Search Results

Search found 3086 results on 124 pages for 'dependency'.

facebook twitter digg google delicious technorati stumbleupon myspace wordpress linkedin gmail igoogle windows live tumblr viadeo yahoo buzz yahoo mail yahoo bookmarks favorites email print

Page 4/124 | < Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >

  • How to model dependency injection in UML ?

    - by hjo1620
    I have a Contract class. The contract is valid 1 Jan 2010 - 31 Dec 2010. It can be in state Active or Passive, depending on which date I ask the instance for it's state. ex. if I ask 4 July 2010, it's in state Active, but if I ask 1 Jan 2011, it's in state Passive. Instances are created using constructor dependency injection, i.e. they are either Active or Passive already when created, null is not allowed as a parameter for the internal state member. One initial/created vertex is drawn in UML. I have two arrows, leading out from the initial vertex, one leading to state Active and the other to state Passive. Is this a correct representation of dependency injection in UML ? This is related to http://stackoverflow.com/questions/2779922/how-model-statemachine-when-state-is-dependent-on-a-function which initiated the question on how to model DI in general, in UML.

    Read the article

  • Debug a local maven dependency with eclipse

    - by mcamier
    i have two maven projects, the first one is a library and the other one use it to works properly, the both have to elvolve regardless each other, this is why i use two different project. But breakpoints on my library code doesn't work when i launch my app (the second application). This is how i include my library in the second project's POM (my IDE is eclipse and projects are in the same workspaces) <dependency> <groupId>com.mcamier</groupId> <artifactId>lazyEngine</artifactId> <version>0.0.1-SNAPSHOT</version> <scope>system</scope> <systemPath>${basedir}/../lazyEngine/target/lazyEngine-0.0.1-SNAPSHOT-jar-with-dependencies.jar</systemPath> </dependency>

    Read the article

  • Dependency Injection & Singleton Design pattern

    - by SysAdmin
    How do we identify when to use dependency injection or singleton pattern. I have read in lot of websites where they say "Use Dependency injection over singleton pattern". But I am not sure if I totally agree with them. For my small or medium scale projects I definitely see the use of singleton pattern straightforward. For example Logger. I could use Logger.GetInstance().Log(...) But, instead of this, why do I need to inject every class I create, with the logger's instance?.

    Read the article

  • C# dependency injection - how to you inject a dependency without source?

    - by Phil Harris
    Hi, I am trying to get started with some simple dependency injection using C# and i've run up against an issue that I can't seem to come up with an answer for. I have a class that was written by another department for which I don't have the source in my project. I wanted to inject an object of this type though a constructor using an interface, but of course, i can't change the injected objects implementation to implement the interface to achieve polymorphism when casting the object to the interface type. Every academic example I have ever seen of this technique has the classes uses classes which are declared in the project itself. How would I go about injecting my dependency without the source being available in the project? I hope that makes sense, thanks.

    Read the article

  • Makefile automatic link dependency ?

    - by Kuang Chen
    It's easy to let program figure out the dependency at compile time, (with gcc -MM). Nevertheless, link dependency (deciding which libraries should be linked to) seems to be difficult to figure out. This issue become emergent when multiple targets with individual libraries to link to are needed. For instance, three dynamic library targets t1.so, t2.so and t3.so needs to be built. t1.so needs math library (-lm), while t2 and t3 don't. It would be tedious to write separate rules. A single rule requiring the three targets linked with math library saves the trouble. However, it causes inflation of target size since math library is unused for t2.so and t3.so. Any ideas?

    Read the article

  • How can I build pyv8 from source on FreeBSD against the v8 port?

    - by Utkonos
    I am unable to build pyv8 from source on FreeBSD. I have installed the /usr/ports/lang/v8 port, and I'm running into the following error. It seems that pyv8 wants to build v8 itself even though v8 is already built and installed. How can I point pyv8 to the already installed location of v8? # python setup.py build Found Google v8 base on V8_HOME , update it to the latest SVN trunk at running build ==================== INFO: Installing or updating GYP... -------------------- INFO: Check out GYP from SVN ... DEBUG: make dependencies ERROR: Check out GYP from SVN failed: code=2 DEBUG: "Makefile", line 43: Missing dependency operator "Makefile", line 45: Need an operator "Makefile", line 46: Need an operator "Makefile", line 48: Need an operator "Makefile", line 50: Need an operator "Makefile", line 52: Need an operator "Makefile", line 54: Missing dependency operator "Makefile", line 56: Need an operator "Makefile", line 58: Missing dependency operator "Makefile", line 60: Need an operator "Makefile", line 62: Missing dependency operator "Makefile", line 64: Need an operator "Makefile", line 66: Missing dependency operator "Makefile", line 68: Need an operator "Makefile", line 70: Missing dependency operator "Makefile", line 72: Need an operator "Makefile", line 73: Missing dependency operator "Makefile", line 75: Need an operator "Makefile", line 77: Missing dependency operator "Makefile", line 79: Need an operator "Makefile", line 81: Missing dependency operator "Makefile", line 83: Need an operator "Makefile", line 85: Missing dependency operator "Makefile", line 87: Need an operator "Makefile", line 89: Need an operator "Makefile", line 91: Missing dependency operator "Makefile", line 93: Need an operator "Makefile", line 95: Need an operator "Makefile", line 97: Need an operator "Makefile", line 99: Missing dependency operator "Makefile", line 101: Need an operator "Makefile", line 103: Missing dependency operator "Makefile", line 105: Need an operator "Makefile", line 107: Missing dependency operator "Makefile", line 109: Need an operator "Makefile", line 111: Missing dependency operator "Makefile", line 113: Need an operator "Makefile", line 115: Missing dependency operator "Makefile", line 117: Need an operator Error expanding embedded variable. ==================== INFO: Patching the GYP scripts INFO: patch the Google v8 build/standalone.gypi file to enable RTTI and C++ Exceptions ==================== INFO: building Google v8 with GYP for x64 platform with release mode -------------------- INFO: build v8 from SVN ... DEBUG: make verifyheap=off component=shared_library visibility=on gdbjit=off liveobjectlist=off regexp=native disassembler=off objectprint=off debuggersupport=on extrachecks=off snapshot=on werror=on x64.release ERROR: build v8 from SVN failed: code=2 DEBUG: "Makefile", line 43: Missing dependency operator "Makefile", line 45: Need an operator "Makefile", line 46: Need an operator "Makefile", line 48: Need an operator "Makefile", line 50: Need an operator "Makefile", line 52: Need an operator "Makefile", line 54: Missing dependency operator "Makefile", line 56: Need an operator "Makefile", line 58: Missing dependency operator "Makefile", line 60: Need an operator "Makefile", line 62: Missing dependency operator "Makefile", line 64: Need an operator "Makefile", line 66: Missing dependency operator "Makefile", line 68: Need an operator "Makefile", line 70: Missing dependency operator "Makefile", line 72: Need an operator "Makefile", line 73: Missing dependency operator "Makefile", line 75: Need an operator "Makefile", line 77: Missing dependency operator "Makefile", line 79: Need an operator "Makefile", line 81: Missing dependency operator "Makefile", line 83: Need an operator "Makefile", line 85: Missing dependency operator "Makefile", line 87: Need an operator "Makefile", line 89: Need an operator "Makefile", line 91: Missing dependency operator "Makefile", line 93: Need an operator "Makefile", line 95: Need an operator "Makefile", line 97: Need an operator "Makefile", line 99: Missing dependency operator "Makefile", line 101: Need an operator "Makefile", line 103: Missing dependency operator "Makefile", line 105: Need an operator "Makefile", line 107: Missing dependency operator "Makefile", line 109: Need an operator "Makefile", line 111: Missing dependency operator "Makefile", line 113: Need an operator "Makefile", line 115: Missing dependency operator "Makefile", line 117: Need an operator Error expanding embedded variable. The files that are installed by the v8 port are the following (in /usr/local): bin/d8 include/v8.h include/v8-debug.h include/v8-preparser.h include/v8-profiler.h include/v8-testing.h include/v8stdint.h lib/libv8.so lib/libv8.so.1

    Read the article

  • Ubuntu 12.04 LTS initramfs-tools dependency issue

    - by Mike
    I know this has been asked several times, but each issue and resolution seems different. I've tried almost everything I could think of, but I can't fix this. I have a VM (VMware I think) running 12.04.03 LTS which has stuck dependencies. The VM is on a rented host, running a live system so I don't want to break it (further). uname -a Linux support 3.5.0-36-generic #57~precise1-Ubuntu SMP Thu Jun 20 18:21:09 UTC 2013 x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux Some more: sudo apt-get update [sudo] password for tracker: Reading package lists... Done Building dependency tree Reading state information... Done You might want to run ‘apt-get -f install’ to correct these. The following packages have unmet dependencies. initramfs-tools : Depends: initramfs-tools-bin (< 0.99ubuntu13.1.1~) but 0.99ubuntu13.3 is installed E: Unmet dependencies. Try using -f. sudo apt-get install -f Reading package lists... Done Building dependency tree Reading state information... Done Correcting dependencies... Done The following extra packages will be installed: initramfs-tools The following packages will be upgraded: initramfs-tools 1 upgraded, 0 newly installed, 0 to remove and 2 not upgraded. 2 not fully installed or removed. Need to get 0 B/50.3 kB of archives. After this operation, 0 B of additional disk space will be used. Do you want to continue [Y/n]? Y dpkg: dependency problems prevent configuration of initramfs-tools: initramfs-tools depends on initramfs-tools-bin (<< 0.99ubuntu13.1.1~); however: Version of initramfs-tools-bin on system is 0.99ubuntu13.3. dpkg: error processing initramfs-tools (--configure): dependency problems - leaving unconfigured No apport report written because the error message indicates it's a follow-up error from a previous failure. dpkg: dependency problems prevent configuration of apparmor: apparmor depends on initramfs-tools; however: Package initramfs-tools is not configured yet. dpkg: error processing apparmor (--configure): dependency problems - leaving unconfigured No apport report written because the error message indicates it's a follow-up error from a previous failure. Errors were encountered while processing: initramfs-tools apparmor E: Sub-process /usr/bin/dpkg returned an error code (1) If I look at the policy behind initramfs-tools / bin I get: apt-cache policy initramfs-tools initramfs-tools: Installed: 0.99ubuntu13.1 Candidate: 0.99ubuntu13.3 Version table: 0.99ubuntu13.3 0 500 http://gb.archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/ precise-updates/main amd64 Packages *** 0.99ubuntu13.1 0 100 /var/lib/dpkg/status 0.99ubuntu13 0 500 http://gb.archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/ precise/main amd64 Packages apt-cache policy initramfs-tools-bin initramfs-tools-bin: Installed: 0.99ubuntu13.3 Candidate: 0.99ubuntu13.3 Version table: *** 0.99ubuntu13.3 0 500 http://gb.archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/ precise-updates/main amd64 Packages 100 /var/lib/dpkg/status 0.99ubuntu13 0 500 http://gb.archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/ precise/main amd64 Packages So the issue seems to be I have 0.99ubuntu13.3 for initramfs-tools-bin yet 0.99ubuntu13.1 for initramfs-tools, and can't upgrade to 0.99ubuntu13.3. I've performed apt-get clean/autoclean/install -f/upgrade -f many times but they won't resolve. I can think of only 2 other 'solutions': Edit the dpkg dependency list to trick it into doing the installation with a broken dependency. This seems very dodgy and it would be a last resort Downgrade both initramfs-tools and initramfs-tools-bin to 0.99ubuntu13 from the precise/main sources and hope that would get them in step. However I'm not sure if this will be possible, or whether it would introduce more issues. I'm not sure how this situation arise in the first place. /boot was 96% full; it's now 56% full (it's tiny - 64MB ... this is what I got from the hosting company). Can anyone offer advice please?

    Read the article

  • Rhino Mocks, Dependency Injection, and Separation of Concerns

    - by whatispunk
    I am new to mocking and dependency injection and need some guidance. My application is using a typical N-Tier architecture where the BLL references the DAL, and the UI references the BLL but not the DAL. Pretty straight forward. Lets say, for example, I have the following classes: class MyDataAccess : IMyDataAccess {} class MyBusinessLogic {} Each exists in a separate assembly. I want to mock MyDataAccess in the tests for MyBusinessLogic. So I added a constructor to the MyBusinessLogic class to take an IMyDataAccess parameter for the dependency injection. But now when I try to create an instance of MyBusinessLogic on the UI layer it requires a reference to the DAL. I thought I could define a default constructor on MyBusinessLogic to set a default IMyDataAccess implementation, but not only does this seem like a codesmell it didn't actually solve the problem. I'd still have a public constructor with IMyDataAccess in the signature. So the UI layer still requires a reference to the DAL in order to compile. One possible solution I am toying with is to create an internal constructor for MyBusinessLogic with the IMyDataAccess parameter. Then I can use an Accessor from the test project to call the constructor. But there's still that smell. What is the common solution here. I must just be doing something wrong. How could I improve the architecture?

    Read the article

  • Dependency injection and factory

    - by legenden
    Trying to figure out how to best handle the following scenario: Assume a RequestContext class which has a dependency to an external service, such as: public class RequestContext : IRequestContext { private readonly ServiceFactory<IWeatherService> _weatherService; public RequestContext(ServiceFactory<IWeatherService> weatherService, UserLocation location, string query) { _weatherService = weatherService; ... What sort of dependency should I require in the class that will ultimately instantiate RequestContext? It could be ServiceFactory<IWeatherService>, but that doesn't seem right, or I could create an IRequestContextFactory for it along the lines of: public class RequestContextFactory : IRequestContextFactory { private readonly ServiceFactory<IWeatherService> _weatherService; public RequestContextFactory(ServiceFactory<IWeatherService> weatherService) { _weatherService = weatherService; } public RequestContext Create(UserLocation location, string query) { return new RequestContext(_weatherService, location, query); } } And then pass the IRequestContextFactory through constructor injection. This seems like a good way to do it, but the problem with this approach is that I think it hinders discoverability (devs must know about the factory and implement it, which is not really apparent). Is there a better/more discoverable way that I'm missing?

    Read the article

  • How to update a custom dependency property when the datasource list changes

    - by John
    Hi We have a user control with a custom dependency property (DP). The DP is bound to an ObservableCollection. When a new item is added to the collection programatically, the databinding does not update the target DP. Why? We think it's because, unfortunately, in our case the target is not a ListBox or ListView, but a Canvas. The DP, when changed or initialized, is supposed to draw a Shape (!) onto the Canvas, and the shape's position and size is bound to the collection item's two properties: WIDTH, LEFT. Ideally we don't want to clear the Canvas and redraw all items just becasue one has been added (or deleted). But how? So: How can the custom DP take care of drawing the shape for the new collection item? What callback do we need, at what point in time does this have to happen, and what specific MetaDataOptions might there? Also, are there any good resources out there concerning all these dependency property options. They are quite confusing. MSDN does not really help with what we're trying to do. Thanks!

    Read the article

  • Simplifying Testing through design considerations while utilizing dependency injection

    - by Adam Driscoll
    We are a few months into a green-field project to rework the Logic and Business layers of our product. By utilizing MEF (dependency injection) we have achieved high levels of code coverage and I believe that we have a pretty solid product. As we have been working through some of the more complex logic I have found it increasingly difficult to unit test. We are utilizing the CompositionContainer to query for types required by these complex algorithms. My unit tests are sometimes difficult to follow due to the lengthy mock object setup process that must take place, just right, to allow for certain circumstances to be verified. My unit tests often take me longer to write than the code that I'm trying to test. I realize this is not only an issue with dependency injection but with design as a whole. Is poor method design or lack of composition to blame for my overly complex tests? I've tried base classing tests, creating commonly used mock objects and ensuring that I utilize the container as much as possible to ease this issue but my tests always end up quite complex and hard to debug. What are some tips that you've seen to keep such tests concise, readable, and effective?

    Read the article

  • Stuck trying to get Log4Net to work with Dependency Injection

    - by Pure.Krome
    I've got a simple winform test app i'm using to try some Log4Net Dependency Injection stuff. I've made a simple interface in my Services project :- public interface ILogging { void Debug(string message); // snip the other's. } Then my concrete type will be using Log4Net... public class Log4NetLogging : ILogging { private static ILog Log4Net { get { return LogManager.GetLogger( MethodBase.GetCurrentMethod().DeclaringType); } } public void Debug(string message) { if (Log4Net.IsDebugEnabled) { Log4Net.Debug(message); } } } So far so good. Nothing too hard there. Now, in a different project (and therefore namesapce), I try and use this ... public partial class Form1 : Form { public Form1() { FileInfo fileInfo = new FileInfo("Log4Net.config"); log4net.Config.XmlConfigurator.Configure(fileInfo); } private void Foo() { // This would be handled with DI, but i've not set it up // (on the constructor, in this code example). ILogging logging = new Log4NetLogging(); logging.Debug("Test message"); } } Ok .. also pretty simple. I've hardcoded the ILogging instance but that is usually dependency injected via the constructor. Anyways, when i check this line of code... return LogManager.GetLogger(MethodBase.GetCurrentMethod().DeclaringType); the DeclaringType type value is of the Service namespace, not the type of the Form (ie. X.Y.Z.Form1) which actually called the method. Without passing the type INTO method as another argument, is there anyway using reflection to figure out the real method that called it?

    Read the article

  • typedef struct, circular dependency, forward definitions

    - by BlueChip
    The problem I have is a circular dependency issue in C header files ...Having looked around I suspect the solution will have something to do with Forward Definitions, but although there are many similar problems listed, none seem to offer the information I require to resolve this one... I have the following 5 source files: // fwd1.h #ifndef __FWD1_H #define __FWD1_H #include "fwd2.h" typedef struct Fwd1 { Fwd2 *f; } Fwd1; void fwd1 (Fwd1 *f1, Fwd2 *f2) ; #endif // __FWD1_H . // fwd1.c #include "fwd1.h" #include "fwd2.h" void fwd1 (Fwd1 *f1, Fwd2 *f2) { return; } . // fwd2.h #ifndef __FWD2_H #define __FWD2_H #include "fwd1.h" typedef struct Fwd2 { Fwd1 *f; } Fwd2; void fwd2 (Fwd1 *f1, Fwd2 *f2) ; #endif // __FWD2_H . // fwd2.c #include "fwd1.h" #include "fwd2.h" void fwd2 (Fwd1 *f1, Fwd2 *f2) { return; } . // fwdMain.c #include "fwd1.h" #include "fwd2.h" int main (int argc, char** argv, char** env) { Fwd1 *f1 = (Fwd1*)0; Fwd2 *f2 = (Fwd2*)0; fwd1(f1, f2); fwd2(f1, f2); return 0; } Which I am compiling with the command: gcc fwdMain.c fwd1.c fwd2.c -o fwd -Wall I have tried several ideas to resolve the compile errors, but have only managed to replace the errors with other errors ...How do I resolve the circular dependency issue with the least changes to my code? ...Ideally, as a matter of coding style, I would like to avoid putting the word "struct" all over my code.

    Read the article

  • C++ and Dependency Injection in unit testing

    - by lhumongous
    Suppose I have a C++ class like so: class A { public: A() { } void SetNewB( const B& _b ) { m_B = _b; } private: B m_B; } In order to unit test something like this, I would have to break A's dependency on B. Since class A holds onto an actual object and not a pointer, I would have to refactor this code to take a pointer. Additionally, I would need to create a parent interface class for B so I can pass in my own fake of B when I test SetNewB. In this case, doesn't unit testing with dependency injection further complicate the existing code? If I make B a pointer, I'm now introducing heap allocation, and some piece of code is now responsible for cleaning it up (unless I use ref counted pointers). Additionally, if B is a rather trivial class with only a couple of member variables and functions, why introduce a whole new interface for it instead of just testing with an instance of B? I suppose you could make the argument that it would be easier to refactor A by using an interface. But are there some cases where two classes might need to be tightly coupled?

    Read the article

  • DCI: How to implement Context with Dependency Injection?

    - by ciscoheat
    Most examples of a DCI Context are implemented as a Command pattern. When using Dependency Injection though, it's useful to have the dependencies injected in the constructor and send the parameters into the executing method. Compare the Command pattern class: public class SomeContext { private readonly SomeRole _someRole; private readonly IRepository<User> _userRepository; // Everything goes into the constructor for a true encapsuled command. public SomeContext(SomeRole someRole, IRepository<User> userRepository) { _someRole = someRole; _userRepository = userRepository; } public void Execute() { _someRole.DoStuff(_userRepository); } } With the Dependency injected class: public class SomeContext { private readonly IRepository<User> _userRepository; // Only what can be injected using the DI provider. public SomeContext(IRepository<User> userRepository) { _userRepository = userRepository; } // Parameters from the executing method public void Execute(SomeRole someRole) { someRole.DoStuff(_userRepository); } } The last one seems a bit nicer, but I've never seen it implemented like this so I'm curious if there are any things to consider.

    Read the article

  • Avoiding circular project/assembly references in Visual Studio with statically typed dependency conf

    - by svnpttrssn
    First, I want to say that I am not interested in debating about any non-helpful "answers" to my question, with suggestions to putting everything in one assembly, i.e. there is no need for anyone to provide webpages such as the page titled with "Separate Assemblies != Loose Coupling". Now, my question is if it somehow (maybe with some Visual Studio configuration to allow for circular project dependencies?) is possible to use one project/assembly (I am here calling it the "ServiceLocator" assembly) for retrieving concrete implementation classes, (e.g. with StructureMap) which can be referred to from other projects, while it of course is also necessary for the the ServiceLocator itself to refer to other projects with the interfaces and the implementations ? Visual Studio project example, illustrating the kind of dependency structure I am talking about: http://img10.imageshack.us/img10/8838/testingdependencyinject.png Please note in the above picture, the problem is how to let the classes in "ApplicationLayerServiceImplementations" retrieve and instantiate classes that implement the interfaces in "DomainLayerServiceInterfaces". The goal is here to not refer directly to the classes in "DomainLayerServiceImplementations", but rather to try using the project "ServiceLocator" to retrieve such classes, but then the circular dependency problem occurrs... For example, a "UserInterfaceLayer" project/assembly might contain this kind of code: ContainerBootstrapper.BootstrapStructureMap(); // located in "ServiceLocator" project/assembly MyDomainLayerInterface myDomainLayerInterface = ObjectFactory.GetInstance<MyDomainLayerInterface>(); // refering to project/assembly "DomainLayerServiceInterfaces" myDomainLayerInterface.MyDomainLayerMethod(); MyApplicationLayerInterface myApplicationLayerInterface = ObjectFactory.GetInstance<MyApplicationLayerInterface>(); // refering to project/assembly "ApplicationLayerServiceInterfaces" myApplicationLayerInterface.MyApplicationLayerMethod(); The above code do not refer to the implementation projects/assemblies ApplicationLayerServiceImplementations and DomainLayerServiceImplementations, which contain this kind of code: public class MyApplicationLayerImplementation : MyApplicationLayerInterface and public class MyDomainLayerImplementation : MyDomainLayerInterface The "ServiceLocator" project/assembly might contain this code: using ApplicationLayerServiceImplementations; using ApplicationLayerServiceInterfaces; using DomainLayerServiceImplementations; using DomainLayerServiceInterfaces; using StructureMap; namespace ServiceLocator { public static class ContainerBootstrapper { public static void BootstrapStructureMap() { ObjectFactory.Initialize(x => { // The two interfaces and the two implementations below are located in four different Visual Studio projects x.ForRequestedType<MyDomainLayerInterface>().TheDefaultIsConcreteType<MyDomainLayerImplementation>(); x.ForRequestedType<MyApplicationLayerInterface>().TheDefaultIsConcreteType<MyApplicationLayerImplementation>(); }); } } } So far, no problem, but the problem occurs when I want to let the class "MyApplicationLayerImplementation" in the project/assembly "ApplicationLayerServiceImplementations" use the "ServiceLocator" project/assembly for retrieving an implementation of "MyDomainLayerInterface". When I try to do that, i.e. add a reference from "MyApplicationLayerImplementation" to "ServiceLocator", then Visual Studio complains about circular dependencies between projects. Is there any nice solution to this problem, which does not imply using refactoring-unfriendly string based xml-configuration which breaks whenever an interface or class or its namespace is renamed ? / Sven

    Read the article

facebook twitter digg google delicious technorati stumbleupon myspace wordpress linkedin gmail igoogle windows live tumblr viadeo yahoo buzz yahoo mail yahoo bookmarks favorites email print

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