Search Results

Search found 8962 results on 359 pages for 'abstract factory pattern'.

Page 4/359 | < Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >

  • Class Mapping Error: 'T' must be a non-abstract type with a public parameterless constructor

    - by Amit Ranjan
    Hi, While mapping class i am getting error 'T' must be a non-abstract type with a public parameterless constructor in order to use it as parameter 'T' in the generic type or method. Below is my SqlReaderBase Class public abstract class SqlReaderBase<T> : ConnectionProvider { #region Abstract Methods protected abstract string commandText { get; } protected abstract CommandType commandType { get; } protected abstract Collection<IDataParameter> GetParameters(IDbCommand command); **protected abstract MapperBase<T> GetMapper();** #endregion #region Non Abstract Methods /// <summary> /// Method to Execute Select Queries for Retrieveing List of Result /// </summary> /// <returns></returns> public Collection<T> ExecuteReader() { //Collection of Type on which Template is applied Collection<T> collection = new Collection<T>(); // initializing connection using (IDbConnection connection = GetConnection()) { try { // creates command for sql operations IDbCommand command = connection.CreateCommand(); // assign connection to command command.Connection = connection; // assign query command.CommandText = commandText; //state what type of query is used, text, table or Sp command.CommandType = commandType; // retrieves parameter from IDataParameter Collection and assigns it to command object foreach (IDataParameter param in GetParameters(command)) command.Parameters.Add(param); // Establishes connection with database server connection.Open(); // Since it is designed for executing Select statements that will return a list of results // so we will call command's execute reader method that return a Forward Only reader with // list of results inside. using (IDataReader reader = command.ExecuteReader()) { try { // Call to Mapper Class of the template to map the data to its // respective fields MapperBase<T> mapper = GetMapper(); collection = mapper.MapAll(reader); } catch (Exception ex) // catch exception { throw ex; // log errr } finally { reader.Close(); reader.Dispose(); } } } catch (Exception ex) { throw ex; } finally { connection.Close(); connection.Dispose(); } } return collection; } #endregion } What I am trying to do is , I am executine some command and filling my class dynamically. The class is given below: namespace FooZo.Core { public class Restaurant { #region Private Member Variables private int _restaurantId = 0; private string _email = string.Empty; private string _website = string.Empty; private string _name = string.Empty; private string _address = string.Empty; private string _phone = string.Empty; private bool _hasMenu = false; private string _menuImagePath = string.Empty; private int _cuisine = 0; private bool _hasBar = false; private bool _hasHomeDelivery = false; private bool _hasDineIn = false; private int _type = 0; private string _restaurantImagePath = string.Empty; private string _serviceAvailableTill = string.Empty; private string _serviceAvailableFrom = string.Empty; public string Name { get { return _name; } set { _name = value; } } public string Address { get { return _address; } set { _address = value; } } public int RestaurantId { get { return _restaurantId; } set { _restaurantId = value; } } public string Website { get { return _website; } set { _website = value; } } public string Email { get { return _email; } set { _email = value; } } public string Phone { get { return _phone; } set { _phone = value; } } public bool HasMenu { get { return _hasMenu; } set { _hasMenu = value; } } public string MenuImagePath { get { return _menuImagePath; } set { _menuImagePath = value; } } public string RestaurantImagePath { get { return _restaurantImagePath; } set { _restaurantImagePath = value; } } public int Type { get { return _type; } set { _type = value; } } public int Cuisine { get { return _cuisine; } set { _cuisine = value; } } public bool HasBar { get { return _hasBar; } set { _hasBar = value; } } public bool HasHomeDelivery { get { return _hasHomeDelivery; } set { _hasHomeDelivery = value; } } public bool HasDineIn { get { return _hasDineIn; } set { _hasDineIn = value; } } public string ServiceAvailableFrom { get { return _serviceAvailableFrom; } set { _serviceAvailableFrom = value; } } public string ServiceAvailableTill { get { return _serviceAvailableTill; } set { _serviceAvailableTill = value; } } #endregion public Restaurant() { } } } For filling my class properties dynamically i have another class called MapperBase Class with following methods: public abstract class MapperBase<T> where T : new() { protected T Map(IDataRecord record) { T instance = new T(); string fieldName; PropertyInfo[] properties = typeof(T).GetProperties(); for (int i = 0; i < record.FieldCount; i++) { fieldName = record.GetName(i); foreach (PropertyInfo property in properties) { if (property.Name == fieldName) { property.SetValue(instance, record[i], null); } } } return instance; } public Collection<T> MapAll(IDataReader reader) { Collection<T> collection = new Collection<T>(); while (reader.Read()) { collection.Add(Map(reader)); } return collection; } } There is another class which inherits the SqlreaderBaseClass called DefaultSearch. Code is below public class DefaultSearch: SqlReaderBase<Restaurant> { protected override string commandText { get { return "Select Name from vw_Restaurants"; } } protected override CommandType commandType { get { return CommandType.Text; } } protected override Collection<IDataParameter> GetParameters(IDbCommand command) { Collection<IDataParameter> parameters = new Collection<IDataParameter>(); parameters.Clear(); return parameters; } protected override MapperBase<Restaurant> GetMapper() { MapperBase<Restaurant> mapper = new RMapper(); return mapper; } } But whenever I tried to build , I am getting error 'T' must be a non-abstract type with a public parameterless constructor in order to use it as parameter 'T' in the generic type or method. Even T here is Restaurant has a Parameterless Public constructor.

    Read the article

  • Factory Reset Asus

    - by Ben
    I have an ASUS All-in-one PC (not sure what model) and I'm trying to perform a Factory Restore but nothing is working yet. I have tried pressing F8, all I had access to was "Restore from an earlier point" - Today was the earliest point; and "Restore from an Image" - which I don't have. I have tried pressing F9, F10, and F11, but all that brought me was options to Start Windows normally, Run a system diagnostic, or try other options (F8 menu). I don't have any other discs to restore from or anything, and I have found a tutorial to try and create a Partition(?) to load the restore from that. Does anyone have any other ideas?

    Read the article

  • nHibernate, Automapping and Chained Abstract Classes

    - by Mr Snuffle
    I'm having some trouble using nHibernate, automapping and a class structure using multiple chains of abstract classes It's something akin to this public abstract class AbstractClassA {} public abstract class AbstractClassB : AbstractClassA {} public class ClassA : AbstractClassB {} When I attempt to build these mappings, I receive the following error "FluentNHibernate.Cfg.FluentConfigurationException was unhandled Message: An invalid or incomplete configuration was used while creating a SessionFactory. Check PotentialReasons collection, and InnerException for more detail. Database was not configured through Database method." However, if I remove the abstract keyword from AbstractClassB, everything works fine. The problem only occurs when I have more than one abstract class in the class hierarchy. I've manually configured the automapping to include both AbstractClassA and AbstractClassB using the following binding class public class BindItemBases : IManualBinding { public void Bind(FluentNHibernate.Automapping.AutoPersistenceModel model) { model.IncludeBase<AbstractClassA>(); model.IncludeBase<AbstractClassB>(); } } I've had to do a bit of hackery to get around this, but there must be a better way to get this working. Surely nHibernate supports something like this, I just haven't figured out how to configure it right. Cheers, James

    Read the article

  • Abstract class and constructor

    - by Amutha
    As abstract class can be instantiated ,still why constructor is allowed inside abstract class? public abstract class SomeClass { private string _label; public SomeClass(string label) { _label=label; } }

    Read the article

  • Extra arguments for Factory Girl

    - by J. Pablo Fernández
    I need to pass extra arguments to factory girl to be used in a callback. Something like this (but more complex really): Factory.define :blog do |blog| blog.name "Blah" blog.after_create do |blog| blog.posts += sample_posts blog.save! end end and then create it with something like this: Factory.create(:blog, :sample_posts => [post1, post2]) Any ideas how to do it?

    Read the article

  • Inheritance of Custom Attributes on Abstract Properties

    - by Marty Trenouth
    I've got a custom attribute that I want to apply to my base abstract class so that I can skip elements that don't need to be viewed by the user when displaying the item in HTML. It seems that the properties overriding the base class are not inheriting the attributes. Does overriding base properties (abstract or virtual) blow away attributes placed on the original property? From Attribute class Defination [AttributeUsage(AttributeTargets.Property, Inherited = true, AllowMultiple = false)] public class NoHtmlOutput : Attribute { } From Abstract Class Defination [NoHtmlOutput] public abstract Guid UniqueID { get; set; } From Concrete Class Defination public override Guid UniqueID{ get{ return MasterId;} set{MasterId = value;}} From class checking for attribute Type t = o.GetType(); foreach (PropertyInfo pi in t.GetProperties()) { if (pi.GetCustomAttributes(typeof(NoHtmlOutput), true).Length == 1) continue; // processing logic goes here }

    Read the article

  • myth about factory pattern

    - by leiz
    This has bothered me for awhile, and I have no clues if this is a myth. It seems that a factory pattern can ease the pain of adding a dependency for a class. For example, in a book, it has something like this Suppose that you have a class named Order. Initially it did not depend on anything. Therefore you didn't bother using a factory to create Order objects and you just used plain new to instantiate the objects. However, you now have a requirement that Order has to be created in association with a Customer. There are million places you need to change to add this extra parameter. If only you had de?ned a factory for the Order class, you would have met the new requirement without the same pain. How is this not same pain as adding an extra parameter to the constructor? I mean you would still need to provide an extra argument for the factory and that is also used by million places, right?

    Read the article

  • when to use the abstract factory pattern?

    - by hguser
    Hi: I want to know when we need to use the abstract factory pattern. Here is an example,I want to know if it is necessary. The UML THe above is the abstract factory pattern, it is recommended by my classmate. THe following is myown implemention. I do not think it is necessary to use the pattern. And the following is some core codes: package net; import java.io.IOException; import java.util.HashMap; import java.util.Map; import java.util.Properties; public class Test { public static void main(String[] args) throws IOException, InstantiationException, IllegalAccessException, ClassNotFoundException { DaoRepository dr=new DaoRepository(); AbstractDao dao=dr.findDao("sql"); dao.insert(); } } class DaoRepository { Map<String, AbstractDao> daoMap=new HashMap<String, AbstractDao>(); public DaoRepository () throws IOException, InstantiationException, IllegalAccessException, ClassNotFoundException { Properties p=new Properties(); p.load(DaoRepository.class.getResourceAsStream("Test.properties")); initDaos(p); } public void initDaos(Properties p) throws InstantiationException, IllegalAccessException, ClassNotFoundException { String[] daoarray=p.getProperty("dao").split(","); for(String dao:daoarray) { AbstractDao ad=(AbstractDao)Class.forName(dao).newInstance(); daoMap.put(ad.getID(),ad); } } public AbstractDao findDao(String id) {return daoMap.get(id);} } abstract class AbstractDao { public abstract String getID(); public abstract void insert(); public abstract void update(); } class SqlDao extends AbstractDao { public SqlDao() {} public String getID() {return "sql";} public void insert() {System.out.println("sql insert");} public void update() {System.out.println("sql update");} } class AccessDao extends AbstractDao { public AccessDao() {} public String getID() {return "access";} public void insert() {System.out.println("access insert");} public void update() {System.out.println("access update");} } And the content of the Test.properties is just one line: dao=net.SqlDao,net.SqlDao So any ont can tell me if this suitation is necessary?

    Read the article

  • singleton factory connection pdo

    - by Scarface
    Hey guys I am having a lot of trouble trying to understand this and I was just wondering if someone could help me with some questions. I found some code that is supposed to create a connection with pdo. The problem I was having was having my connection defined within functions. Someone suggested globals but then pointed to a 'better' solution http://stackoverflow.com/questions/130878/global-or-singleton-for-database-connection. My questions with this code are. PS I cannot format this code on this page so see the link if you cannot read What is the point of the connection factory? What goes inside new ConnectionFactory(...) When the connection is defined $db = new PDO(...); why is there no try or catch (I use those for error handling)? Does this then mean I have to use try and catch for every subsequent query? class ConnectionFactory { private static $factory; public static function getFactory() { if (!self::$factory) self::$factory = new ConnectionFactory(...); return self::$factory; } private $db; public function getConnection() { if (!$db) $db = new PDO(...); return $db; } } function getSomething() { $conn = ConnectionFactory::getFactory()-getConnection(); . . . }

    Read the article

  • Static classes in PHP via abstract keyword?

    - by Boldewyn
    According to the PHP manual, a class like this: abstract class Example {} cannot be instantiated. If I need a class without instance, e.g. for a registry pattern: class Registry {} // and later: echo Registry::$someValue; would it be considered good style to simply declare the class as abstract? If not, what are the advantages of hiding the constructor as protected method compared to an abstract class? Rationale for asking: As far as I see it, it could a bit of feature abuse, since the manual refers to abstract classes more as like blueprints for later classes with instantiation possibility.

    Read the article

  • abstract method signature, inheritance, and "Do" naming convention

    - by T. Webster
    I'm learning about design patterns and in examples of code I've seen a convention where the abstract class declares a method, for example: public abstract class ServiceBase { ... public virtual object GetSomething(); and then protected abstract object DoGetSomething(); My question is on why these two methods exist, since they appear to serve the same purpose. Is this so that the base class GetSomething() method logic cannot be overridden by inherited classes? But then again, the method is marked virtual, so it can be overridden anyway. What is the usefulness here in requiring derived class implementers to implement the abstract method when the virtual method can be called anyway?

    Read the article

  • Abstract classes in shared library

    - by JTom
    Hi, I have an ordinary abstract class that has couple of pure virtual methods. The class itself is a part of the shared library. The compilation of the shared library itself is OK. But when the library is linked to another program that has another class deriving from the abstract one in the shared library and defining the pure virtual methods, I get the following linker error: I compile like this..: g++ -I../path/to/the/library main.cpp derived.cpp -L../path/to/the/library -lsomename -o shared ...and the linker error is: libsomename.so: undefined reference to `AbstractClass::method()' It's like the abstract class cannot access its pure virtual methods but I do not try to make any instance of the abstract class anywhere in the library. What could be the problem?

    Read the article

  • Python 2.6, 3 abstract base class misunderstanding

    - by Aaron
    I'm not seeing what I expect when I use ABCMeta and abstractmethod. This works fine in python3: from abc import ABCMeta, abstractmethod class Super(metaclass=ABCMeta): @abstractmethod def method(self): pass a = Super() TypeError: Can't instantiate abstract class Super ... And in 2.6: class Super(): __metaclass__ = ABCMeta @abstractmethod def method(self): pass a = Super() TypeError: Can't instantiate abstract class Super ... They both also work fine (I get the expected exception) if I derive Super from object, in addition to ABCMeta. They both "fail" (no exception raised) if I derive Super from list. I want an abstract base class to be a list but abstract, and concrete in sub classes. Am I doing it wrong, or should I not want this in python?

    Read the article

  • Size of abstract class

    - by webgenius
    How can I find the size of an abstract class? class A { virtual void PureVirtualFunction() = 0; }; Since this is an abstract class, I can't create objects of this class. How will I be able to find the size of the abstract class A using the 'sizeof' operator?

    Read the article

  • Create a new instance in a static function of an abstract class

    - by arno
    abstract class db_table { static function get_all_rows() { ... while(...) { $rows[] = new self(); ... } return $rows; } } class user extends db_table { } $rows = user::get_all_rows(); I want to create instances of a class from a static method defined in the abstract parent class but PHP tells me "Fatal error: Cannot instantiate abstract class ..." How should I implement it correctly?

    Read the article

  • Inventory is not abstract and does not override abstract method

    - by Dan
    OK so my applet is not compiling and I Googled some answers and none worked. (Such as taking public out of public class)... Here's my code: http://www.so.pastebin.com/MBjZGneg Heere is my error: C:\Users\Dan\Documents\DanJavaGen\Inventory.java:12: Inventory is not abstract and does not override abstract method keyReleased(java.awt.event.KeyEvent) in java.awt.event.KeyListener public class Inventory extends Applet implements KeyListener { ... help? :) please.

    Read the article

  • Identity Map Pattern and the Entity Framework

    - by nikolaosk
    This is going to be the seventh post of a series of posts regarding ASP.Net and the Entity Framework and how we can use Entity Framework to access our datastore. You can find the first one here , the second one here and the third one here , the fourth one here , the fifth one here and the sixth one here . I have a post regarding ASP.Net and EntityDataSource. You can read it here .I have 3 more posts on Profiling Entity Framework applications. You can have a look at them here , here and here . In...(read more)

    Read the article

  • Optimal communication pattern to update subscribers

    - by hpc
    What is the optimal way to update the subscriber's local model on changes C on a central model M? ( M + C - M_c) The update can be done by the following methods: Publish the updated model M_c to all subscribers. Drawback: if the model is big in contrast to the change it results in much more data to be communicated. Publish change C to all subscribes. The subscribers will then update their local model in the same way as the server does. Drawback: The client needs to know the business logic to update the model in the same way as the server. It must be assured that the subscribed model stays equal to the central model. Calculate the delta (or patch) of the change (M_c - M = D_c) and transfer the delta. Drawback: This requires that calculating and applying the delta (M + D_c = M_c) is an cheap/easy operation. If a client newly subscribes it must be initialized. This involves sending the current model M. So method 1 is always required. Think of playing chess as a concrete example: Subscribers send moves and want to see the latest chess board state. The server checks validity of the move and applies it to the chess board. The server can then send the updated chessboard (method 1) or just send the move (method 2) or send the delta (method 3): remove piece on field D4, put tower on field D8.

    Read the article

  • Does this factory method pattern example violate open-close?

    - by William
    In Head-First Design Patterns, they use a pizza shop example to demonstrate the factory method pattern. public abstract class PizzaStore { public Pizza orderPizza(String type) { Pizza pizza; pizza = createPizza(type); pizza.prepare(); pizza.bake(); pizza.cut(); pizza.box(); return pizza; } abstract Pizza createPizza(String type) } public class NYPizzaStore extends PizzaStore { Pizza createPizza(String item) { if (item.equals("cheese") { return new NYStyleCheesePizza(); } else if (item.equals("veggie")) { return new NYStyleVeggiePizza(); } else if (item.equals("clam")) { return new NYStyleClamPizza(); } else if (item.equals("pepperoni")) { return new NYStylePepperioniPizza(); } else return null; } } I don't understand how this pattern is not violating open-close. What if we require a beef Pizza, then we must edit the if statement in the NYPizzaStore class.

    Read the article

  • is a factory pattern to prevent multuple instances for same object (instance that is Equal) good design?

    - by dsollen
    I have a number of objects storing state. There are essentially two types of fields. The ones that uniquly define what the object is (what node, what edge etc), and the oens that store state describing how these things are connected (this node is connected to these edges, this edge is part of these paths) etc. My model is updating the state variables using package methdos, so these objects all act as immutable to anyone not in Model scope. All Objects extend one base type. I've toyed with the idea of a Factory approch which accepts a Builder object and construct the applicable object. However, if an instance of the object already exists (ie would return true if I created the object defined by the builder and passed it to the equal method for the existing instance) the factory returns the current object instead of creating a new instance. Because the Equal method would only compare what uniquly defines the type of object (this is node A nto node B) but won't check the dynamic state stuff (node A is currently connected to nodes C and E) this would be a way of ensuring anyone that wants my Node A automatically knows it's state connections. More importantly it would prevent aliasing nightmares of someone trying to pass an instance of node A with different state then the node A in my model has. I've never heard of this pattern before, and it's a bit odd. I would have to do some overiding of serlization methods to make it work (ensure when I read in a serilized object I add it to my facotry list of known instances, and/or return an existing factory in it's place), as well as using a weakHashMap as if it was a weakHashSet to know rather an instance exists without worrying about a quasi-memory leak occuring. I don't know if this is too confusing or prone to it's own obscure bugs. One thing I know is that plugins interface with lowest level hardware. The plugins have to be able to return state taht is different then my memory; to tell my memory when it's own state is inconsistent. I believe this is possible despit their fetching objects that exist in my memory; we allow building of objects without checking their consistency with the model until the addToModel is called anyways; and the existing plugins design was written before all this extra state existed and worked fine without ever being aware of it. Should I just be using some other design to avoid this crazyness? (I have another question to that affect I'm posting).

    Read the article

  • Is there a factory pattern to prevent multiple instances for same object (instance that is Equal) good design?

    - by dsollen
    I have a number of objects storing state. There are essentially two types of fields. The ones that uniquely define what the object is (what node, what edge etc), and the others that store state describing how these things are connected (this node is connected to these edges, this edge is part of these paths) etc. My model is updating the state variables using package methods, so all these objects act as immutable to anyone not in Model scope. All Objects extend one base type. I've toyed with the idea of a Factory approach which accepts a Builder object and constructs the applicable object. However, if an instance of the object already exists (ie would return true if I created the object defined by the builder and passed it to the equal method for the existing instance) the factory returns the current object instead of creating a new instance. Because the Equal method would only compare what uniquely defines the type of object (this is node A to node B) but won't check the dynamic state stuff (node A is currently connected to nodes C and E) this would be a way of ensuring anyone that wants my Node A automatically knows its state connections. More importantly it would prevent aliasing nightmares of someone trying to pass an instance of node A with different state then the node A in my model has. I've never heard of this pattern before, and it's a bit odd. I would have to do some overriding of serialization methods to make it work (ensure that when I read in a serilized object I add it to my facotry list of known instances, and/or return an existing factory in its place), as well as using a weakHashMap as if it was a weakHashSet to know whether an instance exists without worrying about a quasi-memory leak occuring. I don't know if this is too confusing or prone to its own obscure bugs. One thing I know is that plugins interface with lowest level hardware. The plugins have to be able to return state that is different than my memory; to tell my memory when its own state is inconsistent. I believe this is possible despite their fetching objects that exist in my memory; we allow building of objects without checking their consistency with the model until the addToModel is called anyways; and the existing plugins design was written before all this extra state existed and worked fine without ever being aware of it. Should I just be using some other design to avoid this crazyness? (I have another question to that affect that I'm posting).

    Read the article

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