Search Results

Search found 12953 results on 519 pages for 'abstract methods'.

Page 4/519 | < Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >

  • Single Table Per Class Hierarchy with an abstract superclass using Hibernate Annotations

    - by Andy Hull
    I have a simple class hierarchy, similar to the following: @Entity @Table(name="animal") @Inheritance(strategy=InheritanceType.SINGLE_TABLE) @DiscriminatorColumn(name="animal_type", discriminatorType=DiscriminatorType.STRING) public abstract class Animal { } @Entity @DiscriminatorValue("cat") public class Cat extends Animal { } @Entity @DiscriminatorValue("dog") public class Dog extends Animal { } When I query "from Animal" I get this exception: "org.hibernate.InstantiationException: Cannot instantiate abstract class or interface: Animal" If I make Animal concrete, and add a dummy discriminator... such as @DiscriminatorValue("animal")... my query returns my cats and dogs as instances of Animals. I remember this being trivial with HBM based mappings but I think I'm missing something when using annotations. Can anyone help? Thanks!

    Read the article

  • When using the getInstance() method of the abstract java.text.NumberFormat class, what is the actual

    - by iamchuckb
    This question expands upon the one at abstract-class-numberformat-very-confused-about-getinstance. I feel that this question is different enough to merit being asked on its own. In the answers to that question, it was stated that a code statement such as NumberFormat en = NumberFormat.getInstance(Locale.US); returns an object that is a subclass of the java.text.NumberFormat class. It makes sense to me why the return type can't be just an instance of NumberFormat since that is an abstract class. Rather, it was stated that the returned object is at least an instance of NumberFormat, but actually something else. My question is this: what specifically is the class of the object that is returned? In the Sun documentation the only subclasses I see are ChoicesFormat and DecimalFormat. Is there some sort of behind the scenes compiler voodoo going on here? Thanks in advance!

    Read the article

  • Relevance of 'public' constructor in abstract class.

    - by Amby
    Is there any relevance of a 'public' constructor in an abstract class? I can not think of any possible way to use it, in that case shouldn't it be treated as error by compiler (C#, not sure if other languages allow that). Sample Code: internal abstract class Vehicle { public Vehicle() { } } The C# compiler allows this code to compile, while there is no way i can call this contructor from the outside world. It can be called from derived classes only. So shouldn't it allow 'protected' and 'private' modifiers only. Please comment.

    Read the article

  • Relvance of 'public' contructor in abstract class.

    - by Amby
    Is there any relevance of a 'public' constructor in an abstract class? I can not think of any possible way to use it, in that case shouldn't it be treated as error by compiler (C#, not sure if other languages allow that). Sample Code: internal abstract class Vehicle { public Vehicle() { } } The C# compiler allows this code to compile, while there is no way i can call this contructor from the outside world. It can be called from derived classes only. So shouldn't it allow 'protected' and 'private' modifiers only. Please comment.

    Read the article

  • Java: Interface vs Abstract Class (regarding fields)

    - by lifeR00t
    From what I have gathered, I want to force a class to use particular private fields (and methods) I need an abstract class because an interface only declares public/static/final fields and methods. Correct?? I just started my first big java project and want to make sure I'm not going to hurt myself later :)

    Read the article

  • How to implement an abstract class in ruby?

    - by Chirantan
    I know there is no concept of abstract class in ruby. But if at all it needs to be implemented, how to go about it? I tried something like... class A def self.new raise 'Doh! You are trying to instantiate an abstract class!' end end class B < A ... ... end But when I try to instantiate B, it is internally going to call A.new which is going to raise the exception. Also, modules cannot be instantiated but they cannot be inherited too. making the new method private will also not work. Any pointers?

    Read the article

  • abstract class need acces to subclass atribute

    - by user1742980
    I have a problem with my code. public abstract class SimplePolygon implements Polygon { ... public String toString(){ String str = "Polygon: vertices ="; for(int i = 0;i<varray.length;i++){ str += " "; str += varray[i]; } return str; } } public class ArrayPolygon extends SimplePolygon { private Vertex2D[] varray; public ArrayPolygon(Vertex2D[] array){ varray = new Vertex2D[array.length]; if (array == null){} for(int i = 0;i<array.length;i++){ if (array[i] == null){} varray[i] = array[i]; } ... } Problem is, that i'm not allowed to add any atribute or method to abstract class SimplePolygon, so i'cant properly initialize varray. It could simply be solved with protected atrib in that class, but for some (stupid) reason i'cant do that. Has anybody an idea how to solve it without that? Thanks for all help.

    Read the article

  • can this keyword be used in an abstract class in java

    - by Reddy
    I tried with below example, it is working fine. I expected it to pick sub-class's value since object won't be created for super class (as it is abstract). But it is picking up super class's field value only. Please help me understand what is the concepts behind this? abstract class SuperAbstract { private int a=2; public void funA() { System.out.println("In SuperAbstract: this.a "+a); } } class SubClass extends SuperAbstract { private int a=34; } I am calling new SubClass.funA(); I am expecting it to print 34, but it is printing 2.

    Read the article

  • can the keyword 'this' be used in an abstract class in java

    - by Reddy
    I tried with below example, it is working fine. I expected it to pick sub-class's value since object won't be created for super class (as it is abstract). But it is picking up super class's field value only. Please help me understand what is the concepts behind this? abstract class SuperAbstract { private int a=2; public void funA() { System.out.println("In SuperAbstract: this.a "+a); } } class SubClass extends SuperAbstract { private int a=34; } I am calling new SubClass.funA(); I am expecting it to print 34, but it is printing 2.

    Read the article

  • Thoughts on C# Extension Methods

    - by Damon
    I'm not a huge fan of extension methods.  When they first came out, I remember seeing a method on an object that was fairly useful, but when I went to use it another piece of code that method wasn't available.  Turns out it was an extension method and I hadn't included the appropriate assembly and imports statement in my code to use it.  I remember being a bit confused at first about how the heck that could happen (hey, extension methods were new, cut me some slack) and it took a bit of time to track down exactly what it was that I needed to include to get that method back.  I just imagined a new developer trying to figure out why a method was missing and fruitlessly searching on MSDN for a method that didn't exist and it just didn't sit well with me. I am of the opinion that if you have an object, then you shouldn't have to include additional assemblies to get additional instance level methods out of that object.  That opinion applies to namespaces as well - I do not like it when the contents of a namespace are split out into multiple assemblies.  I prefer to have static utility classes instead of extension methods to keep things nicely packaged into a cohesive unit.  It also makes it abundantly clear where utility methods are used in code.  I will concede, however, that it can make code a bit more verbose and lengthy.  There is always a trade-off. Some people harp on extension methods because it breaks the tenants of object oriented development and allows you to add methods to sealed classes.  Whatever.  Extension methods are just utility methods that you can tack onto an object after the fact.  Extension methods do not give you any more access to an object than the developer of that object allows, so I say that those who cry OO foul on extension methods really don't have much of an argument on which to stand.  In fact, I have to concede that my dislike of them is really more about style than anything of great substance. One interesting thing that I found regarding extension methods is that you can call them on null objects. Take a look at this extension method: namespace ExtensionMethods {   public static class StringUtility   {     public static int WordCount(this string str)     {       if(str == null) return 0;       return str.Split(new char[] { ' ', '.', '?' },         StringSplitOptions.RemoveEmptyEntries).Length;     }   }   } Notice that the extension method checks to see if the incoming string parameter is null.  I was worried that the runtime would perform a check on the object instance to make sure it was not null before calling an extension method, but that is apparently not the case.  So, if you call the following code it runs just fine. string s = null; int words = s.WordCount(); I am a big fan of things working, but this seems to go against everything I've come to know about instance level methods.  However, an extension method is really a static method masquerading as an instance-level method, so I suppose it would be far more frustrating if it failed since there is really no reason it shouldn't succeed. Although I'm not a fan of extension methods, I will say that if you ever find yourself at an impasse with a die-hard fan of either the utility class or extension method approach, then there is a common ground.  Extension methods are defined in static classes, and you call them from those static classes as well as directly from the objects they extend.  So if you build your utility classes using extension methods, then you can have it your way and they can have it theirs. 

    Read the article

  • Prefer class members or passing arguments between internal methods?

    - by geoffjentry
    Suppose within the private portion of a class there is a value which is utilized by multiple private methods. Do people prefer having this defined as a member variable for the class or passing it as an argument to each of the methods - and why? On one hand I could see an argument to be made that reducing state (ie member variables) in a class is generally a good thing, although if the same value is being repeatedly used throughout a class' methods it seems like that would be an ideal candidate for representation as state for the class to make the code visibly cleaner if nothing else. Edit: To clarify some of the comments/questions that were raised, I'm not talking about constants and this isn't relating to any particular case rather just a hypothetical that I was talking to some other people about. Ignoring the OOP angle for a moment, the particular use case that I had in mind was the following (assume pass by reference just to make the pseudocode cleaner) int x doSomething(x) doAnotherThing(x) doYetAnotherThing(x) doSomethingElse(x) So what I mean is that there's some variable that is common between multiple functions - in the case I had in mind it was due to chaining of smaller functions. In an OOP system, if these were all methods of a class (say due to refactoring via extracting methods from a large method), that variable could be passed around them all or it could be a class member.

    Read the article

  • Purpose of Instance Methods vs. Class Methods in Objective-C

    - by qegal
    I have checked out all these questions... Difference Class and Instance Methods Difference between class methods and instance methods? Objective-C: Class vs Instance Methods? ...and all they explain is how instance methods are used on instances of a class and class methods are used with the class name, when a message is sent to a class object. This is helpful, but I'm curious to know why one would use a class method vs. an instance method. I'm fairly new to iOS application development, and usually use class methods, and I feel like I'm doing something wrong. Thanks in advanced!

    Read the article

  • java: can't use constructors in abstract class

    - by ufk
    Hi. I created the following abstract class for job scheduler in red5: package com.demogames.jobs; import com.demogames.demofacebook.MysqlDb; import org.red5.server.api.IClient; import org.red5.server.api.IConnection; import org.red5.server.api.IScope; import org.red5.server.api.scheduling.IScheduledJob; import org.red5.server.api.so.ISharedObject; import org.apache.log4j.Logger; import org.red5.server.api.Red5; /** * * @author ufk */ abstract public class DemoJob implements IScheduledJob { protected IConnection conn; protected IClient client; protected ISharedObject so; protected IScope scope; protected MysqlDb mysqldb; protected static org.apache.log4j.Logger log = Logger .getLogger(DemoJob.class); protected DemoJob (ISharedObject so, MysqlDb mysqldb){ this.conn=Red5.getConnectionLocal(); this.client = conn.getClient(); this.so=so; this.mysqldb=mysqldb; this.scope=conn.getScope(); } protected DemoJob(ISharedObject so) { this.conn=Red5.getConnectionLocal(); this.client=this.conn.getClient(); this.so=so; this.scope=conn.getScope(); } protected DemoJob() { this.conn=Red5.getConnectionLocal(); this.client=this.conn.getClient(); this.scope=conn.getScope(); } } Then i created a simple class that extends the previous one: public class StartChallengeJob extends DemoJob { public void execute(ISchedulingService service) { log.error("test"); } } The problem is that my main application can only see the constructor without any parameters. with means i can do new StartChallengeJob() why doesn't the main application sees all the constructors ? thanks!

    Read the article

  • Iphone -- init method of an abstract class

    - by William Jockusch
    I want to create classes Car, Vehicle, and Airplane with the following properties: Car and Airplane are both subclasses of Vehicle. Car and Airplane both have an initWithString method. The acceptable input strings for Car's and Airplane's initWithString methods do not overlap. Vehicle is "almost abstract", in the sense that any initialized instance should be either a Car or an Airplane. It is possible to pass a string into Vehicle and get back an instance of Car, an instance of Airplane, or nil, depending on the input string. Any particular design pattern I should prefer? In particular for Vehicle's initWithString and/or newVehicleWithString methods.

    Read the article

  • Base class with abstract subclasses in C# ?

    - by Nick Brooks
    public abstract class Request { public class Parameters { //Threre are no members here //But there should be in inherited classes } public Request() { parameters = new Parameters(); } public Parameters parameters; } Two questions: How do I make it so I can add stuff to the constructor but the original constructor will still be executed? How do I make it so the subclasses can add members to the Parameters class?

    Read the article

  • Abstract classes and Pod::Coverage

    - by Ken Williams
    I've recently started to try to use Dist::Zilla for maintaining Path::Class. I added the [PodCoverageTests] plugin, and it's reporting some failures in the Path::Class::Entity class, which is the abstract base class for Path::Class::File and Path::Class::Dir. What I'd like is some way to tell the testing code that Entity doesn't need docs, but its two derived classes do - even though the methods are only defined in the parent class. Anyone know some way to do that?

    Read the article

  • Rails 3 Abstract Class vs Inherited Class

    - by R. Yanchuleff
    In my rails 3 model, I have two classes: Product, Service. I want both to be of type InventoryItem because I have another model called Store and Store has_many :InventoryItems This is what I'm trying to get to, but I'm not sure how to model this in my InventoryItem model and my Product and Service models. Should InventoryItem just be a parent class that Product and Service inherit from, or should InventoryItem be modeled as a class abstract of which Product and Service extend from. Thanks in advance for the advice!

    Read the article

  • can I have an abstract base class with the key attribute being generic

    - by Greg
    Hi, I want to create a re-usable library. I was going to use extension methods however I run into some issues in some cases for the client to have to specify in the calling method the types. QUESTION - If I use an abstract base class as the basis, can I specify an attribute/property in the class to be generic (e.g. the key property might be an 'int' in one case, or a 'string' in another)?

    Read the article

  • Using java abstract class

    - by user969131
    In my UI project, I have few screens that share the same header style only the text is specific to the screens. What will be a good way to implement this? Have the super class create all the header component and open the components to the sub class, the sub class will access to component's setText method to update the text? or Have abstract method in super class to create the components, sub class will implement these methods to create the component. Hope it make sense..

    Read the article

  • Why abstract classes necessary?

    - by bala3569
    1.What is the point of creating a class that can't be instantiated? Most commonly to serve as a base-class or interface (some languages have a separate interface construct, some don't) - it doesn't know the implementation (that is to be provided by the subclasses / implementing classes) 2.Why would anybody want such a class? For abstraction and re-use 3.What is the situation in which abstract classes become NECESSARY?can anyone brief it with an example?

    Read the article

  • Help with abstract class in Java with private variable of type List<E>

    - by Nazgulled
    Hi, It's been two years since I last coded something in Java so my coding skills are bit rusty. I need to save data (an user profile) in different data structures, ArrayList and LinkedList, and they both come from List. I want to avoid code duplication where I can and I also want to follow good Java practices. For that, I'm trying to create an abstract class where the private variables will be of type List<E> and then create 2 sub-classes depending on the type of variable. Thing is, I don't know if I'm doing this correctly, you can take a look at my code: Class: DBList import java.util.List; public abstract class DBList { private List<UserProfile> listName; private List<UserProfile> listSSN; public List<UserProfile> getListName() { return this.listName; } public List<UserProfile> getListSSN() { return this.listSSN; } public void setListName(List<UserProfile> listName) { this.listName = listName; } public void setListSSN(List<UserProfile> listSSN) { this.listSSN = listSSN; } } Class: DBListArray import java.util.ArrayList; public class DBListArray extends DBList { public DBListArray() { super.setListName(new ArrayList<UserProfile>()); super.setListSSN(new ArrayList<UserProfile>()); } public DBListArray(ArrayList<UserProfile> listName, ArrayList<UserProfile> listSSN) { super.setListName(listName); super.setListSSN(listSSN); } public DBListArray(DBListArray dbListArray) { super.setListName(dbListArray.getListName()); super.setListSSN(dbListArray.getListSSN()); } } Class: DBListLinked import java.util.LinkedList; public class DBListLinked extends DBList { public DBListLinked() { super.setListName(new LinkedList<UserProfile>()); super.setListSSN(new LinkedList<UserProfile>()); } public DBListLinked(LinkedList<UserProfile> listName, LinkedList<UserProfile> listSSN) { super.setListName(listName); super.setListSSN(listSSN); } public DBListLinked(DBListLinked dbListLinked) { super.setListName(dbListLinked.getListName()); super.setListSSN(dbListLinked.getListSSN()); } } 1) Does any of this make any sense? What am I doing wrong? Do you have any recommendations? 2) It would make more sense for me to have the constructors in DBList and calling them (with super()) in the subclasses but I can't do that because I can't initialize a variable with new List<E>(). 3) I was thought to do deep copies whenever possible and for that I always override the clone() method of my classes and code it accordingly. But those classes never had any lists, sets or maps on them, they only had strings, ints, floats. How do I do deep copies in this situation?

    Read the article

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