Search Results

Search found 3061 results on 123 pages for 'interfaces'.

Page 3/123 | < Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >

  • How to give properties to c++ classes (interfaces)

    - by caas
    Hello, I have built several classes (A, B, C...) which perform operations on the same BaseClass. Example: struct BaseClass { int method1(); int method2(); int method3(); } struct A { int methodA(BaseClass& bc) { return bc.method1(); } } struct B { int methodB(BaseClass& bc) { return bc.method2()+bc.method1(); } } struct C { int methodC(BaseClass& bc) { return bc.method3()+bc.method2(); } } But as you can see, each class A, B, C... only uses a subset of the available methods of the BaseClass and I'd like to split the BaseClass into several chunks such that it is clear what it used and what is not. For example a solution could be to use multiple inheritance: // A uses only method1() struct InterfaceA { virtual int method1() = 0; } struct A { int methodA(InterfaceA&); } // B uses method1() and method2() struct InterfaceB { virtual int method1() = 0; virtual int method2() = 0; } struct B { int methodB(InterfaceB&); } // C uses method2() and method3() struct InterfaceC { virtual int method2() = 0; virtual int method3() = 0; } struct C { int methodC(InterfaceC&); } The problem is that each time I add a new type of operation, I need to change the implementation of BaseClass. For example: // D uses method1() and method3() struct InterfaceD { virtual int method1() = 0; virtual int method3() = 0; } struct D { int methodD(InterfaceD&); } struct BaseClass : public A, B, C // here I need to add class D { ... } Do you know a clean way I can do this? Thanks for your help edit: I forgot to mention that it can also be done with templates. But I don't like this solution either because the required interface does not appear explicitly in the code. You have to try to compile the code to verify that all required methods are implemented correctly. Plus, it would require to instantiate different versions of the classes (one for each BaseClass type template parameter) and this is not always possible nor desired.

    Read the article

  • Explaining interfaces to beginning programmers?

    - by cbmeeks
    I've had discussions with other programmers on interfaces (C#). I tried to use the analogy of interfaces being like a contract between programmers. Meaning that when you design to an interface, you are designing to a "thought out plan". This didn't fly. The other programmers (limited experience) couldn't get the concept. Or worse, refused to participate. How do you explain to people like that there are reasons to use interfaces? Thanks

    Read the article

  • Versioning Strategy for Service Interfaces JAR

    - by Colin Morelli
    I'm building a service oriented architecture composed (mostly) of Java-based services, each of which is a Maven project (in an individual repository) with two submodules: common, and server. The common module contains the service's interfaces that clients can include in their project to make service calls. The server submodule contains the code that actually powers the service. I'm now trying to figure out an appropriate versioning strategy for the interfaces, such that each interface change results in a new common jar, but changes to the server (so long as they don't impact the contract of the interfaces) receive the same common jar. I know this is pretty simple to do manually (simply increment the server version and don't touch the common one), but this project will be built and deployed by a CI server, and I'd like to come up with a strategy for automatically versioning these. The only thing I have been able to come up with so far is to have the CI server md5 the service interfaces.

    Read the article

  • Do newer physical interfaces make a better linux firewall?

    - by pfyon
    At work we use an old (10 year old) linux box with 4 interfaces to act as router/firewall for the network. There's never really been a need to change it since it's stable and handles all our needs. I'm wondering, though, would replacing the network interfaces with newer ones provide a benefit? Besides the obvious bandwidth increase (eg. 100MBit to GBit), would there be a latency reduction, or do newer cards pretty much do the same thing as old ones?

    Read the article

  • Exemplars of large document-centric applications with COM/XPCOM/.NET interfaces.

    - by Warren P
    I am looking for exemplars (design examples) showing the use of interfaces (aka 'protocols' for you smalltalkers) to design a document management architecture in a large Word Processor, Spreadsheet, vector graphic or publishing package, or office-productivity (non-database) application with support for as many of the following as possible: any open source project, will be ideal, and language of implementation is unimportant since I am looking for design examples, however an object oriented language with support for "interfaces" is a must. I know at least a dozen languages, and I'm willing to study any application's source. use of "interface" could loosely be applied to either XPCOM or COM interfaces, or .NET interfaces, or even the use of pure-virtual (virtual+abstract) base-classes for OOP languages that lack the ability to declare an interface distinct from a class. I am mostly looking for a robust, thorough and flexible implementation for a document, IDocument, various document views (IDocumentView), and whatever operations make sense in that case. I am particular interested in cases where the product in question is a real-world product. For example, if anybody familiar with OpenOffice can tell me if the code contains a good sample design. I am looking for design documentation that outlines the design of the interfaces for such an application. So for example, if the openoffice spreadsheet has such an interface design, then that might be the best case, because it is a widely used real-world design, with millions of users, rather than a textbook example, which is minimal, and contrived. I know that the Mozilla platform uses XPCOM, and its design is heavily "interface" oriented, but I am looking more for a "word processor" or "spreadsheet" type of document design, rather than a web-browser. I am particularly interested in the interfaces used to access to data and meta-data such as markup (attributes like bold, and italics, and font size), and the ability to search and look up named entities within a document.

    Read the article

  • Adding custom interfaces to your mock instance.

    - by mehfuzh
    Previously, i made a post  showing how you can leverage the dependent interfaces that is implemented by JustMock during the creation of mock instance. It could be a informative post that let you understand how JustMock behaves internally for class or interfaces implement other interfaces into it. But the question remains, how you can add your own custom interface to your target mock. In this post, i am going to show you just that. Today, i will not start with a dummy class as usual rather i will use two most common interfaces in the .NET framework  and create a mock combining those. Before, i start i would like to point out that in the recent release of JustMock we have extended the Mock.Create<T>(..) with support for additional settings though closure. You can add your own custom interfaces , specify directly the real constructor that should be called or even set the behavior of your target. Doing a fast forward directly to the point,  here goes the test code for create a creating a mock that contains the mix for ICloneable and IDisposable using the above mentioned changeset. var myMock = Mock.Create<IDisposable>(x => x.Implements<ICloneable>()); var myMockAsClonable = myMock as ICloneable; bool isCloned = false;   Mock.Arrange(() => myMockAsClonable.Clone()).DoInstead(() => isCloned = true);   myMockAsClonable.Clone();   Assert.True(isCloned);   Here, we are creating the target mock for IDisposable and also implementing ICloneable. Finally, using the “as” for getting the ICloneable reference accordingly arranging it, acting on it and asserting if the expectation is met properly. This is a very rudimentary example, you can do the same for a given class: var realItem = Mock.Create<RealItem>(x => {     x.Implements<IDisposable>();     x.CallConstructor(() => new RealItem(0)); }); var iDispose = realItem as IDisposable;     iDispose.Dispose(); Here, i am also calling the real constructor for RealItem class.  This is to mention that you can implement custom interfaces only for non-sealed classes or less it will end up with a proper exception. Also, this feature don’t require any profiler, if you are agile or running it inside silverlight runtime feel free to try it turning off the JM add-in :-). TIP :  Ability to  specify real constructor could be a useful productivity boost in cases for code change and you can re-factor the usage just by one click with your favorite re-factor tool.   That’s it for now and hope that helps Enjoy!!

    Read the article

  • Should I expose IObservable<T> on my interfaces?

    - by Alex
    My colleague and I have dispute. We are writing a .NET application that processes massive amounts of data. It receives data elements, groups subsets of them into blocks according to some criterion and processes those blocks. Let's say we have data items of type Foo arriving some source (from the network, for example) one by one. We wish to gather subsets of related objects of type Foo, construct an object of type Bar from each such subset and process objects of type Bar. One of us suggested the following design. Its main theme is exposing IObservable objects directly from the interfaces of our components. // ********* Interfaces ********** interface IFooSource { // this is the event-stream of objects of type Foo IObservable<Foo> FooArrivals { get; } } interface IBarSource { // this is the event-stream of objects of type Bar IObservable<Bar> BarArrivals { get; } } / ********* Implementations ********* class FooSource : IFooSource { // Here we put logic that receives Foo objects from the network and publishes them to the FooArrivals event stream. } class FooSubsetsToBarConverter : IBarSource { IFooSource fooSource; IObservable<Bar> BarArrivals { get { // Do some fancy Rx operators on fooSource.FooArrivals, like Buffer, Window, Join and others and return IObservable<Bar> } } } // this class will subscribe to the bar source and do processing class BarsProcessor { BarsProcessor(IBarSource barSource); void Subscribe(); } // ******************* Main ************************ class Program { public static void Main(string[] args) { var fooSource = FooSourceFactory.Create(); var barsProcessor = BarsProcessorFactory.Create(fooSource) // this will create FooSubsetToBarConverter and BarsProcessor barsProcessor.Subscribe(); fooSource.Run(); // this enters a loop of listening for Foo objects from the network and notifying about their arrival. } } The other suggested another design that its main theme is using our own publisher/subscriber interfaces and using Rx inside the implementations only when needed. //********** interfaces ********* interface IPublisher<T> { void Subscribe(ISubscriber<T> subscriber); } interface ISubscriber<T> { Action<T> Callback { get; } } //********** implementations ********* class FooSource : IPublisher<Foo> { public void Subscribe(ISubscriber<Foo> subscriber) { /* ... */ } // here we put logic that receives Foo objects from some source (the network?) publishes them to the registered subscribers } class FooSubsetsToBarConverter : ISubscriber<Foo>, IPublisher<Bar> { void Callback(Foo foo) { // here we put logic that aggregates Foo objects and publishes Bars when we have received a subset of Foos that match our criteria // maybe we use Rx here internally. } public void Subscribe(ISubscriber<Bar> subscriber) { /* ... */ } } class BarsProcessor : ISubscriber<Bar> { void Callback(Bar bar) { // here we put code that processes Bar objects } } //********** program ********* class Program { public static void Main(string[] args) { var fooSource = fooSourceFactory.Create(); var barsProcessor = barsProcessorFactory.Create(fooSource) // this will create BarsProcessor and perform all the necessary subscriptions fooSource.Run(); // this enters a loop of listening for Foo objects from the network and notifying about their arrival. } } Which one do you think is better? Exposing IObservable and making our components create new event streams from Rx operators, or defining our own publisher/subscriber interfaces and using Rx internally if needed? Here are some things to consider about the designs: In the first design the consumer of our interfaces has the whole power of Rx at his/her fingertips and can perform any Rx operators. One of us claims this is an advantage and the other claims that this is a drawback. The second design allows us to use any publisher/subscriber architecture under the hood. The first design ties us to Rx. If we wish to use the power of Rx, it requires more work in the second design because we need to translate the custom publisher/subscriber implementation to Rx and back. It requires writing glue code for every class that wishes to do some event processing.

    Read the article

  • Empty interface to combine multiple interfaces

    - by user1109519
    Suppose you have two interfaces: interface Readable { public void read(); } interface Writable { public void write(); } In some cases the implementing objects can only support one of these but in a lot of cases the implementations will support both interfaces. The people who use the interfaces will have to do something like: // can't write to it without explicit casting Readable myObject = new MyObject(); // can't read from it without explicit casting Writable myObject = new MyObject(); // tight coupling to actual implementation MyObject myObject = new MyObject(); None of these options is terribly convenient, even more so when considering that you want this as a method parameter. One solution would be to declare a wrapping interface: interface TheWholeShabam extends Readable, Writable {} But this has one specific problem: all implementations that support both Readable and Writable have to implement TheWholeShabam if they want to be compatible with people using the interface. Even though it offers nothing apart from the guaranteed presence of both interfaces. Is there a clean solution to this problem or should I go for the wrapper interface? UPDATE It is in fact often necessary to have an object that is both readable and writable so simply seperating the concerns in the arguments is not always a clean solution. UPDATE2 (extracted as answer so it's easier to comment on) UPDATE3 Please beware that the primary usecase for this is not streams (although they too must be supported). Streams make a very specific distinction between input and output and there is a clear separation of responsibilities. Rather, think of something like a bytebuffer where you need one object you can write to and read from, one object that has a very specific state attached to it. These objects exist because they are very useful for some things like asynchronous I/O, encodings,...

    Read the article

  • How to handle class dependency with interfaces and implementatons

    - by lealand
    I'm using ObjectAid with Eclipse to generate UML class diagrams for my latest Java project, and I currently have a handful of situations like this, where I have a dependency between two interfaces, as well as one of the implementations of one of the interfaces. Here, foo is the graphics library I'm using. In the previous example, FooCanvas draws ITexture objects to the screen, and both FooCanvas and its interface, ICanvas, take ITexture objects as arguments to their methods. The method in the canvas classes which cause this dependency is the following: void drawTexture(ITexture texture, float x, float y); Additionally, I tried a variation on the method signature using Java's generics: <T extends ITexture> void drawTexture(T texture, float x, float y); The result of this was a class diagram where the only dependencies where between the interfaces and the implementing classes, and no dependency by a canvas object on a texture. I'm not sure if this is more ideal or not. Is the dependency of both the interface and implementation on another interface an expected pattern, or is it typical and/or possible to keep the implementation 'isolated' from its interfaces dependencies? Or is the generic method the ideal solution?

    Read the article

  • Adding custom interfaces to your mock instance.

    Previously, i made a post  showing how you can leverage the dependent interfaces that is implemented by JustMock during the creation of mock instance. It could be a informative post that let you understand how JustMock behaves internally for classes or interfaces implement other interfaces into it. But the question remains, how you can add your own custom interface to your target mock. In this post, i am going to show you just that. Today, i will not start with a dummy class as usual rather...Did you know that DotNetSlackers also publishes .net articles written by top known .net Authors? We already have over 80 articles in several categories including Silverlight. Take a look: here.

    Read the article

  • Can I constrain a template parameter class to implement the interfaces that are supported by other?

    - by K. Georgiev
    The name is a little blurry, so here's the situation: I'm writing code to use some 'trajectories'. The trajectories are an abstract thing, so I describe them with different interfaces. So I have a code as this: namespace Trajectories { public interface IInitial < Atom > { Atom Initial { get; set; } } public interface ICurrent < Atom > { Atom Current { get; set; } } public interface IPrevious < Atom > { Atom Previous { get; set; } } public interface ICount < Atom > { int Count { get; } } public interface IManualCount < Atom > : ICount < Atom > { int Count { get; set; } } ... } Every concrete implementation of a trajectory will implement some of the above interfaces. Here's a concrete implementation of a trajectory: public class SimpleTrajectory < Atom > : IInitial < Atom >, ICurrent < Atom >, ICount < Atom > { // ICount public int Count { get; private set; } // IInitial private Atom initial; public Atom Initial { get { return initial; } set { initial = current = value; Count = 1; } } // ICurrent private Atom current; public Atom Current { get { return current; } set { current = value; Count++; } } } Now, I want to be able to deduce things about the trajectories, so, for example I want to support predicates about different properties of some trajectory: namespace Conditions { public interface ICondition &lt Atom, Trajectory &gt { bool Test(ref Trajectory t); } public class CountLessThan &lt Atom, Trajectory &gt : ICondition &lt Atom, Trajectory &gt where Trajectory : Trajectories.ICount &lt Atom &gt { public int Value { get; set; } public CountLessThan() { } public bool Test(ref Trajectory t) { return t.Count &lt Value; } } public class CurrentNormLessThan &lt Trajectory &gt : ICondition &lt Complex, Trajectory &gt where Trajectory : Trajectories.ICurrent &lt Complex &gt { public double Value { get; set; } public CurrentNormLessThan() { } public bool Test(ref Trajectory t) { return t.Current.Norm() &lt Value; } } } Now, here's the question: What if I wanted to implement AND predicate? It would be something like this: public class And &lt Atom, CondA, TrajectoryA, CondB, TrajectoryB, Trajectory &gt : ICondition &lt Atom, Trajectory &gt where CondA : ICondition &lt Atom, TrajectoryA &gt where TrajectoryA : // Some interfaces where CondB : ICondition &lt Atom, TrajectoryB &gt where TrajectoryB : // Some interfaces where Trajectory : // MUST IMPLEMENT THE INTERFACES FOR TrajectoryA AND THE INTERFACES FOR TrajectoryB { public CondA A { get; set; } public CondB B { get; set; } public bool Test(ref Trajectory t){ return A.Test(t) && B.Test(t); } } How can I say: support only these trajectories, for which the arguments of AND are ok? So I can be able to write: var vand = new CountLessThan(32) & new CurrentNormLessThan(4.0); I think if I create an orevall interface for every subset of interfaces, I could be able to do it, but it will become quite ugly.

    Read the article

  • Why do the interfaces show ipv6 address along with ipv4

    - by nixnotwin
    I have manually specified only ipv4 address for my interfaces. But all the interfaces automatically show inet6 address as well. Does it mean that ubuntu starts an ipv6 tunnel by default. If it does, isn't it dangerous, as ipv6 assigns public ips for all LAN clients. I only have a firewall on my NAT router, and my clients, who's interfaces show ipv6 address, do not have firewalls. Here is a screenshot: eth0 Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr 34:dc:47:2e:ad:13 inet6 addr: fe80::28cf:38ff:fb7b:da19/64 Scope:Link UP BROADCAST RUNNING MULTICAST MTU:1500 Metric:1 RX packets:5783 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0 TX packets:6098 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:1 collisions:0 txqueuelen:1000 RX bytes:2961324 (2.9 MB) TX bytes:1573757 (1.5 MB) Interrupt:46 Note: For privacy reasons I have modified the HWaddr and inet6 addr values.

    Read the article

  • Software Architecture and MEF composition location

    - by Leonardo
    Introduction My software (a bunch of webapi's) consist of 4 projects: Core, FrontWebApi, Library and Administration. Library is a code library project that consists of only interfaces and enumerators. All my classes in other projects inherit from at least one interface, and this interface is in the library. Generally speaking, my interfaces define either Entities, Repositories or Controllers. This project references no other project or any special dlls... just the regular .Net stuff... Core is a class-library project where concrete implementation of Entities and Repositories. In some cases i have more than 1 implementation for a Repository (ex: one for azure table storage and one for regular Sql). This project handles the intelligence (business rules mostly) and persistence, and it references only the Library. FrontWebApi is a ASP.NET MVC 4 WebApi project that implements the controllers interfaces to handle web-requests (from a mobile native app)... It references the Core and the Library. Administration is a code-library project that represents a "optional-module", meaning: if it is present, it provides extra-features (such as Access Control Lists) to the application, but if its not, no problem. Administration is also only referencing the Library and implementing concrete classes of a few interfaces such as "IAccessControlEntry"... I intend to make this available with a "setup" that will create any required database table or anything like that. But it is important to notice that the Core has no reference to this project... Development Now, in order to have a decoupled code I decide to use IoC and because this is a small project, I decided to do it using MEF, specially because of its advertised "composition" capabilities. I arranged all the imports/exports and constructors and everything, but something is quite not perfect in my "mental-visualisation": Main Question Where should I "Compose" the objects? I mean: Technically, the only place where real implementation access is required is in the Repositories, because in order to retrieve data from wherever, entities instances will be necessary, and in all other places. The repositories could also provide a public "GetCleanInstanceOf()" right? Then all other places will be just fine working with the interfaces instead of concrete classes... Secondary Question Should "Administration" implement the concrete object for "IAccessControlGeneralRepository" or the Core should?

    Read the article

  • Google I/O 2012 - Multi-Versioning Android User Interfaces

    Google I/O 2012 - Multi-Versioning Android User Interfaces Bruno Oliveira, Adam Powell This session will show you how to build user interfaces that work consistently across Android versions, from Eclair to today. We'll cover topics including the Action Bar, Fragments, style, size qualifiers, app structure, and navigation. For all I/O 2012 sessions, go to developers.google.com From: GoogleDevelopers Views: 1533 51 ratings Time: 48:22 More in Science & Technology

    Read the article

  • How to permanently add wireless interfaces with iw

    - by walli
    How can I permanently add virtual wireless interfaces to my network configuration with iw? I created the following interfaces: iw phy phy0 interface add vwlan0 type station iw phy phy0 interface add vwlan1 type __ap The first is configured as a wifi client connecting to an existing network (wpa_supplicant) The second is configured as wireless hotspot (hostapd + dnsmasq) The setup works, but now I can't quite figure out what the best strategy is to save this configuration permanently. Have made an init script for wpa_supplicant Have made an init script for the hotspot Virtual adaptor network settings set in /etc/network/interfaces But all this depends on the wireless interfaces being created. What would be the best way to make sure these interfaces are created before the network is set up and the services are run? As a bonus, since this wireless interface is a usb device, would it be possible to have the interfaces created (and the services started) when the interface is hotplugged? I know you can execute code after a network interface is up, but the wlan0 interface that is hotplugged should never be up. Operating system is raspbian

    Read the article

  • How to fill in the network line in the ubuntu interfaces config file?

    - by matnagel
    I have to configure an ubuntu hardy server network interface. The service hoster told me that this is the network data for the machine: IP Range: 111.111.200.74 to 111.111.200.78 Netmask: 255.255.255.248 Broadcast: 111.111.200.79 Gateway: 111.111.200.73 Subnet: 111.111.200.72/29 I am only using the first IP address. I will update the /etc/hosts file with 111.111.200.74, but I am still unsure how the /etc/network/interfaces file should be. This is my plan: auto lo iface lo inet loopback auto eth0 iface eth0 inet static address 111.111.200.74 netmask 255.255.255.248 network 111.111.200.??? broadcast 111.111.200.79 gateway 111.111.200.73 As you can see I don't know how to build the network line. How would I calculate the data for the network line and what is the result? (I changed the first 2 octets of the subnet, they are not "111.111" in the real setup.)

    Read the article

  • Podcast: The Invisible UI : Natural User Interfaces with Josh Blake

    - by craigshoemaker
    Josh Blake of Infostrat joins Pixel8 to discuss NUI development in .NET. Josh is the author of the upcoming book Multitouch on Windows from Manning. Reaching far beyond theory and the niche market of Microsoft Surface, NUI development is now possible with Silverlight and WPF development on Windows 7 and Windows 7 Mobile devices. Subscribe to the podcast! The Natural User Interface (NUI) was a prominent force at MIX10. What is NUI? Wikipedia defines it as: Natural user interface, or NUI, is the common parlance used by designers and developers of computer interfaces to refer to a user interface that is effectively invisible, or becomes invisible with successive learned interactions, to its users. The word natural is used because most computer interfaces use artificial control devices whose operation has to be learned. A NUI relies on a user being able to carry out relatively natural motions, movements or gestures that they quickly discover control the computer application or manipulate the on-screen content. The most descriptive identifier of a NUI is the lack of a physical keyboard and/or mouse. In our interview Josh demystifies what NUI is, makes a distinction between gestures and manipulations, and talks about what is possible today for NUI development. For more from Josh make sure to check out his book: and watch his MIX Presentation: Developing Natural User Interfaces with Microsoft Silverlight and WPF 4 Touch Resources Mentioned in the Show Check out the following videos that show the roots and future of NUI development: Jeff Han's Multi-Touch TED Presentation Microsoft Surface Project Natal MIX10 Day 2 Keynote A few times during our talk Bill Buxton’s work is mentioned. To see his segment of the MIX10 day 2 keynote, click below:

    Read the article

  • Writing cross-platforms Types, Interfaces and Classes/Methods in C++

    - by user827992
    I'm looking for the best solution to write cross-platform software, aka code that I write and that I have to interface with different libraries and platforms each time. What I consider the easiest part, correct me if I'm wrong, is the definition of new types, all I have to do is to write an hpp file with a list of typedefs, I can keep the same names for each new type across the different platforms so my codebase can be shared without any problem. typedefs also helps me to redefine a better scope for my types in my code. I will probably end up having something like this: include |-windows | |-types.hpp |-linux | |-types.hpp |-mac |-types.hpp For the interfaces I'm thinking about the same solution used for the types, a series of hpp files, probably I will write all the interfaces only once since they rely on the types and all "cross-platform portability" is ensured by the work done on the types. include | |-interfaces.hpp | |-windows | |-types.hpp |-linux | |-types.hpp |-mac | |-types.hpp For classes and methods I do not have a real answer, I would like to avoid 2 things: the explicit use of pointers the use of templates I want to avoid the use of the pointers because they can make the code less readable for someone and I want to avoid templates just because if I write them, I can't separate the interface from the definition. What is the best option to hide the use of the pointers? I would also like some words about macros and how to implement some OS-specifics calls and definitions.

    Read the article

  • Is there a way to declare a variable that implements multiple interfaces in .Net?

    - by Bryan Anderson
    Similar to this Java question. I would like to specify that a variable implements multiple interfaces. For instance private {IFirstInterface, ISecondInterface} _foo; public void SetFoo({IFirstInterface, ISecondInterface} value) { _foo = value; } Requirements: I don't have the ability to add an interface to most type that would be passed in to Foo. So I can't create a third interface that inherits from IFirstInterface and ISecondInterface. I would like to avoid making the containing class generic if possible because the type of Foo doesn't have much to do with the class and the user isn't likely to know it at compile time. I need to use foo to access methods in both interfaces at a later time. I would like to do this in a compiler safe way, i.e. no trying to cast to the interface just before trying to use it. If foo does not implement both interfaces quite a bit of functionality won't work properly. Is this possible?

    Read the article

  • Debian network bridge configuration - /etc/network/interfaces

    - by Mathias
    I'm running a Lenny Xen dom0 hosting multiple virtual machines in a routed IP setup. To get an additional private subnet, I created the bridge xenbr0 in the dom0 with the following commands: brctl addbr xenbr0 ifconfig xenbr0 10.0.0.1 netmask 255.255.255.0 ifconfig xenbr0 up This works as expected, and domU interfaces are added to the bridge by Xen on VM start. My only problem is: how the heck do i specify this configuration in /etc/network/interfaces that it remains permanent and the bridge is available after a reboot? I tried the following config as found on a lot of tutorials: auto xenbr0 iface xenbr0 inet static address 10.0.0.1 netmask 255.255.255.0 network 10.0.0.0 broadcast 10.0.0.255 bridge_stp no I get 2 different errors, depending on if the bridge already exists or not. If it doesn't exist: root@dom0:~# brctl show bridge name bridge id STP enabled interfaces root@dom0:~# /etc/init.d/networking restart Reconfiguring network interfaces...if-up.d/mountnfs[eth0]: waiting for interface xenbr0 before doing NFS mounts (warning). SIOCSIFADDR: No such device xenbr0: ERROR while getting interface flags: No such device SIOCSIFNETMASK: No such device SIOCSIFBRDADDR: No such device xenbr0: ERROR while getting interface flags: No such device xenbr0: ERROR while getting interface flags: No such device Failed to bring up xenbr0. done. And if it exists: root@dom0:~# brctl show bridge name bridge id STP enabled interfaces xenbr0 8000.000000000000 no root@dom0:~# /etc/init.d/networking restart Reconfiguring network interfaces...if-up.d/mountnfs[eth0]: waiting for interface xenbr0 before doing NFS mounts (warning). RTNETLINK answers: File exists Failed to bring up xenbr0. done. Could anyone point me in the right direction please? The bridge works fine when created manually, i just need the right config file entries. The most tutorials I found add some devices to the bridge in the config, is that maybe the problem why it is not working? I don't have any interfaces I want to add to the bridge on creation as they get added later on VM start... Thanks, Mathias

    Read the article

  • DHCP server with multiple interfaces on ubuntu, destroys default gateway

    - by Henrik Alstad
    I use Ubuntu, and I have many interfaces. eth0, which is my internet connection, and it gets its info from a DHCP-server totally outisde of my control. I then have eth1,eth2,eth3 and eth4 which I have created a DHCP-server for.(ISC DHCP-Server) It seems to work, and I even get an IP-address from the foreign DHCP-server on the internet facing interface. However, for some reason it seems my gateway for eth0 became screwed after I installed my local DHCP-server for eth1-eth4. (I think so because I got an IP for eth0, and I can ping other stuff on the local network, but I cannot get access to the internet). My eth0-specific info in /etc/network/interfaces: auto lo iface lo inet loopback auto eth0 iface eth0 inet dhcp auto eth1 iface eth1 inet static address 10.0.1.1 netmask 255.255.255.0 network 10.0.1.0 broadcast 10.0.1.255 gateway 10.0.1.1 mtu 8192 auto eth2 iface eth2 inet static address 10.0.2.1 netmask 255.255.255.0 network 10.0.2.0 broadcast 10.0.2.255 gateway 10.0.2.1 mtu 8192 My /etc/default/isc-dhcp-server: INTERFACES="eth1 eth2 eth3 eth4" So why does my local DHCP-server fuck up the gateway for eth0, when I tell it not to listen to eth0? Anyone see the problem or what I can do to fix it? The problem seems indeed to be the gateways. "netstat -nr" gives: 0.0.0.0 --- 10.X.X.X ---- 0.0.0.0 --- UG 0 0 0 eth3 It should have been 0.0.0.0 129.2XX.X.X 0.0.0.0 UG 0 0 0 eth0 So for some reason, my local DHCP-server overrides the gateway I get from the network DHCP. Edit: dhcp.conf looks like this(I included info only for eth1 subnet): ddns-update-style none; not authoritative; subnet 10.0.1.0 netmask 255.255.255.0 { interface eth1; option domain-name "example.org"; option domain-name-servers ns1.example.org, ns2.example.org; default-lease-time 600; max-lease-time 7200; range 10.0.1.10 10.0.1.100; host camera1_1 { hardware ethernet 00:30:53:11:24:6E; fixed-address 10.0.1.10; } host camera2_1 { hardware ethernet 00:30:53:10:16:70; fixed-address 10.0.1.11; } } Also, it seems that the gateway is correctly set if I run "/etc/init.d/networking restart" in a terminal, but that's not helpful for me, I need the correct gateway to be set during startup, and i'd rather find the source of the problem

    Read the article

  • /etc/network/interfaces doesn't always take affect

    - by user1221444
    For some reason my eth0 does not have internet on reboot sometimes. I am using a static ip. I can ping my gateway, but I am unable to ping dns servers, or anything out of my network. It seems that when my internet does work(Usually but just restarting enough times), my /etc/resolv.conf has a nameserver in it. It is empty when I have no internet access. I believe something is overwriting my interfaces settings sometimes on boot. Any help would be appreciated. I am running Ubuntu Server 12.04 64bit /etc/network/interfaces: auto lo iface lo inet loopback auto eth0 iface eth0 inet static address 173.213.192.234 netmask 255.255.255.248 network 173.213.192.232 broadcast 173.213.192.239 gateway 173.213.192.233 dns-nameservers 8.8.8.8 auto eth1 iface eth1 inet static address 10.0.0.106 netmask 255.255.255.0 gateway 10.0.0.1

    Read the article

  • Microsoft présente ses recherches sur les Interfaces Utilisateur Naturelles dont une devrait être adaptée sur Kinect

    Microsoft présente ses recherches sur les Interfaces Utilisateur Naturelles Dont une devrait être adaptée sur Kinect Microsoft aime les Interfaces Utilisateur Naturelles (NUI). Ses laboratoires de recherche viennent de poster une démonstration d'une technologie baptisée « 3D Photo-Real Talking Heads » et d'autres concernant les affichages intelligents, toutes réalisées grâce à l'utilisation d' appareils photo pour créer de nouveaux types d'expériences inter-actives. La 3D Photo-Real Talking Head produit un visage en 3D à partir de photos et permet de suivre les mouvements de la tête, et des lèvres. Elle devrait bientôt être adaptée au capteur de mouvement Kinect pour la X...

    Read the article

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