on the type of the associated initializer expression. We can rewrite our code to use var as shown below (line 7).  The implicitly typed local variable op1 is inferred to be a delegate of type Func<double, double, double> at compile time. 1: public class Program 2: { 3: [STAThread] 4: static void Main(string[] args) 5: { 6: //implicitly typed local variable 7: var op1 = (x, y) => x / y; 8: double result = op1(10, 2); 9: 10: Console.WriteLine(result); 11: Console.ReadLine(); 12: } 13: 14: static double Division(double x, double y) { 15: return x / y; 16: } 17: } You have seen how we can write code in fewer lines by using a combination of the Func delegate type, implicitly typed local variables and lambda expressions.

    Read the article

  • C#: Handling Notifications: inheritance, events, or delegates?

    - by James Michael Hare
    Often times as developers we have to design a class where we get notification when certain things happen. In older object-oriented code this would often be implemented by overriding methods -- with events, delegates, and interfaces, however, we have far more elegant options. So, when should you use each of these methods and what are their strengths and weaknesses? Now, for the purposes of this article when I say notification, I'm just talking about ways for a class to let a user know that something has occurred. This can be through any programmatic means such as inheritance, events, delegates, etc. So let's build some context. I'm sitting here thinking about a provider neutral messaging layer for the place I work, and I got to the point where I needed to design the message subscriber which will receive messages from the message bus. Basically, what we want is to be able to create a message listener and have it be called whenever a new message arrives. Now, back before the flood we would have done this via inheritance and an abstract class: 1:  2: // using inheritance - omitting argument null checks and halt logic 3: public abstract class MessageListener 4: { 5: private ISubscriber _subscriber; 6: private bool _isHalted = false; 7: private Thread _messageThread; 8:  9: // assign the subscriber and start the messaging loop 10: public MessageListener(ISubscriber subscriber) 11: { 12: _subscriber = subscriber; 13: _messageThread = new Thread(MessageLoop); 14: _messageThread.Start(); 15: } 16:  17: // user will override this to process their messages 18: protected abstract void OnMessageReceived(Message msg); 19:  20: // handle the looping in the thread 21: private void MessageLoop() 22: { 23: while(!_isHalted) 24: { 25: // as long as processing, wait 1 second for message 26: Message msg = _subscriber.Receive(TimeSpan.FromSeconds(1)); 27: if(msg != null) 28: { 29: OnMessageReceived(msg); 30: } 31: } 32: } 33: ... 34: } It seems so odd to write this kind of code now. Does it feel odd to you? Maybe it's just because I've gotten so used to delegation that I really don't like the feel of this. To me it is akin to saying that if I want to drive my car I need to derive a new instance of it just to put myself in the driver's seat. And yet, unquestionably, five years ago I would have probably written the code as you see above. To me, inheritance is a flawed approach for notifications due to several reasons: Inheritance is one of the HIGHEST forms of coupling. You can't seal the listener class because it depends on sub-classing to work. Because C# does not allow multiple-inheritance, I've spent my one inheritance implementing this class. Every time you need to listen to a bus, you have to derive a class which leads to lots of trivial sub-classes. The act of consuming a message should be a separate responsibility than the act of listening for a message (SRP). Inheritance is such a strong statement (this IS-A that) that it should only be used in building type hierarchies and not for overriding use-specific behaviors and notifications. Chances are, if a class needs to be inherited to be used, it most likely is not designed as well as it could be in today's modern programming languages. So lets look at the other tools available to us for getting notified instead. Here's a few other choices to consider. Have the listener expose a MessageReceived event. Have the listener accept a new IMessageHandler interface instance. Have the listener accept an Action<Message> delegate. Really, all of these are different forms of delegation. Now, .NET events are a bit heavier than the other types of delegates in terms of run-time execution, but they are a great way to allow others using your class to subscribe to your events: 1: // using event - ommiting argument null checks and halt logic 2: public sealed class MessageListener 3: { 4: private ISubscriber _subscriber; 5: private bool _isHalted = false; 6: private Thread _messageThread; 7:  8: // assign the subscriber and start the messaging loop 9: public MessageListener(ISubscriber subscriber) 10: { 11: _subscriber = subscriber; 12: _messageThread = new Thread(MessageLoop); 13: _messageThread.Start(); 14: } 15:  16: // user will override this to process their messages 17: public event Action<Message> MessageReceived; 18:  19: // handle the looping in the thread 20: private void MessageLoop() 21: { 22: while(!_isHalted) 23: { 24: // as long as processing, wait 1 second for message 25: Message msg = _subscriber.Receive(TimeSpan.FromSeconds(1)); 26: if(msg != null && MessageReceived != null) 27: { 28: MessageReceived(msg); 29: } 30: } 31: } 32: } Note, now we can seal the class to avoid changes and the user just needs to provide a message handling method: 1: theListener.MessageReceived += CustomReceiveMethod; However, personally I don't think events hold up as well in this case because events are largely optional. To me, what is the point of a listener if you create one with no event listeners? So in my mind, use events when handling the notification is optional. So how about the delegation via interface? I personally like this method quite a bit. Basically what it does is similar to inheritance method mentioned first, but better because it makes it easy to split the part of the class that doesn't change (the base listener behavior) from the part that does change (the user-specified action after receiving a message). So assuming we had an interface like: 1: public interface IMessageHandler 2: { 3: void OnMessageReceived(Message receivedMessage); 4: } Our listener would look like this: 1: // using delegation via interface - omitting argument null checks and halt logic 2: public sealed class MessageListener 3: { 4: private ISubscriber _subscriber; 5: private IMessageHandler _handler; 6: private bool _isHalted = false; 7: private Thread _messageThread; 8:  9: // assign the subscriber and start the messaging loop 10: public MessageListener(ISubscriber subscriber, IMessageHandler handler) 11: { 12: _subscriber = subscriber; 13: _handler = handler; 14: _messageThread = new Thread(MessageLoop); 15: _messageThread.Start(); 16: } 17:  18: // handle the looping in the thread 19: private void MessageLoop() 20: { 21: while(!_isHalted) 22: { 23: // as long as processing, wait 1 second for message 24: Message msg = _subscriber.Receive(TimeSpan.FromSeconds(1)); 25: if(msg != null) 26: { 27: _handler.OnMessageReceived(msg); 28: } 29: } 30: } 31: } And they would call it by creating a class that implements IMessageHandler and pass that instance into the constructor of the listener. I like that this alleviates the issues of inheritance and essentially forces you to provide a handler (as opposed to events) on construction. Well, this is good, but personally I think we could go one step further. While I like this better than events or inheritance, it still forces you to implement a specific method name. What if that name collides? Furthermore if you have lots of these you end up either with large classes inheriting multiple interfaces to implement one method, or lots of small classes. Also, if you had one class that wanted to manage messages from two different subscribers differently, it wouldn't be able to because the interface can't be overloaded. This brings me to using delegates directly. In general, every time I think about creating an interface for something, and if that interface contains only one method, I start thinking a delegate is a better approach. Now, that said delegates don't accomplish everything an interface can. Obviously having the interface allows you to refer to the classes that implement the interface which can be very handy. In this case, though, really all you want is a method to handle the messages. So let's look at a method delegate: 1: // using delegation via delegate - omitting argument null checks and halt logic 2: public sealed class MessageListener 3: { 4: private ISubscriber _subscriber; 5: private Action<Message> _handler; 6: private bool _isHalted = false; 7: private Thread _messageThread; 8:  9: // assign the subscriber and start the messaging loop 10: public MessageListener(ISubscriber subscriber, Action<Message> handler) 11: { 12: _subscriber = subscriber; 13: _handler = handler; 14: _messageThread = new Thread(MessageLoop); 15: _messageThread.Start(); 16: } 17:  18: // handle the looping in the thread 19: private void MessageLoop() 20: { 21: while(!_isHalted) 22: { 23: // as long as processing, wait 1 second for message 24: Message msg = _subscriber.Receive(TimeSpan.FromSeconds(1)); 25: if(msg != null) 26: { 27: _handler(msg); 28: } 29: } 30: } 31: } Here the MessageListener now takes an Action<Message>.  For those of you unfamiliar with the pre-defined delegate types in .NET, that is a method with the signature: void SomeMethodName(Message). The great thing about delegates is it gives you a lot of power. You could create an anonymous delegate, a lambda, or specify any other method as long as it satisfies the Action<Message> signature. This way, you don't need to define an arbitrary helper class or name the method a specific thing. Incidentally, we could combine both the interface and delegate approach to allow maximum flexibility. Doing this, the user could either pass in a delegate, or specify a delegate interface: 1: // using delegation - give users choice of interface or delegate 2: public sealed class MessageListener 3: { 4: private ISubscriber _subscriber; 5: private Action<Message> _handler; 6: private bool _isHalted = false; 7: private Thread _messageThread; 8:  9: // assign the subscriber and start the messaging loop 10: public MessageListener(ISubscriber subscriber, Action<Message> handler) 11: { 12: _subscriber = subscriber; 13: _handler = handler; 14: _messageThread = new Thread(MessageLoop); 15: _messageThread.Start(); 16: } 17:  18: // passes the interface method as a delegate using method group 19: public MessageListener(ISubscriber subscriber, IMessageHandler handler) 20: : this(subscriber, handler.OnMessageReceived) 21: { 22: } 23:  24: // handle the looping in the thread 25: private void MessageLoop() 26: { 27: while(!_isHalted) 28: { 29: // as long as processing, wait 1 second for message 30: Message msg = _subscriber.Receive(TimeSpan.FromSeconds(1)); 31: if(msg != null) 32: { 33: _handler(msg); 34: } 35: } 36: } 37: } } This is the method I tend to prefer because it allows the user of the class to choose which method works best for them. You may be curious about the actual performance of these different methods. 1: Enter iterations: 2: 1000000 3:  4: Inheritance took 4 ms. 5: Events took 7 ms. 6: Interface delegation took 4 ms. 7: Lambda delegate took 5 ms. Before you get too caught up in the numbers, however, keep in mind that this is performance over over 1,000,000 iterations. Since they are all < 10 ms which boils down to fractions of a micro-second per iteration so really any of them are a fine choice performance wise. As such, I think the choice of what to do really boils down to what you're trying to do. Here's my guidelines: Inheritance should be used only when defining a collection of related types with implementation specific behaviors, it should not be used as a hook for users to add their own functionality. Events should be used when subscription is optional or multi-cast is desired. Interface delegation should be used when you wish to refer to implementing classes by the interface type or if the type requires several methods to be implemented. Delegate method delegation should be used when you only need to provide one method and do not need to refer to implementers by the interface name.

    Read the article

  • Why can't c# use inline anonymous lambdas or delegates?

    - by Samuel Meacham
    I hope I worded the title of my question appropriately. In c# I can use lambdas (as delegates), or the older delegate syntax to do this: Func<string> fnHello = () => "hello"; Console.WriteLine(fnHello()); Func<string> fnHello2 = delegate() { return "hello 2"; }; Console.WriteLine(fnHello2()); So why can't I "inline" the lambda or the delegate body, and avoid capturing it in a named variable (making it anonymous)? // Inline anonymous lambda not allowed Console.WriteLine( (() => "hello inline lambda")() ); // Inline anonymous delegate not allowed Console.WriteLine( (delegate() { return "hello inline delegate"; })() ); An example that works in javascript (just for comparison) is: alert( (function(){ return "hello inline anonymous function from javascript"; })() ); Which produces the expected alert box. UPDATE: It seems you can have an inline anonymous lambda in C#, if you cast appropriately, but the amount of ()'s starts to make it unruly. // Inline anonymous lambda with appropriate cast IS allowed Console.WriteLine( ((Func<string>)(() => "hello inline anonymous lambda"))() ); Perhaps the compiler can't infer the sig of the anonymous delegate to know which Console.WriteLine() you're trying to call? Does anyone know why this specific cast is required?

    Read the article

  • Using Windows Integrated Auth & Anonymous during redirect on IIS7

    - by James Black
    I have an application we bought that I need to integrate, and it uses jakarta connection to get to the application from IIS. So, the basic operation is: user goes to the url Gets redirected to the application SSO is enabled, so redirected back to IIS for fetching of domain credentials Back to application If username is blank show login page, else let user in. This is a simplification of all the steps, but the basic idea is here. My difficulty is that I need both Windows Integrated Auth and anonymous on, as some users won't have credentials, and need to be prompted for a username/password. I have looked at: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/2068546/iis-windows-authentication-before-anonymous already, but the user doesn't get to click on a link to decide. The application goes back to IIS looking for login.aspx and from there I want to either get their domain credentials or pass back to the application empty strings to signify that there are no credentials. It seems this isn't going to be possible though as if anonymous is on it doesn't make the 401 request so the credentials aren't passed. If I can't get this to work with just using an ASP page, could it be done using an ISAPI filter, or a module?

    Read the article

  • Create an anonymous type object from an arbitrary text file

    - by Robert Harvey
    I need a sensible way to draw arbitrary text files into a C# program, and produce an arbitrary anonymous type object, or perhaps a composite dictionary of some sort. I have a representative text file that looks like this: adapter 1: LPe11002 Factory IEEE: 10000000 C97A83FC Non-Volatile WWPN: 10000000 C93D6A8A , WWNN: 20000000 C93D6A8A adapter 2: LPe11002 Factory IEEE: 10000000 C97A83FD Non-Volatile WWPN: 10000000 C93D6A8B , WWNN: 20000000 C93D6A8B Is there a way to get this information into an anonymous type object or some similar structure? The final anonymous type might look something like this, if it were composed in C# by hand: new { adapter1 = new { FactoryIEEE = "10000000 C97A83FC", Non-VolatileWWPN = "10000000 C93D6A8A", WWNN = "20000000 C93D6A8A" } adapter2 = new { FactoryIEEE = "10000000 C97A83FD", Non-VolatileWWPN = "10000000 C93D6A8B", WWNN = "20000000 C93D6A8B" } } Note that, as the text file's content is arbitrary (i.e. the keys could be anything), a specialized solution (e.g. that looks for names like "FactoryIEEE") won't work. However, the structure of the file will always be the same (i.e. indentation for groups, colons and commas as delimiters, etc). Or maybe I'm going about this the wrong way, and you have a better idea?

    Read the article

  • Which languages support *recursive* function literals / anonymous functions?

    - by Hugh Allen
    It seems quite a few mainstream languages support function literals these days. They are also called anonymous functions, but I don't care if they have a name. The important thing is that a function literal is an expression which yields a function which hasn't already been defined elsewhere, so for example in C, &printf doesn't count. EDIT to add: if you have a genuine function literal expression <exp>, you should be able to pass it to a function f(<exp>) or immediately apply it to an argument, ie. <exp>(5). I'm curious which languages let you write function literals which are recursive. Wikipedia's "anonymous recursion" article doesn't give any programming examples. Let's use the recursive factorial function as the example. Here are the ones I know: JavaScript / ECMAScript can do it with callee: function(n){if (n<2) {return 1;} else {return n * arguments.callee(n-1);}} it's easy in languages with letrec, eg Haskell (which calls it let): let fac x = if x<2 then 1 else fac (x-1) * x in fac and there are equivalents in Lisp and Scheme. Note that the binding of fac is local to the expression, so the whole expression is in fact an anonymous function. Are there any others?

    Read the article

  • C#, Delegates and LINQ

    - by JustinGreenwood
    One of the topics many junior programmers struggle with is delegates. And today, anonymous delegates and lambda expressions are profuse in .net APIs.  To help some VB programmers adapt to C# and the many equivalent flavors of delegates, I walked through some simple samples to show them the different flavors of delegates. using System; using System.Collections.Generic; using System.Linq; namespace DelegateExample { class Program { public delegate string ProcessStringDelegate(string data); public static string ReverseStringStaticMethod(string data) { return new String(data.Reverse().ToArray()); } static void Main(string[] args) { var stringDelegates = new List<ProcessStringDelegate> { //========================================================== // Declare a new delegate instance and pass the name of the method in new ProcessStringDelegate(ReverseStringStaticMethod), //========================================================== // A shortcut is to just and pass the name of the method in ReverseStringStaticMethod, //========================================================== // You can create an anonymous delegate also delegate (string inputString) //Scramble { var outString = inputString; if (!string.IsNullOrWhiteSpace(inputString)) { var rand = new Random(); var chs = inputString.ToCharArray(); for (int i = 0; i < inputString.Length * 3; i++) { int x = rand.Next(chs.Length), y = rand.Next(chs.Length); char c = chs[x]; chs[x] = chs[y]; chs[y] = c; } outString = new string(chs); } return outString; }, //========================================================== // yet another syntax would be the lambda expression syntax inputString => { // ROT13 var array = inputString.ToCharArray(); for (int i = 0; i < array.Length; i++) { int n = (int)array[i]; n += (n >= 'a' && n <= 'z') ? ((n > 'm') ? 13 : -13) : ((n >= 'A' && n <= 'Z') ? ((n > 'M') ? 13 : -13) : 0); array[i] = (char)n; } return new string(array); } //========================================================== }; // Display the results of the delegate calls var stringToTransform = "Welcome to the jungle!"; System.Console.ForegroundColor = ConsoleColor.Cyan; System.Console.Write("String to Process: "); System.Console.ForegroundColor = ConsoleColor.Yellow; System.Console.WriteLine(stringToTransform); stringDelegates.ForEach(delegatePointer => { System.Console.WriteLine(); System.Console.ForegroundColor = ConsoleColor.Cyan; System.Console.Write("Delegate Method Name: "); System.Console.ForegroundColor = ConsoleColor.Magenta; System.Console.WriteLine(delegatePointer.Method.Name); System.Console.ForegroundColor = ConsoleColor.Cyan; System.Console.Write("Delegate Result: "); System.Console.ForegroundColor = ConsoleColor.White; System.Console.WriteLine(delegatePointer(stringToTransform)); }); System.Console.ReadKey(); } } } The output of the program is below: String to Process: Welcome to the jungle! Delegate Method Name: ReverseStringStaticMethod Delegate Result: !elgnuj eht ot emocleW Delegate Method Name: ReverseStringStaticMethod Delegate Result: !elgnuj eht ot emocleW Delegate Method Name: b__1 Delegate Result: cg ljotWotem!le une eh Delegate Method Name: b__2 Delegate Result: dX_V|`X ?| ?[X ]?{Z_X!

    Read the article

  • Dynamically load and call delegates based on source data

    - by makerofthings7
    Assume I have a stream of records that need to have some computation. Records will have a combination of these functions run Sum, Aggregate, Sum over the last 90 seconds, or ignore. A data record looks like this: Date;Data;ID Question Assuming that ID is an int of some kind, and that int corresponds to a matrix of some delegates to run, how should I use C# to dynamically build that launch map? I'm sure this idea exists... it is used in Windows Forms which has many delegates/events, most of which will never actually be invoked in a real application. The sample below includes a few delegates I want to run (sum, count, and print) but I don't know how to make the quantity of delegates fire based on the source data. (say print the evens, and sum the odds in this sample) using System; using System.Threading; using System.Collections.Generic; internal static class TestThreadpool { delegate int TestDelegate(int parameter); private static void Main() { try { // this approach works is void is returned. //ThreadPool.QueueUserWorkItem(new WaitCallback(PrintOut), "Hello"); int c = 0; int w = 0; ThreadPool.GetMaxThreads(out w, out c); bool rrr =ThreadPool.SetMinThreads(w, c); Console.WriteLine(rrr); // perhaps the above needs time to set up6 Thread.Sleep(1000); DateTime ttt = DateTime.UtcNow; TestDelegate d = new TestDelegate(PrintOut); List<IAsyncResult> arDict = new List<IAsyncResult>(); int count = 1000000; for (int i = 0; i < count; i++) { IAsyncResult ar = d.BeginInvoke(i, new AsyncCallback(Callback), d); arDict.Add(ar); } for (int i = 0; i < count; i++) { int result = d.EndInvoke(arDict[i]); } // Give the callback time to execute - otherwise the app // may terminate before it is called //Thread.Sleep(1000); var res = DateTime.UtcNow - ttt; Console.WriteLine("Main program done----- Total time --> " + res.TotalMilliseconds); } catch (Exception e) { Console.WriteLine(e); } Console.ReadKey(true); } static int PrintOut(int parameter) { // Console.WriteLine(Thread.CurrentThread.ManagedThreadId + " Delegate PRINTOUT waited and printed this:"+parameter); var tmp = parameter * parameter; return tmp; } static int Sum(int parameter) { Thread.Sleep(5000); // Pretend to do some math... maybe save a summary to disk on a separate thread return parameter; } static int Count(int parameter) { Thread.Sleep(5000); // Pretend to do some math... maybe save a summary to disk on a separate thread return parameter; } static void Callback(IAsyncResult ar) { TestDelegate d = (TestDelegate)ar.AsyncState; //Console.WriteLine("Callback is delayed and returned") ;//d.EndInvoke(ar)); } }

    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

  • Scope of variables inside anonymous functions in C#

    - by Vinod
    I have a doubt in scope of varibles inside anonymous functions in C#. Consider the program below: delegate void OtherDel(int x); public static void Main() { OtherDel del2; { int y = 4; del2 = delegate { Console.WriteLine("{0}", y);//Is y out of scope }; } del2(); } My VS2008 IDE gives the following errors: [Practice is a class inside namespace Practice] 1.error CS1643: Not all code paths return a value in anonymous method of type 'Practice.Practice.OtherDel' 2.error CS1593: Delegate 'OtherDel' does not take '0' arguments. It is told in a book: Illustrated C# 2008(Page 373) that the int variable y is inside the scope of del2 definition. Then why these errors.

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >