Search Results

Search found 38245 results on 1530 pages for 'method names'.

Page 3/1530 | < Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 | Next Page >

Short file names versus long file names in Windows

- by normski

I have some code which gets the short name from a file path, using GetShortNameW(), and then later retrieves the long name view GetLongNameA(). The original file is of the form "C:/ProgramData/My Folder/File.ext" However, following conversion to short, then back to long, the filename becomes "C:/Program Files/My Folder/Filename.ext". The short name is of the form "C:/PROGRA~2/MY_FOL~1/FIL~1.EXT" The short name is being incorrectly resolved. The code compiles using VS 2005 on Windows 7 (I cannot upgrade the project to VS2008) Does anybody have any idea why this might be happening? DWORD pathLengthNeeded = ::GetShortPathNameW(aRef->GetFilePath().c_str(), NULL, 0); if(pathLengthNeeded != 0) { WCHAR* shortPath = new WCHAR[pathLengthNeeded]; DWORD newPathNameLength = ::GetShortPathNameW(aRef->GetFilePath().c_str(), shortPath, pathLengthNeeded); if(newPathNameLength != 0) { UI_STRING unicodePath(shortPath); std::string asciiPath = StringFromUserString(unicodePath); pathLengthNeeded = ::GetLongPathNameA(asciiPath.c_str(),NULL, 0); if(pathLengthNeeded != 0) {// convert it back to a long path if possible. For goodness sake can't we use Unicode throughout?F char* longPath = new char[pathLengthNeeded]; DWORD newPathNameLength = ::GetLongPathNameA(asciiPath.c_str(), longPath, pathLengthNeeded); if(newPathNameLength != 0) { std::string longPathString(longPath, newPathNameLength); asciiPath = longPathString; } delete [] longPath; } SetFullPathName(asciiPath); } delete [] shortPath; }

Read the article
How does windows resolves short names (8.3) into full names

- by i3anshee

I have a PC running 64 bit Windows Server 2003. There is a java application which uses cmd file as a launcher. The launcher does this SET JAVA_HOME= C:\Progra~1\Java "%JAVA_HOME%\bin\java" [java program execution line] Java is installed in C:\Program Files\Java. Since it is a x64 windows it also has C:\Program Files (x86)\ folder. Now the actual problem is that from time to time this application fails to start because it fails to find java. So the question is what windows does to resolve such ambiguity? Based on what it makes decisions about which folder to choose?

Read the article
Origin of common list-processing function names

- by Heatsink

Some higher-order functions for operating on lists or arrays have been repeatedly adopted or reinvented. The functions map, fold[l|r], and filter are found together in several programming languages, such as Scheme, ML, and Python, that don't seem to have a common ancestor. I'm going with these three names to keep the question focused. To show that the names are not universal, here is a sampling of names for equivalent functionality in other languages. C++ has transform instead of map and remove_if instead of filter (reversing the meaning of the predicate). Lisp has mapcar instead of map, remove-if-not instead of filter, and reduce instead of fold (Some modern Lisp variants have map but this appears to be a derived form.) C# uses Select instead of map and Where instead of filter. C#'s names came from SQL via LINQ, and despite the name changes, their functionality was influenced by Haskell, which was itself influenced by ML. The names map, fold, and filter are widespread, but not universal. This suggests that they were borrowed from an influential source into other contemporary languages. Where did these function names come from?

Read the article
When should a method of a class return the same instance after modifying itself?

- by modiX

I have a class that has three methods A(), B() and C(). Those methods modify the own instance. While the methods have to return an instance when the instance is a separate copy (just as Clone()), I got a free choice to return void or the same instance (return this;) when modifying the same instance in the method and not returning any other value. When deciding for returning the same modified instance, I can do neat method chains like obj.A().B().C();. Would this be the only reason for doing so? Is it even okay to modify the own instance and return it, too? Or should it only return a copy and leave the original object as before? Because when returning the same modified instance the user would maybe admit the returned value is a copy, otherwise it would not be returned? If it's okay, what's the best way to clarify such things on the method?

Read the article
How does Java pick which method to call?

- by Gaurav

Given the following code: public class Test { public void method(Object o){ System.out.println("object"); } public void method(String s) { System.out.println("String"); } public void method() { System.out.println("blank"); } /** * @param args */ public static void main(String[] args) { // TODO Auto-generated method stub Test test=new Test(); test.method(null); } } Java prints "String". Why is this the case?

Read the article
Why can't I rename a data frame column inside a list?

- by Moreno Garcia

I would like to rename some columns from CPU_Usage to the process name before I merge the dataframes in order to make it more legible. names(byProcess[[1]]) # [1] "Time" "CPU_Usage" names(byProcess[1]) # [1] "CcmExec_3344" names(byProcess[[1]][2]) <- names(byProcess[1]) names(byProcess[[1]][2]) # [1] "CPU_Usage" names(byProcess[[1]][2]) <- 'test' names(byProcess[[1]][2]) # [1] "CPU_Usage" lapply(byProcess, names) # $CcmExec_3344 # [1] "Time" "CPU_Usage" # # ... (removed several entries to make it more readable) # # $wrapper_1604 # [1] "Time" "CPU_Usage"

Read the article
Fed Authentication Methods in OIF / IdP

- by Damien Carru

This article is a continuation of my previous entry where I explained how OIF/IdP leverages OAM to authenticate users at runtime: OIF/IdP internally forwards the user to OAM and indicates which Authentication Scheme should be used to challenge the user if needed OAM determine if the user should be challenged (user already authenticated, session timed out or not, session authentication level equal or higher than the level of the authentication scheme specified by OIF/IdP…) After identifying the user, OAM internally forwards the user back to OIF/IdP OIF/IdP can resume its operation In this article, I will discuss how OIF/IdP can be configured to map Federation Authentication Methods to OAM Authentication Schemes: When processing an Authn Request, where the SP requests a specific Federation Authentication Method with which the user should be challenged When sending an Assertion, where OIF/IdP sets the Federation Authentication Method in the Assertion Enjoy the reading! Overview The various Federation protocols support mechanisms allowing the partners to exchange information on: How the user should be challenged, when the SP/RP makes a request How the user was challenged, when the IdP/OP issues an SSO response When a remote SP partner redirects the user to OIF/IdP for Federation SSO, the message might contain data requesting how the user should be challenged by the IdP: this is treated as the Requested Federation Authentication Method. OIF/IdP will need to map that Requested Federation Authentication Method to a local Authentication Scheme, and then invoke OAM for user authentication/challenge with the mapped Authentication Scheme. OAM would authenticate the user if necessary with the scheme specified by OIF/IdP. Similarly, when an IdP issues an SSO response, most of the time it will need to include an identifier representing how the user was challenged: this is treated as the Federation Authentication Method. When OIF/IdP issues an Assertion, it will evaluate the Authentication Scheme with which OAM identified the user: If the Authentication Scheme can be mapped to a Federation Authentication Method, then OIF/IdP will use the result of that mapping in the outgoing SSO response: AuthenticationStatement in the SAML Assertion OpenID Response, if PAPE is enabled If the Authentication Scheme cannot be mapped, then OIF/IdP will set the Federation Authentication Method as the Authentication Scheme name in the outgoing SSO response: AuthenticationStatement in the SAML Assertion OpenID Response, if PAPE is enabled Mappings In OIF/IdP, the mapping between Federation Authentication Methods and Authentication Schemes has the following rules: One Federation Authentication Method can be mapped to several Authentication Schemes In a Federation Authentication Method <-> Authentication Schemes mapping, a single Authentication Scheme is marked as the default scheme that will be used to authenticate a user, if the SP/RP partner requests the user to be authenticated via a specific Federation Authentication Method An Authentication Scheme can be mapped to a single Federation Authentication Method Let’s examine the following example and the various use cases, based on the SAML 2.0 protocol: Mappings defined as: urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:ac:classes:PasswordProtectedTransport mapped to LDAPScheme, marked as the default scheme used for authentication BasicScheme urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:ac:classes:X509 mapped to X509Scheme, marked as the default scheme used for authentication Use cases: SP sends an AuthnRequest specifying urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:ac:classes:X509 as the RequestedAuthnContext: OIF/IdP will authenticate the use with X509Scheme since it is the default scheme mapped for that method. SP sends an AuthnRequest specifying urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:ac:classes:PasswordProtectedTransport as the RequestedAuthnContext: OIF/IdP will authenticate the use with LDAPScheme since it is the default scheme mapped for that method, not the BasicScheme SP did not request any specific methods, and user was authenticated with BasisScheme: OIF/IdP will issue an Assertion with urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:ac:classes:PasswordProtectedTransport as the FederationAuthenticationMethod SP did not request any specific methods, and user was authenticated with LDAPScheme: OIF/IdP will issue an Assertion with urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:ac:classes:PasswordProtectedTransport as the FederationAuthenticationMethod SP did not request any specific methods, and user was authenticated with BasisSessionlessScheme: OIF/IdP will issue an Assertion with BasisSessionlessScheme as the FederationAuthenticationMethod, since that scheme could not be mapped to any Federation Authentication Method (in this case, the administrator would need to correct that and create a mapping) Configuration Mapping Federation Authentication Methods to OAM Authentication Schemes is protocol dependent, since the methods are defined in the various protocols (SAML 2.0, SAML 1.1, OpenID 2.0). As such, the WLST commands to set those mappings will involve: Either the SP Partner Profile and affect all Partners referencing that profile, which do not override the Federation Authentication Method to OAM Authentication Scheme mappings Or the SP Partner entry, which will only affect the SP Partner It is important to note that if an SP Partner is configured to define one or more Federation Authentication Method to OAM Authentication Scheme mappings, then all the mappings defined in the SP Partner Profile will be ignored. Authentication Schemes As discussed in the previous article, during Federation SSO, OIF/IdP will internally forward the user to OAM for authentication/verification and specify which Authentication Scheme to use. OAM will determine if a user needs to be challenged: If the user is not authenticated yet If the user is authenticated but the session timed out If the user is authenticated, but the authentication scheme level of the original authentication is lower than the level of the authentication scheme requested by OIF/IdP So even though an SP requests a specific Federation Authentication Method to be used to challenge the user, if that method is mapped to an Authentication Scheme and that at runtime OAM deems that the user does not need to be challenged with that scheme (because the user is already authenticated, session did not time out, and the session authn level is equal or higher than the one for the specified Authentication Scheme), the flow won’t result in a challenge operation. Protocols SAML 2.0 The SAML 2.0 specifications define the following Federation Authentication Methods for SAML 2.0 flows: urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:ac:classes:unspecified urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:ac:classes:InternetProtocol urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:ac:classes:Telephony urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:ac:classes:MobileOneFactorUnregistered urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:ac:classes:PersonalTelephony urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:ac:classes:PreviousSession urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:ac:classes:MobileOneFactorContract urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:ac:classes:Smartcard urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:ac:classes:Password urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:ac:classes:InternetProtocolPassword urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:ac:classes:X509 urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:ac:classes:TLSClient urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:ac:classes:PGP urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:ac:classes:SPKI urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:ac:classes:XMLDSig urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:ac:classes:SoftwarePKI urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:ac:classes:Kerberos urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:ac:classes:PasswordProtectedTransport urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:ac:classes:SecureRemotePassword urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:ac:classes:NomadTelephony urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:ac:classes:AuthenticatedTelephony urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:ac:classes:MobileTwoFactorUnregistered urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:ac:classes:MobileTwoFactorContract urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:ac:classes:SmartcardPKI urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:ac:classes:TimeSyncToken Out of the box, OIF/IdP has the following mappings for the SAML 2.0 protocol: Only urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:ac:classes:PasswordProtectedTransport is defined This Federation Authentication Method is mapped to: LDAPScheme, marked as the default scheme used for authentication FAAuthScheme BasicScheme BasicFAScheme This mapping is defined in the saml20-sp-partner-profile SP Partner Profile which is the default OOTB SP Partner Profile for SAML 2.0 An example of an AuthnRequest message sent by an SP to an IdP with the SP requesting a specific Federation Authentication Method to be used to challenge the user would be: <samlp:AuthnRequest xmlns:samlp="urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:protocol" Destination="https://idp.com/oamfed/idp/samlv20" ID="id-8bWn-A9o4aoMl3Nhx1DuPOOjawc-" IssueInstant="2014-03-21T20:51:11Z" Version="2.0"> <saml:Issuer ...>https://acme.com/sp</saml:Issuer> <samlp:NameIDPolicy AllowCreate="false" Format="urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:1.1:nameid-format:unspecified"/> <samlp:RequestedAuthnContext Comparison="minimum"> <saml:AuthnContextClassRef xmlns:saml="urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:assertion"> urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:ac:classes:PasswordProtectedTransport </saml:AuthnContextClassRef> </samlp:RequestedAuthnContext></samlp:AuthnRequest> An example of an Assertion issued by an IdP would be: <samlp:Response ...> <saml:Issuer ...>https://idp.com/oam/fed</saml:Issuer> <samlp:Status> <samlp:StatusCode Value="urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:status:Success"/> </samlp:Status> <saml:Assertion ...> <saml:Issuer ...>https://idp.com/oam/fed</saml:Issuer> <dsig:Signature> ... </dsig:Signature> <saml:Subject> <saml:NameID ...>[email protected]</saml:NameID> <saml:SubjectConfirmation Method="urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:cm:bearer"> <saml:SubjectConfirmationData .../> </saml:SubjectConfirmation> </saml:Subject> <saml:Conditions ...> <saml:AudienceRestriction> <saml:Audience>https://acme.com/sp</saml:Audience> </saml:AudienceRestriction> </saml:Conditions> <saml:AuthnStatement AuthnInstant="2014-03-21T20:53:55Z" SessionIndex="id-6i-Dm0yB-HekG6cejktwcKIFMzYE8Yrmqwfd0azz" SessionNotOnOrAfter="2014-03-21T21:53:55Z"> <saml:AuthnContext> <saml:AuthnContextClassRef> urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:ac:classes:PasswordProtectedTransport </saml:AuthnContextClassRef> </saml:AuthnContext> </saml:AuthnStatement> </saml:Assertion></samlp:Response> An administrator would be able to specify a mapping between a SAML 2.0 Federation Authentication Method and one or more OAM Authentication Schemes SAML 1.1 The SAML 1.1 specifications define the following Federation Authentication Methods for SAML 1.1 flows: urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:1.0:am:unspecified urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:1.0:am:HardwareToken urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:1.0:am:password urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:1.0:am:X509-PKI urn:ietf:rfc:2246 urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:1.0:am:PGP urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:1.0:am:SPKI urn:ietf:rfc:3075 urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:1.0:am:XKMS urn:ietf:rfc:1510 urn:ietf:rfc:2945 Out of the box, OIF/IdP has the following mappings for the SAML 1.1 protocol: Only urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:1.0:am:password is defined This Federation Authentication Method is mapped to: LDAPScheme, marked as the default scheme used for authentication FAAuthScheme BasicScheme BasicFAScheme This mapping is defined in the saml11-sp-partner-profile SP Partner Profile which is the default OOTB SP Partner Profile for SAML 1.1 An example of an Assertion issued by an IdP would be: <samlp:Response ...> <samlp:Status> <samlp:StatusCode Value="samlp:Success"/> </samlp:Status> <saml:Assertion Issuer="https://idp.com/oam/fed" ...> <saml:Conditions ...> <saml:AudienceRestriction> <saml:Audience>https://acme.com/sp/ssov11</saml:Audience> </saml:AudienceRestriction> </saml:Conditions> <saml:AuthnStatement AuthenticationInstant="2014-03-21T20:53:55Z" AuthenticationMethod="urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:1.0:am:password"> <saml:Subject> <saml:NameID ...>[email protected]</saml:NameID> <saml:SubjectConfirmation> <saml:ConfirmationMethod> urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:1.0:cm:bearer </saml:ConfirmationMethod> </saml:SubjectConfirmation> </saml:Subject> </saml:AuthnStatement> <dsig:Signature> ... </dsig:Signature> </saml:Assertion></samlp:Response> Note: SAML 1.1 does not define an AuthnRequest message. An administrator would be able to specify a mapping between a SAML 1.1 Federation Authentication Method and one or more OAM Authentication Schemes OpenID 2.0 The OpenID 2.0 PAPE specifications define the following Federation Authentication Methods for OpenID 2.0 flows: http://schemas.openid.net/pape/policies/2007/06/phishing-resistant http://schemas.openid.net/pape/policies/2007/06/multi-factor http://schemas.openid.net/pape/policies/2007/06/multi-factor-physical Out of the box, OIF/IdP does not define any mappings for the OpenID 2.0 Federation Authentication Methods. For OpenID 2.0, the configuration will involve mapping a list of OpenID 2.0 policies to a list of Authentication Schemes. An example of an OpenID 2.0 Request message sent by an SP/RP to an IdP/OP would be: https://idp.com/openid?openid.ns=http%3A%2F%2Fspecs.openid.net%2Fauth%2F2.0&openid.mode=checkid_setup&openid.claimed_id=http%3A%2F%2Fspecs.openid.net%2Fauth%2F2.0%2Fidentifier_select&openid.identity=http%3A%2F%2Fspecs.openid.net%2Fauth%2F2.0%2Fidentifier_select&openid.assoc_handle=id-6a5S6zhAKaRwQNUnjTKROREdAGSjWodG1el4xyz3&openid.return_to=https%3A%2F%2Facme.com%2Fopenid%3Frefid%3Did-9PKVXZmRxAeDYcgLqPm36ClzOMA-&openid.realm=https%3A%2F%2Facme.com%2Fopenid&openid.ns.ax=http%3A%2F%2Fopenid.net%2Fsrv%2Fax%2F1.0&openid.ax.mode=fetch_request&openid.ax.type.attr0=http%3A%2F%2Faxschema.org%2Fcontact%2Femail&openid.ax.if_available=attr0&openid.ns.pape=http%3A%2F%2Fspecs.openid.net%2Fextensions%2Fpape%2F1.0&openid.pape.max_auth_age=0 An example of an Open ID 2.0 SSO Response issued by an IdP/OP would be: https://acme.com/openid?refid=id-9PKVXZmRxAeDYcgLqPm36ClzOMA-&openid.ns=http%3A%2F%2Fspecs.openid.net%2Fauth%2F2.0&openid.mode=id_res&openid.op_endpoint=https%3A%2F%2Fidp.com%2Fopenid&openid.claimed_id=https%3A%2F%2Fidp.com%2Fopenid%3Fid%3Did-38iCmmlAVEXPsFjnFVKArfn5RIiF75D5doorhEgqqPM%3D&openid.identity=https%3A%2F%2Fidp.com%2Fopenid%3Fid%3Did-38iCmmlAVEXPsFjnFVKArfn5RIiF75D5doorhEgqqPM%3D&openid.return_to=https%3A%2F%2Facme.com%2Fopenid%3Frefid%3Did-9PKVXZmRxAeDYcgLqPm36ClzOMA-&openid.response_nonce=2014-03-24T19%3A20%3A06Zid-YPa2kTNNFftZkgBb460jxJGblk2g--iNwPpDI7M1&openid.assoc_handle=id-6a5S6zhAKaRwQNUnjTKROREdAGSjWodG1el4xyz3&openid.ns.ax=http%3A%2F%2Fopenid.net%2Fsrv%2Fax%2F1.0&openid.ax.mode=fetch_response&openid.ax.type.attr0=http%3A%2F%2Fsession%2Fcount&openid.ax.value.attr0=1&openid.ax.type.attr1=http%3A%2F%2Fopenid.net%2Fschema%2FnamePerson%2Ffriendly&openid.ax.value.attr1=My+name+is+Bobby+Smith&openid.ax.type.attr2=http%3A%2F%2Fschemas.openid.net%2Fax%2Fapi%2Fuser_id&openid.ax.value.attr2=bob&openid.ax.type.attr3=http%3A%2F%2Faxschema.org%2Fcontact%2Femail&openid.ax.value.attr3=bob%40oracle.com&openid.ax.type.attr4=http%3A%2F%2Fsession%2Fipaddress&openid.ax.value.attr4=10.145.120.253&openid.ns.pape=http%3A%2F%2Fspecs.openid.net%2Fextensions%2Fpape%2F1.0&openid.pape.auth_time=2014-03-24T19%3A20%3A05Z&openid.pape.auth_policies=http%3A%2F%2Fschemas.openid.net%2Fpape%2Fpolicies%2F2007%2F06%2Fphishing-resistant&openid.signed=op_endpoint%2Cclaimed_id%2Cidentity%2Creturn_to%2Cresponse_nonce%2Cassoc_handle%2Cns.ax%2Cax.mode%2Cax.type.attr0%2Cax.value.attr0%2Cax.type.attr1%2Cax.value.attr1%2Cax.type.attr2%2Cax.value.attr2%2Cax.type.attr3%2Cax.value.attr3%2Cax.type.attr4%2Cax.value.attr4%2Cns.pape%2Cpape.auth_time%2Cpape.auth_policies&openid.sig=mYMgbGYSs22l8e%2FDom9NRPw15u8%3D In the next article, I will provide examples on how to configure OIF/IdP for the various protocols, to map OAM Authentication Schemes to Federation Authentication Methods.Cheers,Damien Carru

Read the article
Ruby module_function, invoking module's private method, invoked in class method style on module shows error

- by Jignesh

test_module.rb module MyModule def module_func_a puts "module_func_a invoked" private_b end module_function :module_func_a private def private_b puts "private_b invoked" end end class MyClass include MyModule def test_module module_func_a end end Invoking module function from class c = MyClass.new c.test_module Output 1: $ ruby test_module.rb module_func_a invoked private_b invoked Invoking module function on module in class method style ma = MyModule.module_func_a Output 2: module_func_a invoked test_module.rb:5:in `module_func_a': undefined local variable or method `private_b' for MyModule:Module (NameError) from test_module.rb:31 As can be seen from the Output 1 and Output 2 when including the module in a class, no issue occurs when a module's private method gets invoked from a module function while in case when directly invoking the module function on the module in class method style the module's private method, invoked from module function, is not found. Can anybody make me understand the reason behind above behavior and whether invoking module function (which in turn invokes module's private method) on module in class method style is possible or not? If possible, then what rectifications are required in my code to do the same? Thanks, Jignesh

Read the article
Inheriting the main method

- by Eric

I want to define a base class that defines a main method that instantiates the class, and runs a method. There are a couple of problems though. Here is the base class: public abstract class Strategy { abstract void execute(SoccerRobot robot); public static void main(String args) { Strategy s = new /*Not sure what to put here*/(); s.execute(new SoccerRobot()) } } And here is an example derived class: public class UselessStrategy { void execute(SoccerRobot robot) { System.out.println("I'm useless") } } It defines a simple execute method, which should be called in a main method upon usage as a the main application. However, in order to do so, I need to instantiate the derived class from within the base class's main method. Which doesn't seem to be possible. I'd rather not have to repeat the main method for every derived class, as it feels somewhat unnessary. Is there a right way of doing this?

Read the article
c# passing method names as the argument in a method

- by Alan Bennett

hi guys, I have a recuring method which shows up many times in my code its basically checking to make sure that the connection to the odbc is ok and then connects but each time this method is called it calls another method and each instance of the main method this one is different, as each method is about 8 lines of code having it 8 times in the code isnt ideal. so basically i would like to have just one method which i can call passing the name of the new method as an arguement. so basically like: private void doSomething(methodToBeCalled) { if(somthingistrue) { methodToBeCalled(someArgument) } } is this possible? thanks in advance

Read the article
Go - Concurrent method

- by nevalu

How to get a concurrent method? In my case, the library would be called from a program to get a value to each argument str --in method Get()--. When it's used Get() then it assigns a variable from type bytes.Buffer which it will have the value to return. The returned values --when it been concurrently called-- will be stored into a database or a file and it doesn't matter that its output been of FIFO way (from method). type test struct { foo uint8 bar uint8 } func NewTest(arg1 string) (*test, os.Error) {...} func (self *test) Get(str string) ([]byte, os.Error) { var format bytes.Buffer ... } I think that all code inner of method Get() should be put inner of go func() {...}(), and then to use a channel. Would there be a problem if it's called another method from Get()? Or would it also has to be concurrent?

Read the article
[PHP] Weird problem with dynamic method invocation

- by Rolf

Hi everyone, this time, I'm facing a really weird problem. I've the following code: $xml = simplexml_load_file($this->interception_file); foreach($xml->children() as $class) { $path = str_replace('__CLASS_DIR__',CLASS_DIR,$class['path']); if(!is_file($path)) { throw new Exception('Bad configuration: file '.$path.' not found'); } $className = pathinfo($path,PATHINFO_FILENAME); foreach($class as $method) { $method_name = $method['name']; $obj = new $className(); var_dump(in_array($method_name,get_class_methods($className)));exit; echo $obj->$method_name();### not a method ??? } } As you can see, I get the class name and method name from an XML file. I can create an instance of the class without any problem. The var_dump at the end returns true, that means $method_name (which has 2 optional parameters) is a method of $className. BUT, and I am pretty sure the syntax is correct, when I try: $obj-$method_name() I get: Fatal error: Method name must be a string If you have any ideas, pleaaaaase tell me :) Thanks in advance, Rolf

Read the article
When using method chaining, do I reuse the object or create one?

- by MainMa

When using method chaining like: var car = new Car().OfBrand(Brand.Ford).OfModel(12345).PaintedIn(Color.Silver).Create(); there may be two approaches: Reuse the same object, like this: public Car PaintedIn(Color color) { this.Color = color; return this; } Create a new object of type Car at every step, like this: public Car PaintedIn(Color color) { var car = new Car(this); // Clone the current object. car.Color = color; // Assign the values to the clone, not the original object. return car; } Is the first one wrong or it's rather a personal choice of the developer? I believe that he first approach may quickly cause the intuitive/misleading code. Example: // Create a car with neither color, nor model. var mercedes = new Car().OfBrand(Brand.MercedesBenz).PaintedIn(NeutralColor); // Create several cars based on the neutral car. var yellowCar = mercedes.PaintedIn(Color.Yellow).Create(); var specificModel = mercedes.OfModel(99).Create(); // Would `specificModel` car be yellow or of neutral color? How would you guess that if // `yellowCar` were in a separate method called somewhere else in code? Any thoughts?

Read the article
Alternative to GoDaddy's ConsoliDate feature (change domain expiration date)

- by Jim

I've been using GoDaddy to manage about 50 domain names for a few years, but recently decided to move (probably to namecheap) because of the elephant killing incident. One GoDaddy's feature I like a lot is Consolidate, which allows you to change the expiration date of domain names for a small fee. I've searched for a while but didn't find any other registrar that provides this feature. Does anyone know if there's a registrar that allows you to change the expiration date of domains? Thanks!

Read the article
in python: can i pass class method as and a default argument to another class method

- by alex

i want to to pass class method as and a default argument to another class method, so that i can re-use the method as a @classmethod @classmethod class foo: def func1(self,x): do somthing; def func2(self, aFunc = self.func1): # make some a call to afunc afunc(4) this why when the method func2 is called within the class aFunc defaults to self.func1, but i can call this same function from outside of the class and pass it a different function at the input. i get NameError: name 'self' is not defined

Read the article
How to name a static factory method in the utility class?

- by leventov

I have an interface MyLongNameInterface with a counterpart utility class MyLongNameInterfaces. What is the best name for a static factory method in the utility class, which creates an instance of MyLongNameInterface? MyLongNameInterfaces.newInstance() -- a new instance of the utility class? MyLongNameInterfaces.newMyLongNameInterface() -- too verbose MyLongNameInterfaces.create() -- create an instance of the utility class? Also, create is not a widely used conventional verb in Java better option?

Read the article
call a class method from inside an instance method from a module mixin (rails)

- by sean

Curious how one would go about calling a class method from inside an instance method of a module which is included by an active record class. For example I want both user and client models to share the nuts and bolts of password encryption. # app/models class User < ActiveRecord::Base include Encrypt end class Client < ActiveRecord::Base include Encrypt end # app/models/shared/encrypt.rb module Encrypt def authenticate # I want to call the ClassMethods#encrypt_password method when @user.authenticate is run self.password_crypted == self.encrypt_password(self.password) end def self.included(base) base.extend ClassMethods end module ClassMethods def encrypt_password(password) Digest::SHA1.hexdigest(password) end end end However, this fails. Says that the class method cannot be found when the instance method calls it. I can call User.encrypt_password('password') but User.new.encrypt_password fails Any thoughts?

Read the article
Java Finalize method call

- by Rajesh Kumar J

I need to find when finalized method called in the JVM. I Created a test Class which write into file when finalized method called by Overriding the protected finalize method It is not executing. Can anybody tell me the reason why it is not executing?? Thanks in Advance

Read the article
ASP.NET lock thread method

- by Peter

Hello, I'm developing an ASP.NET forms webapplication using C#. I have a method which creates a new Order for a customer. It looks similar to this; private string CreateOrder(string userName) { // Fetch current order Order order = FetchOrder(userName); if (order.OrderId == 0) { // Has no order yet, create a new one order.OrderNumber = Utility.GenerateOrderNumber(); order.Save(); } return order; } The problem here is, it is possible that 1 customer in two requests (threads) could cause this method to be called twice while another thread is also inside this method. This can cause two orders to be created. How can I properly lock this method, so it can only be executed by one thread at a time per customer? I tried; Mutex mutex = null; private string CreateOrder(string userName) { if (mutex == null) { mutex = new Mutex(true, userName); } mutex.WaitOne(); // Code from above mutex.ReleaseMutex(); mutex = null; return order; } This works, but on some occasions it hangs on WaitOne and I don't know why. Is there an error, or should I use another method to lock? Thanks

Read the article
custom compare method in objective c

- by Jonathan

I'm trying to use a custom compare method (for use with sortedArrayusingSelector) and on another website I got that the format is: -(NSComparisonResult) orderByName:(id)otherobject { That's all bery well and good except how do I compare the otherObject to anything as there's only one thing passed to the method? Like how does the NSString method of compare: compare 2 strings when only one string is passed?

Read the article
groovy call private method in Java super class

- by Jeff Storey

I have an abstract Java class MyAbstractClass with a private method. There is a concrete implementation MyConcreteClass. public class MyAbstractClass { private void somePrivateMethod(); } public class MyConcreteClass extends MyAbstractClass { // implementation details } In my groovy test class I have class MyAbstractClassTest { void myTestMethod() { MyAbstractClass mac = new MyConcreteClass() mac.somePrivateMethod() } } I get an error that there is no such method signature for somePrivateMethod. I know groovy can call private methods but I'm guessing the problem is that the private method is in the super class, not MyConcreteClass. Is there a way to invoke a private method in the super class like this (other than using something like PrivateAccessor)? thanks Jeff

Read the article
Invoke private method with interface as argument

- by Stephanie

Hi, I've been attempting to invoke a private method whose argument is a parameter and I can't quite seem to get it right. Here's kind of how the code looks so far: public class TestClass { public TestClass(){ } private void simpleMethod( Map<String, Integer> testMap) { //code logic } } Then I attempt to use this to invoke the private method: //Hashmap Map <String, Integer> testMap = new HashMap <String, Integer>(); //method I want to invoke Method simpleMethod = TestClass.class.getDeclaredMethod("simpleMethod", Map.class); simpleMethod.setAccessible(true); simpleMethod.invoke(testClassObject, testMap); //Throws an IllegalArgumentException As you can see, it throws an IllegalArgumentException. I've attempted to cast the hashmap back to a map, but that didn't work. What am I doing wrong?

Read the article
LINQ method chaining and granular error handling

- by Clafou

I have a method which can be written pretty neatly through method chaining: return viewer.ServerReport.GetParameters() .Single(p => p.Name == Convention.Ssrs.RegionParamName) .ValidValues .Select(v => v.Value); However I'd like to be able to do some checks at each point as I wish to provide helpful diagnostics information if any of the chained methods returns unexpected results. To achieve this, I need to break up all my chaining and follow each call with an if block. It makes the code a lot less readable. Ideally I'd like to be able to weave in some chained method calls which would allow me to handle unexpected outcomes at each point (e.g. throw a meaningful exception such as new ConventionException("The report contains no parameter") if the first method returns an empty collection). Can anyone suggest a simple way to achieve such a thing?

Read the article
Can a C# method chain be "too long"?

- by ccornet

Not in terms of readability, naturally, since you can always arrange the separate methods into separate lines. Rather, is it dangerous, for any reason, to chain an excessively large number of methods together? I use method chaining primarily to save space on declaring individual one-use variables, and traditionally using return methods instead of methods that modify the caller. Except for string methods, those I kinda chain mercilessly. In any case, I worry sometimes about the impact of using exceptionally long method chains all in one line. Let's say I need to update the value of one item based on someone's username. Unfortunately, the shortest method to retrieve the correct user looks something like the following. SPWeb web = GetWorkflowWeb(); SPList list2 = web.Lists["Wars"]; SPListItem item2 = list2.GetItemById(3); SPListItem item3 = item2.GetItemFromLookup("Armies", "Allied Army"); SPUser user2 = item2.GetSPUser("Commander"); SPUser user3 = user2.GetAssociate("Spouse"); string username2 = user3.Name; item1["Contact"] = username2; Everything with a 2 or 3 lasts for only one call, so I might condense it as the following (which also lets me get rid of a would-be-superfluous 1): SPWeb web = GetWorkflowWeb(); item["Contact"] = web.Lists["Armies"] .GetItemById(3) .GetItemFromLookup("Armies", "Allied Army") .GetSPUser("Commander") .GetAssociate("Spouse") .Name; Admittedly, it looks a lot longer when it is all in one line and when you have int.Parse(ddlArmy.SelectedValue.CutBefore(";#", false)) instead of 3. Nevertheless, this is one of the average lengths of these chains, and I can easily foresee some of exceptionally longer counts. Excluding readability, is there anything I should be worried about for these 10+ method chains? Or is there no harm in using really really long method chains?

Read the article
execute javascript method after method excution complete ?

- by James123

I want execute below callback()method after completion of process document.getElementById('btnDownload').click(); method. click() is the code behind method. That means, I mean after complete process of click() then excute callback() method. Because my modelpop is not hiding in code behind. So I want hide in javascript method. function LoadPopup() { // find the popup behavior this._popup = $find('mdlPopup'); // show the popup this._popup.show(); // synchronously run the server side validation ... document.getElementById('btnDownload').click(); callback(); } function callback() { this._popup = $find('mdlPopup'); // hide the popup this._popup.hide(); alert("hi"); }

Read the article

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