Search Results

Search found 4593 results on 184 pages for 'constructor injection'.

Page 38/184 | < Previous Page | 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45  | Next Page >

  • Implicitly invoking parent class initializer

    - by Matt Joiner
    class A(object): def __init__(self, a, b, c): #super(A, self).__init__() super(self.__class__, self).__init__() class B(A): def __init__(self, b, c): print super(B, self) print super(self.__class__, self) #super(B, self).__init__(1, b, c) super(self.__class__, self).__init__(1, b, c) class C(B): def __init__(self, c): #super(C, self).__init__(2, c) super(self.__class__, self).__init__(2, c) C(3) In the above code, the commented out __init__ calls appear to the be the commonly accepted "smart" way to do super class initialization. However in the event that the class hierarchy is likely to change, I have been using the uncommented form, until recently. It appears that in the call to the super constructor for B in the above hierarchy, that B.__init__ is called again, self.__class__ is actually C, not B as I had always assumed. Is there some way in Python-2.x that I can overcome this, and maintain proper MRO when calling super constructors without actually naming the current class?

    Read the article

  • Overriding Constructors in F#

    - by kim3er
    How would I write the following C# code in F#? namespace Shared { public class SharedRegistry : PageRegistry { public SharedRegistry(bool useCache = true) : base(useCache) { // Repositories ForRequestedType<IAddressRepository>().TheDefaultIsConcreteType<SqlAddressRepository>(); ForRequestedType<ISharedEnquiryRepository>().TheDefaultIsConcreteType<SharedEnquiryRepository>(); // Services ForRequestedType<IAddressService>().TheDefaultIsConcreteType<AddressService>(); ForRequestedType<ISharedEnquiryService>().TheDefaultIsConcreteType<SharedEnquiryService>(); } } } As is as far as I have managed, but I can't work out to inherit from PageRegistry at the same time as declaring my own default constructor. type SharedRegistry(useCache: bool) = inherit PageRegistry(useCache) new() = new SharedRegistry(true) Rich

    Read the article

  • Handling dependencies with IoC that change within a single function call

    - by Jess
    We are trying to figure out how to setup Dependency Injection for situations where service classes can have different dependencies based on how they are used. In our specific case, we have a web app where 95% of the time the connection string is the same for the entire Request (this is a web application), but sometimes it can change. For example, we might have 2 classes with the following dependencies (simplified version - service actually has 4 dependencies): public LoginService (IUserRepository userRep) { } public UserRepository (IContext dbContext) { } In our IoC container, most of our dependencies are auto-wired except the Context for which I have something like this (not actual code, it's from memory ... this is StructureMap): x.ForRequestedType().Use() .WithCtorArg("connectionString").EqualTo(Session["ConnString"]); For 95% of our web application, this works perfectly. However, we have some admin-type functions that must operate across thousands of databases (one per client). Basically, we'd want to do this: public CreateUserList(IList<string> connStrings) { foreach (connString in connStrings) { //first create dependency graph using new connection string ???? //then call service method on new database _loginService.GetReportDataForAllUsers(); } } My question is: How do we create that new dependency graph for each time through the loop, while maintaining something that can easily be tested?

    Read the article

  • Considerations when architecting an extensible application using MEF

    - by Dan Bryant
    I've begun experimenting with dependency injection (in particular, MEF) for one of my projects, which has a number of different extensibility points. I'm starting to get a feel for what I can do with MEF, but I'd like to hear from others who have more experience with the technology. A few specific cases: My main use case at the moment is exposing various singleton-like services that my extensions make use of. My Framework assembly exposes service interfaces and my Engine assembly contains concrete implementations. This works well, but I may not want to allow all of my extensions to have access to all of my services. Is there a good way within MEF to limit which particular imports I allow a newly instantiated extension to resolve? This particular application has extension objects that I repeatedly instantiate. I can import multiple types of Controllers and Machines, which are instantiated in different combinations for a Project. I couldn't find a good way to do this with MEF, so I'm doing my own type discovery and instantiation. Is there a good way to do this within MEF or other DI frameworks? I welcome input on any other things to watch out for or surprising capabilities you've discovered that have changed the way you architect.

    Read the article

  • By-Name-Parameters for Constructors

    - by hotzen
    Hello, coming from my other question is there a way to get by-name-parameters for constructors working? I need a way to provide a code-block which is executed on-demand/lazy/by-name inside an object and this code-block must be able to access the class-methods as if the code-block were part of the class. Following Testcase fails: package test class ByNameCons(code: => Unit) { def exec() = { println("pre-code") code println("post-code") } def meth() = println("method") def exec2(code2: => Unit) = { println("pre-code") code2 println("post-code") } } object ByNameCons { def main(args: Array[String]): Unit = { val tst = new ByNameCons { println("foo") meth() // knows meth() as code is part of ByNameCons } tst.exec() // ByName fails (executed right as constructor) println("--------") tst.exec2 { // ByName works println("foo") //meth() // does not know meth() as code is NOT part of ByNameCons } } } Output: foo method pre-code post-code -------- pre-code foo post-code

    Read the article

  • Applying policy based design question

    - by Arthur
    I've not read the Modern C++ Design book but have found the idea of behavior injection through templates interesting. I am now trying to apply it myself. I have a class that has a logger that I thought could be injected as a policy. The logger has a log() method which takes an std::string or std::wstring depending on its policy: // basic_logger.hpp template<class String> class basic_logger { public: typedef String string_type; void log(const string_type & s) { ... } }; typedef basic_logger<std::string> logger; typedef basic_logger<std::wstring> wlogger; // reader.hpp template<class Logger = logger> class reader { public: typedef Logger logger_type; void read() { _logger.log("Reading..."); } private: logger_type _logger; }; Now the questing is, should the reader take a Logger as an argument, like above, or should it take a String and then instantiate a basic_logger as an instance variable? Like so: template<class String> class reader { public: typedef String string_type; typedef basic_logger<string_type> logger_type; // ... private: logger_type _logger; }; What is the right way to go?

    Read the article

  • Returning in a static initializer

    - by Martijn Courteaux
    Hello, This isn't valid code: public class MyClass { private static boolean yesNo = false; static { if (yesNo) { System.out.println("Yes"); return; // The return statement is the problem } System.exit(0); } } This is a stupid example, but in a static class constructor we can't return;. Why? Are there good reasons for this? Does someone know something more about this? So the reason why I should do return is to end constructing there. Thanks

    Read the article

  • Throwing Exception in CTOR and Smart Pointers

    - by David Relihan
    Is it OK to have the following code in my constructor to load an XML document into a member variable - throwing to caller if there are any problems: MSXML2::IXMLDOMDocumentPtr m_docPtr; //member Configuration() { try { HRESULT hr = m_docPtr.CreateInstance(__uuidof(MSXML2::DOMDocument40)); if ( SUCCEEDED(hr)) { m_docPtr->loadXML(CreateXML()); } else { //throw exception to caller } } catch(...) { //throw exception to caller } } Based on Scott Myers RAII implementations in More Effective C++ I believe I am alright in just allowing exceptions to be thrown from CTOR as I am using a smart pointer(IXMLDOMDocumentPtr). Let me know what you think....

    Read the article

  • Very basic Javascript constructors problem

    - by misha-moroshko
    Hi, In the following JavaScript code main() is called. My question is why the second constructor is called rather than the first one ? What am I missing here ? Thanks !! function AllInputs() { alert("cons 1"); this.radioInputs = []; alert(this); } function AllInputs(radioElement) { alert("cons 2"); this.radioInputs = [radioElement]; alert(this); } AllInputs.prototype.toString = function() { return "[object AllInputs: radioInputs: " + this.radioInputs.length + "]"; } function main() { var result = new AllInputs(); }

    Read the article

  • What is the proper way to access datastore in custom Model Binders?

    - by mare
    How should I properly implement data access in my custom model binders? Like in controllers I use IContentRepository and then have it create an instance of its implementing class in constructor. So I have everything ready for incorporating IoC (DI) at a later stage. Now I need something similar in model binder. I need to make some DB lookups in the binder. I'm thinking of doing it the same way I do it in controllers but I am open to suggestion. This is a snippet from one of my controllers so you can imagine how I'm doing it in them: public class WidgetZoneController : BaseController { // BaseController has IContentRepository ContentRepository field public WidgetZoneController() : this(new XmlWidgetZoneRepository()) { } public WidgetZoneController(IContentRepository repository) { ContentRepository = repository; } ...

    Read the article

  • @PersistenceContext cannot be resolved to a type

    - by Saken Kungozhin
    i was running a code in which there's a dependency @PersistenceContext and field private EntityManager em; both of which cannot be resolved to a type, what is the meaning of this error and how can i fix it? the code is here: package org.jboss.tools.examples.util; import java.util.logging.Logger;` import javax.enterprise.context.RequestScoped; import javax.enterprise.inject.Produces; import javax.enterprise.inject.spi.InjectionPoint; import javax.faces.context.FacesContext; /** * This class uses CDI to alias Java EE resources, such as the persistence context, to CDI beans * * <p> * Example injection on a managed bean field: * </p> * * <pre> * &#064;Inject * private EntityManager em; * </pre> */ public class Resources { // use @SuppressWarnings to tell IDE to ignore warnings about field not being referenced directly @SuppressWarnings("unused") @Produces @PersistenceContext private EntityManager em; @Produces public Logger produceLog(InjectionPoint injectionPoint) { return Logger.getLogger(injectionPoint.getMember().getDeclaringClass().getName()); } @Produces @RequestScoped public FacesContext produceFacesContext() { return FacesContext.getCurrentInstance(); } }

    Read the article

  • template class: ctor against function -> new C++ standard

    - by Oops
    Hi in this question: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/2779155/template-point2-double-point3-double Dennis and Michael noticed the unreasonable foolishly implemented constructor. They were right, I didn't consider this at that moment. But I found out that a constructor does not help very much for a template class like this one, instead a function is here much more convenient and safe namespace point { template < unsigned int dims, typename T > struct Point { T X[ dims ]; std::string str() { std::stringstream s; s << "{"; for ( int i = 0; i < dims; ++i ) { s << " X" << i << ": " << X[ i ] << (( i < dims -1 )? " |": " "); } s << "}"; return s.str(); } Point<dims, int> toint() { Point<dims, int> ret; std::copy( X, X+dims, ret.X ); return ret; } }; template < typename T > Point< 2, T > Create( T X0, T X1 ) { Point< 2, T > ret; ret.X[ 0 ] = X0; ret.X[ 1 ] = X1; return ret; } template < typename T > Point< 3, T > Create( T X0, T X1, T X2 ) { Point< 3, T > ret; ret.X[ 0 ] = X0; ret.X[ 1 ] = X1; ret.X[ 2 ] = X2; return ret; } template < typename T > Point< 4, T > Create( T X0, T X1, T X2, T X3 ) { Point< 4, T > ret; ret.X[ 0 ] = X0; ret.X[ 1 ] = X1; ret.X[ 2 ] = X2; ret.X[ 3 ] = X3; return ret; } }; int main( void ) { using namespace point; Point< 2, double > p2d = point::Create( 12.3, 34.5 ); Point< 3, double > p3d = point::Create( 12.3, 34.5, 56.7 ); Point< 4, double > p4d = point::Create( 12.3, 34.5, 56.7, 78.9 ); //Point< 3, double > p1d = point::Create( 12.3, 34.5 ); //no suitable user defined conversion exists //Point< 3, int > p1i = p4d.toint(); //no suitable user defined conversion exists Point< 2, int > p2i = p2d.toint(); Point< 3, int > p3i = p3d.toint(); Point< 4, int > p4i = p4d.toint(); std::cout << p2d.str() << std::endl; std::cout << p3d.str() << std::endl; std::cout << p4d.str() << std::endl; std::cout << p2i.str() << std::endl; std::cout << p3i.str() << std::endl; std::cout << p4i.str() << std::endl; char c; std::cin >> c; } has the new C++ standard any new improvements, language features or simplifications regarding this aspect of ctor of a template class? what do you think about the implementation of the combination of namespace, stuct and Create function? many thanks in advance Oops

    Read the article

  • How to collect and inject all beans of a given type in Spring XML configuration

    - by GrzegorzOledzki
    One of the strongest accents of the Spring framework is the Dependency Injection concept. I understand one of the advices behind that is to separate general high-level mechanism from low-level details (as announced by Dependency Inversion Principle). Technically, that boils down to having a bean implementation to know as little as possible about a bean being injected as a dependency, e.g. public class PrintOutBean { private LogicBean logicBean; public void action() { System.out.println(logicBean.humanReadableDetails()); } //... } <bean class="PrintOutBean"> <property name="loginBean" ref="ShoppingCartBean"/> </bean> But what if I wanted to a have a high-level mechanism operating on multiple dependent beans? public class MenuManagementBean { private Collection<Option> options; public void printOut() { for (Option option:options) { // do something for option } //... } } I know one solution would be to use @Autowired annotation in the singleton bean, that is... @Autowired private Collection<Option> options; But doesn't it violate the separation principle? Why do I have to specify what dependents to take in the very same place I use them (i.e. MenuManagementBean class in my example)? Is there a way to inject collections of beans in the XML configuration like this (without any annotation in the MMB class)? <bean class="MenuManagementBean"> <property name="options"> <xxx:autowire by-type="MyOptionImpl"/> </property> </bean>

    Read the article

  • What's the benefit of calling new on an object instance?

    - by Geo
    I'm reading [Programming Perl][1], and I found this code snippet: sub new { my $invocant = shift; my $class = ref($invocant) || $invocant; my $self = { color => "bay", legs => 4, owner => undef, @_, # Override previous attributes }; return bless $self, $class; } With constructors like this one, what's the benefit of calling new on an object instance? I assume that it's what it's for, right? My guess is that if anyone would want to write such a constructor, he would have to add some more code that copies the attributes of the first object to the one about to be created.

    Read the article

  • PHP: How to Pass child class __construct() arguments to parent::__construct() ?

    - by none
    I have a class in PHP like so: class ParentClass { function __construct($arg) { // Initialize a/some variable(s) based on $arg } } It has a child class, as such: class ChildClass extends ParentClass { function __construct($arg) { // Let the parent handle construction. parent::__construct($arg); } } What if, for some reason, the ParentClass needs to change to take more than one optional argument, which I would like my Child class to provide "just in case"? Unless I re-code the ChildClass, it will only ever take the one argument to the constructor, and will only ever pass that one argument. Is this so rare or such a bad practice that the usual case is that a ChildClass wouldn't need to be inheriting from a ParentClass that takes different arguments? Essentially, I've seen in Python where you can pass a potentially unknown number of arguments to a function via somefunction(*args) where 'args' is an array/iterable of some kind. Does something like this exist in PHP? Or should I refactor these classes before proceeding?

    Read the article

  • Where do you put your dependencies?

    - by The All Foo
    If I use the dependency injection pattern to remove dependencies they end up some where else. For example, Snippet 1, or what I call Object Maker. I mean you have to instantiate your objects somewhere...so when you move dependency out of one object, you end up putting it another one. I see that this consolidates all my dependencies into one object. Is that the point, to reduce your dependencies so that they all reside in a single ( as close to as possible ) location? Snippet 1 - Object Maker <?php class ObjectMaker { public function makeSignUp() { $DatabaseObject = new Database(); $TextObject = new Text(); $MessageObject = new Message(); $SignUpObject = new ControlSignUp(); $SignUpObject->setObjects($DatabaseObject, $TextObject, $MessageObject); return $SignUpObject; } public function makeSignIn() { $DatabaseObject = new Database(); $TextObject = new Text(); $MessageObject = new Message(); $SignInObject = new ControlSignIn(); $SignInObject->setObjects($DatabaseObject, $TextObject, $MessageObject); return $SignInObject; } public function makeTweet( $DatabaseObject = NULL, $TextObject = NULL, $MessageObject = NULL ) { if( $DatabaseObject == 'small' ) { $DatabaseObject = new Database(); } else if( $DatabaseObject == NULL ) { $DatabaseObject = new Database(); $TextObject = new Text(); $MessageObject = new Message(); } $TweetObject = new ControlTweet(); $TweetObject->setObjects($DatabaseObject, $TextObject, $MessageObject); return $TweetObject; } public function makeBookmark( $DatabaseObject = NULL, $TextObject = NULL, $MessageObject = NULL ) { if( $DatabaseObject == 'small' ) { $DatabaseObject = new Database(); } else if( $DatabaseObject == NULL ) { $DatabaseObject = new Database(); $TextObject = new Text(); $MessageObject = new Message(); } $BookmarkObject = new ControlBookmark(); $BookmarkObject->setObjects($DatabaseObject,$TextObject,$MessageObject); return $BookmarkObject; } }

    Read the article

  • Spring Dependency Injecting an annotated Aspect

    Using Spring I've had some issues with doing a dependency injection on an annotated Aspect class. CacheService is injected upon the Spring context's startup, but when the weaving takes place, it says that the cacheService is null. So I am forced to relook up the spring context manually and get the bean from there. Is there another way of going about it? Here is an example of my Aspect: import org.apache.log4j.Logger; import org.aspectj.lang.ProceedingJoinPoint; import org.aspectj.lang.annotation.Around; import org.aspectj.lang.annotation.Aspect; import com.mzgubin.application.cache.CacheService; @Aspect public class CachingAdvice { private static Logger log = Logger.getLogger(CachingAdvice.class); private CacheService cacheService; @Around("execution(public *com.mzgubin.application.callMethod(..)) &&" + "args(params)") public Object addCachingToCreateXMLFromSite(ProceedingJoinPoint pjp, InterestingParams params) throws Throwable { log.debug("Weaving a method call to see if we should return something from the cache or create it from scratch by letting control flow move on"); Object result = null; if (getCacheService().objectExists(params))}{ result = getCacheService().getObject(params); } else { result = pjp.proceed(pjp.getArgs()); getCacheService().storeObject(params, result); } return result; } public CacheService getCacheService(){ return cacheService; } public void setCacheService(CacheService cacheService){ this.cacheService = cacheService; } }

    Read the article

  • Usage patterns/use cases for DI or when to start using it

    - by Fabian
    I'm not sure for which use cases one should to use DI in the application. I know that injecting services like PlaceService or CalculationService etc fits very well but should I also create my domain objects with DI like a User? What is if the User has only one constructor which requires a first and lastname. Is this solveable with DI? Should I use DI to create the instances for Set/List interfaces or is this pure overkill? I use guice primarily.

    Read the article

  • Castle Windsor Weak Typed Factory

    - by JeffN825
    In a very very limited number of scenarios, I need to go from an unknown Type (at compile time) to an instance of the object registered for that type. For the most part, I use typed factories and I know the type I want to resolve at compile time...so I inject a Func<IMyType> into a constructor ...but in these limited number of scenarios, in order to avoid a direct call to the container (and thus having to reference Windsor from the library, which is an anti-pattern I'd like to avoid), I need to inject a Func<Type,object>...which I want to internally container.Resolve(type) for the Type parameter of the Func. Does anyone have some suggestions on the easiest/most straightforward way of setting this up? I tried the following, but with this setup, I end up bypassing the regular TypedFactoryFacility altogether which is definitely not what I want: Kernel.Register(Component.For(typeof (Func<Type, object>)).LifeStyle.Singleton.UsingFactoryMethod( (kernel, componentModel, creationContext) => kernel.Resolve(/* not sure what to put here... */))); Thanks in advance for any assistance.

    Read the article

  • Can C++ Constructors be templates?

    - by Gokul
    Hi, I have non-template class with a templatized constructor. This code compiles for me. But i remember that somewhere i have referred that constructors cannot be templates. Can someone explain whether this is a valid usage? typedef double Vector; //enum Method {A, B, C, D, E, F}; struct A {}; class Butcher { public: template <class Method> Butcher(Method); private: Vector a, b, c; }; template <> Butcher::Butcher(struct A) : a(2), b(4), c(2) { // a = 0.5, 1; // b = -1, 1, 3, 2; // c = 0, 1; } Thanks, Gokul.

    Read the article

  • Is there anything wrong with taking immediate actions in constructors?

    - by pestaa
    I have classes like this one: class SomeObject { public function __construct($param1, $param2) { $this->process($param1, $param2); } ... } So I can instantly "call" it as some sort of global function just like new SomeObject($arg1, $arg2); which has the benefits of staying concise, being easy to understand, but might break unwritten rules of semantics by not waiting till a method is called. Should I continue to feel bad because of a bad practice, or there's really nothing to worry about? Clarification: I do want an instance of the class. I do use internal methods of the class only. I initialize the object in the constructor, but call the "important" action-taker methods too. I am selfish in the light of these sentences.

    Read the article

  • Static initialization of a struct with class members

    - by JS Bangs
    I have a struct that's defined with a large number of vanilla char* pointers, but also an object member. When I try to statically initialize such a struct, I get a compiler error. typedef struct { const char* pszA; // ... snip ... const char* pszZ; SomeObject obj; } example_struct; // I only want to assign the first few members, the rest should be default example_struct ex = { "a", "b" }; SomeObject has a public default constructor with no arguments, so I didn't think this would be a problem. But when I try to compile this (using VS), I get the following error: error C2248: 'SomeObject::SomeObject' : cannot access private member declared in class 'SomeObject' Any idea why?

    Read the article

  • How to instantiate objects of classes that have dependencies injected?

    - by chester89
    Let's say I have some class with dependency injected: public class SomeBusinessCaller { ILogger logger; public SomeBusinessCaller(ILogger logger) { this.logger = logger; } } My question is, how do I instantiate an object of that class? Let's say I have an implementation for this, called AppLogger. After I say ObjectFactory.For<ILogger>().Use<AppLogger>(); how do I call constructor of SomeBusinessCaller? Am I calling SomeBusinessCaller caller = ObjectFactory.GetInstance<SomeBusinessCaller>(); or there is a different strategy for that?

    Read the article

  • How to stable_sort without copying?

    - by Mehrdad
    Why does stable_sort need a copy constructor? (swap should suffice, right?) Or rather, how do I stable_sort a range without copying any elements? #include <algorithm> class Person { Person(Person const &); // Disable copying public: Person() : age(0) { } int age; void swap(Person &other) { using std::swap; swap(this->age, other.age); } friend void swap(Person &a, Person &b) { a.swap(b); } bool operator <(Person const &other) const { return this->age < other.age; } }; int main() { static size_t const n = 10; Person people[n]; std::stable_sort(people, people + n); }

    Read the article

  • c++ constructors

    - by aharont
    i wrote this code: class A { public: A(){d=2.2;cout<<d;} A(double d):d(d){cout<<d;} double getD(){return d;} private: double d; }; class Bing { public: Bing(){a=A(5.3);} void f(){cout<<a.getD();} private: A a; }; int main() { Bing b; b.f(); } i get the output: 2.2 5.3 5.3 instead of 5.3 5.3. it's something in the constructor.... wahy am i getting this? how can i fix it?

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45  | Next Page >