Search Results

Search found 432 results on 18 pages for 'setters'.

Page 3/18 | < Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >

  • Custom Class to store the properties and passing the class object across the pages - ASP.NEt

    - by NLV
    Hello I've a requirement where i need to pass some objects across the pages. So i created a custom class with all the properties required and created a instance of it and assigned all the properties appropriately. I then put that object in the session and took it the other page. The problem is that even when i set the properties values to the class it is coming as null. I set a breakpoint in the getter-setter and saw that the value itself is coming as null. Code - public class GetDataSetForReports { private Table m_aspTable; private int m_reportID; private string m_accountKey; private string m_siteKey; private string m_imUserName; /// <summary> /// Asp Table containing the filters /// </summary> public Table aspTable { get { return m_aspTable; } set { m_aspTable = aspTable; } } /// <summary> /// Report ID /// </summary> public int reportID { get { return m_reportID; } set { m_reportID = reportID; } } /// <summary> /// All the accounts selected /// </summary> public string accountKey { get { return m_accountKey; } set { m_accountKey = accountKey; } } /// <summary> /// All the sites selected /// </summary> public string siteKey { get { return m_siteKey; } set { m_siteKey = siteKey; } } /// <summary> /// Current User Name /// </summary> public string imUserName { get { return m_imUserName; } set { m_imUserName = imUserName; } } } This is how i'm creating an instance in the page1 and trying to get it in the page2. Page1 Code //Add the objects to the GetDataSetForReports Class GetDataSetForReports oGetDSForReports = new GetDataSetForReports(); oGetDSForReports.aspTable = aspTable; oGetDSForReports.reportID = iReportID; oGetDSForReports.accountKey = AccountKey; oGetDSForReports.siteKey = Sitekey; oGetDSForReports.imUserName = this.imUserName.ToString(); But the values are not getting set at all. The values are not passing to the class (to the setter) at all. Am i making any OOPS blunder? Any ideas? NLV

    Read the article

  • iPhone Setting ViewController nested in NSMutableArray

    - by Peter George
    Hello I'm trying to set attributes for a viewcontroller nested inside a NSMutableArray, for example I have 3 ViewController inside this array: FirstViewController *firstViewController = [FirstViewController alloc]; SecondViewController *secondViewController = [SecondViewController alloc]; ThirdViewController *thirdViewController = [ThirdViewController alloc]; NSMutableArray *viewControllerClasses = [[NSMutableArray alloc] initWithObjects: firstViewController, secondViewController, thirdViewController, nil]; for (int x=0; x<[viewControllerClasses count]; x++) { // as an example to set managedObjectContext I otherwise would set firstViewController.managedObjectContext = context; [viewControllerClasses objectAtIndex:x].managedObjectContext = context; } But this results in an error: Request for member "managedObjectContext" in something not a structure or union. Shouldn't be "firstViewController" be the same as [viewControllerClasses objectAtIndex:0]?

    Read the article

  • How do I create efficient instance variable mutators in Matlab?

    - by Trent B
    Previously, I implemented mutators as follows, however it ran spectacularly slowly on a recursive OO algorithm I'm working on, and I suspected it may have been because I was duplicating objects on every function call... is this correct? %% Example Only obj2 = tripleAllPoints(obj1) obj.pts = obj.pts * 3; obj2 = obj1 end I then tried implementing mutators without using the output object... however, it appears that in MATLAB i can't do this - the changes won't "stick" because of a scope issue? %% Example Only tripleAllPoints(obj1) obj1.pts = obj1.pts * 3; end For application purposes, an extremely simplified version of my code (which uses OO and recursion) is below. classdef myslice properties pts % array of pts nROW % number of rows nDIM % number of dimensions subs % sub-slices end % end properties methods function calcSubs(obj) obj.subs = cell(1,obj.nROW); for i=1:obj.nROW obj.subs{i} = myslice; obj.subs{i}.pts = obj.pts(1:i,2:end); end end function vol = calcVol(obj) if obj.nROW == 1 obj.volume = prod(obj.pts); else obj.volume = 0; calcSubs(obj); for i=1:obj.nROW obj.volume = obj.volume + calcVol(obj.subs{i}); end end end end % end methods end % end classdef

    Read the article

  • Does Hibernate always need a setter when there is a getter?

    - by Marcus
    We have some Hibernate getter methods annotated with both @Column and @Basic. We get an exception if we don't have the corresponding setter. Why is this? In our case we are deriving the value returned from the getter (to get stored in the DB) and the setter has no functional purpose. So we just have an empty method to get around the error condition..

    Read the article

  • Flex ChangeWatcher bind to a negative condition

    - by bedwyr
    I have a bindable getter in a component which informs me when a [hidden] timer is running. I also have a context menu which, if this timer is running, should disable one of the menu items. Is it possible to create a ChangeWatcher which watches for the negative condition of a bindable property/getter and changes the enabled property of the menu item? Here are the basic methods I'm trying to bind together: Class A: [Bindable] public function get isPlaying():Boolean { return (_timer != null) ? _timer.running : false; } Class B: private var _playingWatcher:ChangeWatcher; public function createContextMenu():void { //...blah blah, creating context menu var newItem:ContextMenuItem = new ContextMenuItem(); _playingWatcher = BindingUtils.bindProperty(newItem, "enabled", _classA, "isPlaying"); } In the code above, I have the inverse case: when isPlaying() is true, the menu item is enabled; I want it to only be enabled when the condition is false. I could create a second getter (there are other bindings which rely on the current getter) to return the inverse condition, but that sounds ugly to me: [Bindable] public function get isNotPlaying():Boolean { return !isPlaying; } Is this possible, or is there another approach I'm completely missing?

    Read the article

  • What is a good practice to access class attributes in class methods?

    - by Clem
    I always wonder about the best way to access a class attribute from a class method in Java. Could you quickly convince me about which one of the 3 solutions below (or a totally different one :P) is a good practice? public class Test { String a; public String getA(){ return this.a; } public setA(String a){ this.a = a; } // Using Getter public void display(){ // Solution 1 System.out.println(this.a); // Solution 2 System.out.println(getA()); // Solution 3 System.out.println(this.getA()); } // Using Setter public void myMethod(String b, String c){ // Solution 1 this.a = b + c; // Solution 2 setA(b + c); // Solution 3 this.setA(b + c); } }

    Read the article

  • Overriding setter on domain class in grails 1.1.2

    - by Pavel P
    I have following two domain classes in Grails 1.1.2: class A implements Serializable { MyEnumType myField Date fieldChanged void setMyField(MyEnumType val) { if (myField != null && myField != val) { myField = val fieldChanged = new Date() } } } class B extends A { List children void setMyField(MyEnumType val) { if (myField != null && myField != val) { myField = val fieldChanged = new Date() children.each { child -> child.myField = val } } } When I set B instance's myField, I get the setter into the cycle... myField = val line calls setter again instead of assiging the new value. Any hint how to override the setter correctly? Thanks

    Read the article

  • Naming conventions for complex getters in Java

    - by Simon
    Hi there! I was reading this C# article about the usage of properties and methods. It points out why and when to use properties or methods. Properties are meant to be used like fields, meaning that properties should not be computationally complex or produce side effects I was asking myself how you could express this difference in Java, where you only use getters for the retrieval of data. What is your opinion?

    Read the article

  • Custom setter methods in Core-Data

    - by andrewebling
    I need to write a custom setter method for a field (we'll call it foo) in my subclass of NSManagedObject. foo is defined in the data model and Xcode has autogenerated @property and @dynamic fields in the .h and .m files respectively. If I write my setter like this: - (void)setFoo: (NSObject *)inFoo { [super setFoo: inFoo]; [self updateStuff]; } then I get a compiler warning on the call to super. Alternatively, if I do this: - (void)setFoo: (NSObject *)inFoo { [super setValue: inFoo forKey: inFoo]; [self updateStuff]; } then I end up in an infinite loop. So what's the correct approach to write a custom setter for a subclass of NSManagedObject?

    Read the article

  • How to make Spring accept fluent (non-void) setters?

    - by Chris
    Hi, I have an API which I am turning into an internal DSL. As such, most methods in my PoJos return a reference to this so that I can chain methods together declaratively as such (syntactic sugar). myComponent .setID("MyId") .setProperty("One") .setProperty2("Two") .setAssociation(anotherComponent) .execute(); My API does not depend on Spring but I wish to make it 'Spring-Friendly' by being PoJo friendly with zero argument constructors, getters and setters. The problem is that Spring seems to not detect my setter methods when I have a non-void return type. The return type of this is very convenient when chaining together my commands so I don't want to destroy my programmatic API just be to compatible with Spring injection. Is there a setting in Spring to allow me to use non-void setters? Chris

    Read the article

  • Why Java language does not offer a way to declare getters and setters of a given "field" through ann

    - by zim2001
    I actually happily design and develop JEE Applications for quite 9 years, but I realized recently that as time goes by, I feel more and more fed up of dragging all these ugly bean classes with their bunch of getters and setters. Considering a basic bean like this : public class MyBean { // needs getter AND setter private int myField1; // needs only a getter, no setter private int myField2; // needs only a setter, no getter private int myField3; /** * Get the field1 * @return the field1 */ public int getField1() { return myField1; } /** * Set the field1 * @param value the value */ public void setField1(int value) { myField1 = value; } /** * Get the field2 * @return the field2 */ public int getField2() { return myField2; } /** * Set the field3 * @param value the value */ public void setField3(int value) { myField3 = value; } } I'm dreaming of something like this : public class MyBean { @inout(public,public) private int myField1; @out(public) private int myField2; @in(public) private int myField3; } No more stupid javadoc, just tell the important thing... It would still be possible to mix annotation and written down getters or setters, to cover cases when it should do non-trivial sets and gets. In other words, annotation would auto-generate the getter / setter code piece except when a literate one is provided. Moreover, I'm also dreaming of replacing things like that : MyBean b = new MyBean(); int v = b.getField1(); b.setField3(v+1); by such : MyBean b = new MyBean(); int v = b.field1; b.field3 = v+1; In fact, writing "b.field1" on the right side of an expression would be semantically identical to write "b.getField1()", I mean as if it has been replaced by some kind of a preprocessor. It's just an idea but I'm wondering if I'm alone on that topic, and also if it has major flaws. I'm aware that this question doesn't exactly meet the SO credo (we prefer questions that can be answered, not just discussed) so I flag it community wiki...

    Read the article

  • Can getters and setters be inlined when definition and declaration are seperated in .h and .cpp files?

    - by Nathan
    I have searched and have been unable to verify how the GCC compiler will handle inlining getters and setters when declaration is in .h file and definition is in .cpp file. Most seem to say that GCC can't see across these source file barriers and won't be able to inline these at all, while others disagree. I have looked at the documentation and I can't find the answer there either. Did I miss it? I do realize that inlining is a choice made by the compiler and is not always guaranteed, but assuming optimal situations, is it at least possible?

    Read the article

  • Is there a Java unit-test framework that auto-tests getters and setters?

    - by Michael Easter
    There is a well-known debate in Java (and other communities, I'm sure) whether or not trivial getter/setter methods should be tested. Usually, this is with respect to code coverage. Let's agree that this is an open debate, and not try to answer it here. There have been several blog posts on using Java reflection to auto-test such methods. Does any framework (e.g. jUnit) provide such a feature? e.g. An annotation that says "this test T should auto-test all the getters/setters on class C, because I assert that they are standard". It seems to me that it would add value, and if it were configurable, the 'debate' would be left as an option to the user.

    Read the article

  • Java: Is clone() really ever used? What about defensive copying in getters/setters?

    - by GreenieMeanie
    Do people practically ever use defensive getters/setters? To me, 99% of the time you intend for the object you set in another object to be a copy of the same object reference, and you intend for changes you make to it to also be made in the object it was set in. If you setDate(Date dt) and modify dt later, who cares? Unless I want some basic immutable data bean that just has primitives and maybe something simple like a Date, I never use it. As far as clone, there are issues as to how deep or shallow the copy is, so it seems kind of "dangerous" to know what is going to come out when you clone an Object. I think I have only used clone() once or twice, and that was to copy the current state of the object because another thread (ie another HTTP request accessing the same object in Session) could be modifying it. Edit - A comment I made below is more the question: But then again, you DID change the Date, so it's kind of your own fault, hence whole discussion of term "defensive". If it is all application code under your own control among a small to medium group of developers, will just documenting your classes suffice as an alternative to making object copies? Or is this not necessary, since you should always assume something ISN'T copied when calling a setter/getter?

    Read the article

  • Computation overhead in C# - Using getters/setters vs. modifying arrays directly and casting speeds

    - by Jeffrey Kern
    I was going to write a long-winded post, but I'll boil it down here: I'm trying to emulate the graphical old-school style of the NES via XNA. However, my FPS is SLOW, trying to modify 65K pixels per frame. If I just loop through all 65K pixels and set them to some arbitrary color, I get 64FPS. The code I made to look-up what colors should be placed where, I get 1FPS. I think it is because of my object-orented code. Right now, I have things divided into about six classes, with getters/setters. I'm guessing that I'm at least calling 360K getters per frame, which I think is a lot of overhead. Each class contains either/and-or 1D or 2D arrays containing custom enumerations, int, Color, or Vector2D, bytes. What if I combined all of the classes into just one, and accessed the contents of each array directly? The code would look a mess, and ditch the concepts of object-oriented coding, but the speed might be much faster. I'm also not concerned about access violations, as any attempts to get/set the data in the arrays will done in blocks. E.g., all writing to arrays will take place before any data is accessed from them. As for casting, I stated that I'm using custom enumerations, int, Color, and Vector2D, bytes. Which data types are fastest to use and access in the .net Framework, XNA, XBox, C#? I think that constant casting might be a cause of slowdown here. Also, instead of using math to figure out which indexes data should be placed in, I've used precomputed lookup tables so I don't have to use constant multiplication, addition, subtraction, division per frame. :)

    Read the article

  • How can a collection class instantiate many objects with one database call?

    - by Buttle Butkus
    I have a baseClass where I do not want public setters. I have a load($id) method that will retrieve the data for that object from the db. I have been using static class methods like getBy($property,$values) to return multiple class objects using a single database call. But some people say that static methods are not OOP. So now I'm trying to create a baseClassCollection that can do the same thing. But it can't, because it cannot access protected setters. I don't want everyone to be able to set the object's data. But it seems that it is an all-or-nothing proposition. I cannot give just the collection class access to the setters. I've seen a solution using debug_backtrace() but that seems inelegant. I'm moving toward just making the setters public. Are there any other solutions? Or should I even be looking for other solutions?

    Read the article

  • Is this a reasonable way to handle getters/setters in a PHP class?

    - by Mark Biek
    I'm going to try something with the format of this question and I'm very open to suggestions about a better way to handle it. I didn't want to just dump a bunch of code in the question so I've posted the code for the class on refactormycode. base-class-for-easy-class-property-handling My thought was that people can either post code snippets here or make changes on refactormycode and post links back to their refactorings. I'll make upvotes and accept an answer (assuming there's a clear "winner") based on that. At any rate, on to the class itself: I see a lot of debate about getter/setter class methods and is it better to just access simple property variables directly or should every class have explicit get/set methods defined, blah blah blah. I like the idea of having explicit methods in case you have to add more logic later. Then you don't have to modify any code that uses the class. However I hate having a million functions that look like this: public function getFirstName() { return $this->firstName; } public function setFirstName($firstName) { return $this->firstName; } Now I'm sure I'm not the first person to do this (I'm hoping that there's a better way of doing it that someone can suggest to me). Basically, the PropertyHandler class has a __call magic method. Any methods that come through __call that start with "get" or "set" are then routed to functions that set or retrieve values into an associative array. The key into the array is the name of the calling method after get or set. So, if the method coming into __call is "getFirstName", the array key is "FirstName". I liked using __call because it will automatically take care of the case where the subclass already has a "getFirstName" method defined. My impression (and I may be wrong) is that the __get & __set magic methods don't do that. So here's an example of how it would work: class PropTest extends PropertyHandler { public function __construct() { parent::__construct(); } } $props = new PropTest(); $props->setFirstName("Mark"); echo $props->getFirstName(); Notice that PropTest doesn't actually have "setFirstName" or "getFirstName" methods and neither does PropertyHandler. All that's doing is manipulating array values. The other case would be where your subclass is already extending something else. Since you can't have true multiple inheritance in PHP, you can make your subclass have a PropertyHandler instance as a private variable. You have to add one more function but then things behave in exactly the same way. class PropTest2 { private $props; public function __construct() { $this->props = new PropertyHandler(); } public function __call($method, $arguments) { return $this->props->__call($method, $arguments); } } $props2 = new PropTest2(); $props2->setFirstName('Mark'); echo $props2->getFirstName(); Notice how the subclass has a __call method that just passes everything along to the PropertyHandler __call method. Another good argument against handling getters and setters this way is that it makes it really hard to document. In fact, it's basically impossible to use any sort of document generation tool since the explicit methods to be don't documented don't exist. I've pretty much abandoned this approach for now. It was an interesting learning exercise but I think it sacrifices too much clarity.

    Read the article

  • Am I doing getters/setters the right way in Java?

    - by Sergio Tapia
    public class Persona { int Codigo; String Nombre; public Persona(int Codigo, String Nombre){ this.Codigo = Codigo; this.Nombre = Nombre; } public void setCodigo(int Codigo){ this.Codigo = Codigo; } public int getCodigo(){ return this.Codigo; } public void setNombre(String Nombre){ this.Nombre = Nombre; } public String getNombre(){ return this.Nombre; } } Or is there a much shorter (realiable) way to do it?

    Read the article

  • What's the order of execution in property setters when using IDataErrorInfo?

    - by Benny Jobigan
    Situation: Many times with WPF, we use INotifyPropertyChanged and IDataErrorInfo to enable binding and validation on our data objects. I've got a lot of properties that look like this: public SomeObject SomeData { get { return _SomeData; } set { _SomeData = value; OnPropertyChanged("SomeData"); } } Of course, I have an appropriate overridden IDataErrorInfo.this[] in my class to do validation. Question: In a binding situation, when does the validation code get executed? When is the property set? When is the setter code executed? What if the validation fails? For example: User enters new data. Binding writes data to property. Property set method is executed. Binding checks this[] for validation. If the data is invalid, the binding sets the property back to the old value. Property set method is executed again. This is important if you are adding "hooks" into the set method, like: public string PathToFile { get { return _PathToFile; } set { if (_PathToFile != value && // prevent unnecessary actions OnPathToFileChanging(value)) // allow subclasses to do something or stop the setter { _PathToFile = value; OnPathToFileChanged(); // allow subclasses to do something afterwards OnPropertyChanged("PathToFile"); } } }

    Read the article

  • are there requirements for Struts setters beyond variable name matching?

    - by slk
    I have a model-driven Struts Web action: public class ModelDrivenAction<T extends Object> implements ModelDriven<T>, Preparable { protected Long id; protected T model; @Override public void prepare() {} public void setId(Long id) { this.id = id; } @Override public T getModel() { return model; } public void setModel(T model) { this.model = model; } } I have another action which is not currently model-driven: public class OtherAction implements Preparable { private ModelObj modelObj; private Long modelId; @Override public void prepare() { modelObj = repoService.retrieveModelById(modelId); } public void setModelId(Long modelId) { this.modelId = modelId; } } I wish to make it so, and would like to avoid having to track down all the instances in JavaScript where the action is passed a "modelId" parameter instead of "id" if at all possible. I thought this might work, so either modelId or id could be passed in: public class OtherAction extends ModelDrivenAction<ModelObj> { @Override public void prepare() { model = repoService.retrieveModelById(id); } public void setModelId(Long modelId) { this.id = modelId; } } However, server/path/to/other!method?modelId=123 is failing to set id. I thought so long as a setter matched a parameter name the Struts interceptor would call it on action invocation. Am I missing something here?

    Read the article

  • Problem persisting inheritance tree

    - by alaiseca
    I have a problem trying to map an inheritance tree. A simplified version of my model is like this: @MappedSuperclass @Embeddable public class BaseEmbedded implements Serializable { @Column(name="BE_FIELD") private String beField; // Getters and setters follow } @MappedSuperclass @Embeddable public class DerivedEmbedded extends BaseEmbedded { @Column(name="DE_FIELD") private String deField; // Getters and setters follow } @MappedSuperclass public abstract class BaseClass implements Serializable { @Embedded protected BaseEmbedded embedded; public BaseClass() { this.embedded = new BaseEmbedded(); } // Getters and setters follow } @Entity @Table(name="MYTABLE") @Inheritance(strategy=InheritanceType.SINGLE_TABLE) @DiscriminatorColumn(name="TYPE", discriminatorType=DiscriminatorType.STRING) public class DerivedClass extends BaseClass { @Id @Column(name="ID", nullable=false) private Long id; @Column(name="TYPE", nullable=false, insertable=false, updatable=false) private String type; public DerivedClass() { this.embedded = new DerivedClass(); } // Getters and setters follow } @Entity @DiscriminatorValue("A") public class DerivedClassA extends DerivedClass { @Embeddable public static NestedClassA extends DerivedEmbedded { @Column(name="FIELD_CLASS_A") private String fieldClassA; } public DerivedClassA() { this.embedded = new NestedClassA(); } // Getters and setters follow } @Entity @DiscriminatorValue("B") public class DerivedClassB extends DerivedClass { @Embeddable public static NestedClassB extends DerivedEmbedded { @Column(name="FIELD_CLASS_B") private String fieldClassB; } public DerivedClassB() { this.embedded = new NestedClassB(); } // Getters and setters follow } At Java level, this model is working fine, and I believe is the appropriate one. My problem comes up when it's time to persist an object. At runtime, I can create an object which could be an instance of DerivedClass, DerivedClassA or DerivedClassB. As you can see, each one of the derived classes introduces a new field which only makes sense for that specific derived class. All the classes share the same physical table in the database. If I persist an object of type DerivedClass, I expect fields BE_FIELD, DE_FIELD, ID and TYPE to be persisted with their values and the remaining fields to be null. If I persist an object of type DerivedClass A, I expect those same fields plus the FIELD_CLASS_A field to be persisted with their values and field FIELD_CLASS_B to be null. Something equivalent for an object of type DerivedClassB. Since the @Embedded annotation is at the BaseClass only, Hibernate is only persisting the fields up to that level in the tree. I don't know how to tell Hibernate that I want to persist up to the appropriate level in the tree, depending on the actual type of the embedded property. I cannot have another @Embedded property in the subclasses since this would duplicate data that is already present in the superclass and would also break the Java model. I cannot declare the embedded property to be of a more specific type either, since it's only at runtime when the actual object is created and I don't have a single branch in the hierarchy. Is it possible to solve my problem? Or should I resignate myself to accept that there is no way to persist the Java model as it is? Any help will be greatly appreciated.

    Read the article

  • Generated Methods with Type Hints

    - by Ondrej Brejla
    Hi all! Today we would like to introduce you just another feature from upcoming NetBeans 7.3. It's about generating setters, constructors and type hints of their parameters. For years, you can use Insert Code action to generate setters, getters, constructors and such. Nothing new. But from NetBeans 7.3 you can generate Fluent Setters! What does it mean? Simply that $this is returned from a generated setter. This is how it looks like: But that's not everything :) As you know, before a method is generated, you have to choose a field, which will be associated with that method (in case of constructors, you choose fileds which should be initialized by that constructor). And from NetBeans 7.3, type hints are generated automatically for these parameters! But only if a proper PHPDoc is used in a corresponding field declaration, of course. Here is how it looks like. And that's all for today and as usual, please test it and if you find something strange, don't hesitate to file a new issue (product php, component Editor). Thanks a lot!

    Read the article

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