Search Results

Search found 88144 results on 3526 pages for 'first class functions'.

Page 4/3526 | < Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >

  • making class accessible from class path in dynamic class loading

    - by Noona
    I have a project created in Eclipse, and I defined an interface and a class for dynamic class loading, the class is in the project directory, so I have this code in my project: if (handlerClassName != null) { TypeHandler typeHandler = null; try { typeHandler = (TypeHandler) (Class.forName(handlerClassName).newInstance()); but I get this exception: java.lang.ClassNotFoundException: "handlerClassName" what should I do to make the JVM recognize the class "handlerClassName" in my project? thanks

    Read the article

  • Question about casting a class in Java with generics

    - by Florian F
    In Java 6 Class<? extends ArrayList<?>> a = ArrayList.class; gives and error, but Class<? extends ArrayList<?>> b = (Class<? extends ArrayList<?>>)ArrayList.class; gives a warning. Why is (a) an error? What is it, that Java needs to do in the assignment, if not the cast shown in (b)? And why isn't ArrayList compatible with ArrayList? I know one is "raw" and the other is "generic", but what is it you can do with an ArrayList and not with an ArrayList, or the other way around?

    Read the article

  • Java code generation from class diagram

    - by Sanjay
    I'm on the way developing a Java application where user can provide a class diagram and get the corresponding Java code. I don't know how can I let the user interactively draw a class diagram in Java. I am currently getting the required parameters like attributes, functions directly from the user, and then I render a class diagram for him. I show the class diagram on a jdialog. Is there a better way to do this? This is an example of a class diagram, I need to generate this from a Java program, given the values and relationship.

    Read the article

  • Switching from abstract class to interface

    - by nischayn22
    I have an abstract class which has all abstract methods except one which constructs objects of the subclasses. Now my mentor asked me to move this abstract class to an interface. Having an interface is no problem except with the method used to construct subclass objects. Where should this method go now? Also, I read somewhere that interfaces are more efficient than abstract classes. Is this true? Here's an example of my classes abstract class Animal { //many abstract methods getAnimalobject(some parameter) { return //appropriate subclass } } class Dog extends Animal {} class Elephant extends Animal {}

    Read the article

  • C# Cast Class to Overridden Class

    - by Nathan Tornquist
    I have a class Application that I need to override with INotifyPropertyChanged events. I have written the logic to override the original class and ended up creating SuperApplication I am pulling the data from a library though, and cannot change the loading logic. I just need a way to get the data from the original class into my superClass. I've tried things like superClass = (SuperApplication)standardClass; but it hasn't worked. How would I go about doing this? If it helps, this is the code I'm using to override the original class: public class SuperCreditApplication : CreditApplication { public SuperCreditApplicant Applicant { get; set; } public SuperCreditApplicant CoApplicant { get; set; } } public class SuperCreditApplicant : CreditApplicant { public SuperProspect Prospect { get; set; } } public class SuperProspect : Prospect, INotifyPropertyChanged { public State DriverLicenseState { get { return DriverLicenseState; } set { DriverLicenseState = value; OnPropertyChanged("DriverLicenseState"); } } public event PropertyChangedEventHandler PropertyChanged; private void OnPropertyChanged(string propertyName) { if (PropertyChanged != null) { PropertyChanged(this, new PropertyChangedEventArgs(propertyName)); } } }

    Read the article

  • C++ Using a class from a header within a class

    - by Kotsuzui
    I'm having a bit of trouble with classes used within classes, from header files. I have an class time in time.h: class Time { private: int hour, second, minute; public: . . . int getHour(int h); etc. setHour(); etc. void print24hour(); // Prints time in 24 hour format } And then, main.cpp: #include "time.h" class Class { private: string name; double grade; Time startTime; Time endTime; public: Class(); ~Class(); void setName(); void setGrade(); etc. } int main() { //Need to print time in 24 hour format, but I don't know how. class[i].startTime.print24(getStartTime()); // ??? I'm rather lost } I get quite a few "hour, second, minute, etc." are private errors, I'm guessing I'm doing something simple in a rather wrong way. Please help.

    Read the article

  • abstract class extends abstract class in php?

    - by user151841
    I am working on a simple abstract database class. In my usage of this class, I'll want to have some instance be a singleton. I was thinking of having a abstract class that is not a singleton, and then extend it into another abstract class that is a singleton. Is this possible? Recommended?

    Read the article

  • Deriving a class from an abstract class (C++)

    - by cemregoksu
    I have an abstract class with a pure virtual function f() and i want to create a class inherited from that class, and also override function f(). I seperated the header file and the cpp file. I declared the function f(int) in the header file and the definition is in the cpp file. However, the compiler says the derived class is still abstract. How can i fix it?

    Read the article

  • C# vector class - Interpolation design decision

    - by Benjamin
    Currently I'm working on a vector class in C# and now I'm coming to the point, where I've to figure out, how i want to implement the functions for interpolation between two vectors. At first I came up with implementing the functions directly into the vector class... public class Vector3D { public static Vector3D LinearInterpolate(Vector3D vector1, Vector3D vector2, double factor) { ... } public Vector3D LinearInterpolate(Vector3D other, double factor { ... } } (I always offer both: a static method with two vectors as parameters and one non-static, with only one vector as parameter) ...but then I got the idea to use extension methods (defined in a seperate class called "Interpolation" for example), since interpolation isn't really a thing only available for vectors. So this could be another solution: public class Vector3D { ... } public static class Interpolation { public static Vector3D LinearInterpolate(this Vector3D vector, Vector3D other, double factor) { ... } } So here an example how you'd use the different possibilities: { var vec1 = new Vector3D(5, 3, 1); var vec2 = new Vector3D(4, 2, 0); Vector3D vec3; vec3 = vec1.LinearInterpolate(vec2, 0.5); //1 vec3 = Vector3D.LinearInterpolate(vec1, vec2, 0.5); //2 //or with extension-methods vec3 = vec1.LinearInterpolate(vec2, 0.5); //3 (same as 1) vec3 = Interpolation.LinearInterpolation(vec1, vec2, 0.5); //4 } So I really don't know which design is better. Also I don't know if there's an ultimate rule for things like this or if it's just about what someone personally prefers. But I really would like to hear your opinions, what's better (and if possible why ).

    Read the article

  • Cannot create class diagram for simple dll class in Visual Studio 2010

    - by xenn_33
    Hi, It seems that there is a really annoying issue in Class Diagram designer in VS (my version is 2010 Ultimate, but the issue is also observed in VS 2008). When I'm trying to create a class diagram for particular simple class from DLL I'm getting the following error: "Some of the selected type(s) cannot be added to the class diagram. Check the code for errors and ensure that all required assemblies ... blah-blah-blah" My code doesn't contain any error. I have multiple class and interface definitions in one separate .cs file, but these classes are really simple - even no calls to unmanaged/interop. Any solution for this?

    Read the article

  • adhoc struct/class in C#?

    - by acidzombie24
    Currently i am using reflection with sql. I find if i want to make a specialize query it is easiest to get the results by creating a new class inheriting from another and adding the 2 members/columns for my specialized query. Then due to reflections in the lib in my c# code i can write foreach(var v in list) { v.AnyMember and v.MyExtraMember) Now instead of having the class scattered around or modifying my main DB.cs file can i define a class inside a function? I know i can create an anonymous object by writing new {name=val, name2=...}; but i need a to pass this class in a generic function func(query, args);

    Read the article

  • The Best Free Online First Person Shooter (FPS) Games

    - by Lori Kaufman
    First Person Shooter (FPS) games are action games centered around gun and projectile weapon-based combat. As the player, you experience the action directly through the eyes of the protagonist. FPS games have become a very popular type of game online. A lot of FPS games are paid, but there are many you can play for free. Most FPS games have online versions where you play in a supported browser or download a program for your PC that allows you to connect to the game online. We have collected links and information about some of the more popular free FPS games available. All the games listed here are free to play, but there may be some limitations, and you have to register for many of them and download game clients to your computer to be able to connect to the game online. Secure Yourself by Using Two-Step Verification on These 16 Web Services How to Fix a Stuck Pixel on an LCD Monitor How to Factory Reset Your Android Phone or Tablet When It Won’t Boot

    Read the article

  • Creating an Entity Data Model using the Model First approach

    - by nikolaosk
    This is going to be the second post of a series of posts regarding Entity Framework and how we can use Entity Framework version 4.0 new features. You can read the first post here . In order to follow along you must have some knowledge of C# and know what an ORM system is and what kind of problems Entity Framework addresses.It will be handy to know how to work inside the Visual Studio 2010 IDE . I have a post regarding ASP.Net and EntityDataSource . You can read it here .I have 3 more posts on Profiling...(read more)

    Read the article

  • Reference inherited class's <T>ype in a derived class

    - by DRapp
    I don't know if its possible or not, but here's what I need. I'm toying around with something and want to know if its possible since you can't create your own data type based on a sealed type such as int, Int32, Int64, etc. I want to create a top-level class that is defined of a given type with some common stuff. Then, derive this into two subclasses, but in this case, each class is based on either and int or Int64 type. From THAT instance, create an instance of either one and know its yped basis for parameter referenc / return settings. So when I need to create an instance of the "ThisClass", I don't have to know its type basis of either int or Int64, yet IT will know the type and be able to allow methods/functions to be called with the typed... This way, If I want to change my ThisClass definition from SubLevel1 to SubLevel2, I don't have to dance around all different data type definitions. Hope this makes sense.. public class TopLevel<T> { ... } pubic class SubLevel1 : TopLevel<int> { ... } public class SubLevel2 : TopLevel<Int64> { ... } public class ThisClass : SubLevel1 { ... public <based on the Int data type from SubLevel1> SomeFunc() { return <the Int value computed>; } }

    Read the article

  • jquery: set variable based on one class from an element that has more than one class

    - by John
    Hi I'm trying to make a table who's columns and rows highlight on hover (I realise there are jquery plugins out there that will do this, but I'm trying to learn, so thought I'd have a stab at doing it for myself.) Here's what I've got so far: $('th:not(.features), td:not(.features)').hover(highlight); function highlight(){ $('th.highlightCol, td.highlightCol').removeClass('highlightCol'); var col = $(this).attr('class'); $('.' + col).addClass('highlightCol'); }; $('tr').hover(highlightRowOn, highlightRowOff); function highlightRowOn(){ $(this).children('td:not(.highlightCol)').addClass('highlightRow'); }; function highlightRowOff(){ $(this).children('td:not(.highlightCol)').removeClass('highlightRow'); }; This works fine apart from one problem: Each 'td' has a class specific to it's column (package1, package2, package3, package4). It is this that gets passed to the variable (col) to add the class 'highlightCol' to a column when one of its 'td's are hovered on. However, If you move the cursor to a new column along a highlighted row, the 'td' you land on has two classes (highlightedRow and package* ). These both get passed to the variable and as a result the new column does not receive the correct class to highlight. Is there a way for me to target just the 'package* ' class and pass that to the variable while ignoring the 'highlightedRow' class? I hope that's not too jumbled for someone to make sense of and many thanks for any help offered.

    Read the article

  • DBIx::Class base result class

    - by Rob
    Hi there, I am trying to create a model for Catalyst by using DBIx::Class::Schema::Loader. I want the result classes to have a base class I can add methods to. So MyTable.pm inherits from Base.pm which inherits from DBIx::Class::core (default). Somehow I cannot figure out how to do this. my create script is below, can anyone tell me what I am doing wrong? The script creates my model ok, but all resultset classes just directly inherit from DBIx::Class::core without my Base class in between. #!/usr/bin/perl use DBIx::Class::Schema::Loader qw/ make_schema_at /; #specifically for the entities many-2-many relation $ENV{DBIC_OVERWRITE_HELPER_METHODS_OK} = 1; make_schema_at( 'MyApp::Schema', { dump_directory => '/tmp', debug => 1, overwrite_modifications => 1, components => ['EncodedColumn'], #encoded password column use_namespaces => 1, default_resultset_class => 'Base' }, [ 'DBI:mysql:database=mydb;host=localhost;port=3306','rob', '******' ], );

    Read the article

  • Instantiating a class within a class

    - by Ink-Jet
    Hello. I'm trying to instantiate a class within a class, so that the outer class contains the inner class. This is my code: #include <iostream> #include <string> class Inner { private: std::string message; public: Inner(std::string m); void print() const; }; Inner::Inner(std::string m) { message = m; } void Inner::print() const { std::cout << message << std::endl; std::cout << message << std::endl; } class Outer { private: std::string message; Inner in; public: Outer(std::string m); void print() const; }; Outer::Outer(std::string m) { message = m; } void Outer::print() const { std::cout << message << std::endl; } int main() { Outer out("Hello world."); out.print(); return 0; } "Inner in", is my attempt at containing the inner within the outer, however, when I compile, i get an error that there is no matching function for call to Inner::Inner(). What have I done wrong? Thanks.

    Read the article

  • Inheritance Mapping Strategies with Entity Framework Code First CTP5: Part 3 – Table per Concrete Type (TPC) and Choosing Strategy Guidelines

    - by mortezam
    This is the third (and last) post in a series that explains different approaches to map an inheritance hierarchy with EF Code First. I've described these strategies in previous posts: Part 1 – Table per Hierarchy (TPH) Part 2 – Table per Type (TPT)In today’s blog post I am going to discuss Table per Concrete Type (TPC) which completes the inheritance mapping strategies supported by EF Code First. At the end of this post I will provide some guidelines to choose an inheritance strategy mainly based on what we've learned in this series. TPC and Entity Framework in the Past Table per Concrete type is somehow the simplest approach suggested, yet using TPC with EF is one of those concepts that has not been covered very well so far and I've seen in some resources that it was even discouraged. The reason for that is just because Entity Data Model Designer in VS2010 doesn't support TPC (even though the EF runtime does). That basically means if you are following EF's Database-First or Model-First approaches then configuring TPC requires manually writing XML in the EDMX file which is not considered to be a fun practice. Well, no more. You'll see that with Code First, creating TPC is perfectly possible with fluent API just like other strategies and you don't need to avoid TPC due to the lack of designer support as you would probably do in other EF approaches. Table per Concrete Type (TPC)In Table per Concrete type (aka Table per Concrete class) we use exactly one table for each (nonabstract) class. All properties of a class, including inherited properties, can be mapped to columns of this table, as shown in the following figure: As you can see, the SQL schema is not aware of the inheritance; effectively, we’ve mapped two unrelated tables to a more expressive class structure. If the base class was concrete, then an additional table would be needed to hold instances of that class. I have to emphasize that there is no relationship between the database tables, except for the fact that they share some similar columns. TPC Implementation in Code First Just like the TPT implementation, we need to specify a separate table for each of the subclasses. We also need to tell Code First that we want all of the inherited properties to be mapped as part of this table. In CTP5, there is a new helper method on EntityMappingConfiguration class called MapInheritedProperties that exactly does this for us. Here is the complete object model as well as the fluent API to create a TPC mapping: public abstract class BillingDetail {     public int BillingDetailId { get; set; }     public string Owner { get; set; }     public string Number { get; set; } }          public class BankAccount : BillingDetail {     public string BankName { get; set; }     public string Swift { get; set; } }          public class CreditCard : BillingDetail {     public int CardType { get; set; }     public string ExpiryMonth { get; set; }     public string ExpiryYear { get; set; } }      public class InheritanceMappingContext : DbContext {     public DbSet<BillingDetail> BillingDetails { get; set; }              protected override void OnModelCreating(ModelBuilder modelBuilder)     {         modelBuilder.Entity<BankAccount>().Map(m =>         {             m.MapInheritedProperties();             m.ToTable("BankAccounts");         });         modelBuilder.Entity<CreditCard>().Map(m =>         {             m.MapInheritedProperties();             m.ToTable("CreditCards");         });                 } } The Importance of EntityMappingConfiguration ClassAs a side note, it worth mentioning that EntityMappingConfiguration class turns out to be a key type for inheritance mapping in Code First. Here is an snapshot of this class: namespace System.Data.Entity.ModelConfiguration.Configuration.Mapping {     public class EntityMappingConfiguration<TEntityType> where TEntityType : class     {         public ValueConditionConfiguration Requires(string discriminator);         public void ToTable(string tableName);         public void MapInheritedProperties();     } } As you have seen so far, we used its Requires method to customize TPH. We also used its ToTable method to create a TPT and now we are using its MapInheritedProperties along with ToTable method to create our TPC mapping. TPC Configuration is Not Done Yet!We are not quite done with our TPC configuration and there is more into this story even though the fluent API we saw perfectly created a TPC mapping for us in the database. To see why, let's start working with our object model. For example, the following code creates two new objects of BankAccount and CreditCard types and tries to add them to the database: using (var context = new InheritanceMappingContext()) {     BankAccount bankAccount = new BankAccount();     CreditCard creditCard = new CreditCard() { CardType = 1 };                      context.BillingDetails.Add(bankAccount);     context.BillingDetails.Add(creditCard);     context.SaveChanges(); } Running this code throws an InvalidOperationException with this message: The changes to the database were committed successfully, but an error occurred while updating the object context. The ObjectContext might be in an inconsistent state. Inner exception message: AcceptChanges cannot continue because the object's key values conflict with another object in the ObjectStateManager. Make sure that the key values are unique before calling AcceptChanges. The reason we got this exception is because DbContext.SaveChanges() internally invokes SaveChanges method of its internal ObjectContext. ObjectContext's SaveChanges method on its turn by default calls AcceptAllChanges after it has performed the database modifications. AcceptAllChanges method merely iterates over all entries in ObjectStateManager and invokes AcceptChanges on each of them. Since the entities are in Added state, AcceptChanges method replaces their temporary EntityKey with a regular EntityKey based on the primary key values (i.e. BillingDetailId) that come back from the database and that's where the problem occurs since both the entities have been assigned the same value for their primary key by the database (i.e. on both BillingDetailId = 1) and the problem is that ObjectStateManager cannot track objects of the same type (i.e. BillingDetail) with the same EntityKey value hence it throws. If you take a closer look at the TPC's SQL schema above, you'll see why the database generated the same values for the primary keys: the BillingDetailId column in both BankAccounts and CreditCards table has been marked as identity. How to Solve The Identity Problem in TPC As you saw, using SQL Server’s int identity columns doesn't work very well together with TPC since there will be duplicate entity keys when inserting in subclasses tables with all having the same identity seed. Therefore, to solve this, either a spread seed (where each table has its own initial seed value) will be needed, or a mechanism other than SQL Server’s int identity should be used. Some other RDBMSes have other mechanisms allowing a sequence (identity) to be shared by multiple tables, and something similar can be achieved with GUID keys in SQL Server. While using GUID keys, or int identity keys with different starting seeds will solve the problem but yet another solution would be to completely switch off identity on the primary key property. As a result, we need to take the responsibility of providing unique keys when inserting records to the database. We will go with this solution since it works regardless of which database engine is used. Switching Off Identity in Code First We can switch off identity simply by placing DatabaseGenerated attribute on the primary key property and pass DatabaseGenerationOption.None to its constructor. DatabaseGenerated attribute is a new data annotation which has been added to System.ComponentModel.DataAnnotations namespace in CTP5: public abstract class BillingDetail {     [DatabaseGenerated(DatabaseGenerationOption.None)]     public int BillingDetailId { get; set; }     public string Owner { get; set; }     public string Number { get; set; } } As always, we can achieve the same result by using fluent API, if you prefer that: modelBuilder.Entity<BillingDetail>()             .Property(p => p.BillingDetailId)             .HasDatabaseGenerationOption(DatabaseGenerationOption.None); Working With The Object Model Our TPC mapping is ready and we can try adding new records to the database. But, like I said, now we need to take care of providing unique keys when creating new objects: using (var context = new InheritanceMappingContext()) {     BankAccount bankAccount = new BankAccount()      {          BillingDetailId = 1                          };     CreditCard creditCard = new CreditCard()      {          BillingDetailId = 2,         CardType = 1     };                      context.BillingDetails.Add(bankAccount);     context.BillingDetails.Add(creditCard);     context.SaveChanges(); } Polymorphic Associations with TPC is Problematic The main problem with this approach is that it doesn’t support Polymorphic Associations very well. After all, in the database, associations are represented as foreign key relationships and in TPC, the subclasses are all mapped to different tables so a polymorphic association to their base class (abstract BillingDetail in our example) cannot be represented as a simple foreign key relationship. For example, consider the the domain model we introduced here where User has a polymorphic association with BillingDetail. This would be problematic in our TPC Schema, because if User has a many-to-one relationship with BillingDetail, the Users table would need a single foreign key column, which would have to refer both concrete subclass tables. This isn’t possible with regular foreign key constraints. Schema Evolution with TPC is Complex A further conceptual problem with this mapping strategy is that several different columns, of different tables, share exactly the same semantics. This makes schema evolution more complex. For example, a change to a base class property results in changes to multiple columns. It also makes it much more difficult to implement database integrity constraints that apply to all subclasses. Generated SQLLet's examine SQL output for polymorphic queries in TPC mapping. For example, consider this polymorphic query for all BillingDetails and the resulting SQL statements that being executed in the database: var query = from b in context.BillingDetails select b; Just like the SQL query generated by TPT mapping, the CASE statements that you see in the beginning of the query is merely to ensure columns that are irrelevant for a particular row have NULL values in the returning flattened table. (e.g. BankName for a row that represents a CreditCard type). TPC's SQL Queries are Union Based As you can see in the above screenshot, the first SELECT uses a FROM-clause subquery (which is selected with a red rectangle) to retrieve all instances of BillingDetails from all concrete class tables. The tables are combined with a UNION operator, and a literal (in this case, 0 and 1) is inserted into the intermediate result; (look at the lines highlighted in yellow.) EF reads this to instantiate the correct class given the data from a particular row. A union requires that the queries that are combined, project over the same columns; hence, EF has to pad and fill up nonexistent columns with NULL. This query will really perform well since here we can let the database optimizer find the best execution plan to combine rows from several tables. There is also no Joins involved so it has a better performance than the SQL queries generated by TPT where a Join is required between the base and subclasses tables. Choosing Strategy GuidelinesBefore we get into this discussion, I want to emphasize that there is no one single "best strategy fits all scenarios" exists. As you saw, each of the approaches have their own advantages and drawbacks. Here are some rules of thumb to identify the best strategy in a particular scenario: If you don’t require polymorphic associations or queries, lean toward TPC—in other words, if you never or rarely query for BillingDetails and you have no class that has an association to BillingDetail base class. I recommend TPC (only) for the top level of your class hierarchy, where polymorphism isn’t usually required, and when modification of the base class in the future is unlikely. If you do require polymorphic associations or queries, and subclasses declare relatively few properties (particularly if the main difference between subclasses is in their behavior), lean toward TPH. Your goal is to minimize the number of nullable columns and to convince yourself (and your DBA) that a denormalized schema won’t create problems in the long run. If you do require polymorphic associations or queries, and subclasses declare many properties (subclasses differ mainly by the data they hold), lean toward TPT. Or, depending on the width and depth of your inheritance hierarchy and the possible cost of joins versus unions, use TPC. By default, choose TPH only for simple problems. For more complex cases (or when you’re overruled by a data modeler insisting on the importance of nullability constraints and normalization), you should consider the TPT strategy. But at that point, ask yourself whether it may not be better to remodel inheritance as delegation in the object model (delegation is a way of making composition as powerful for reuse as inheritance). Complex inheritance is often best avoided for all sorts of reasons unrelated to persistence or ORM. EF acts as a buffer between the domain and relational models, but that doesn’t mean you can ignore persistence concerns when designing your classes. SummaryIn this series, we focused on one of the main structural aspect of the object/relational paradigm mismatch which is inheritance and discussed how EF solve this problem as an ORM solution. We learned about the three well-known inheritance mapping strategies and their implementations in EF Code First. Hopefully it gives you a better insight about the mapping of inheritance hierarchies as well as choosing the best strategy for your particular scenario. Happy New Year and Happy Code-Firsting! References ADO.NET team blog Java Persistence with Hibernate book a { color: #5A99FF; } a:visited { color: #5A99FF; } .title { padding-bottom: 5px; font-family: Segoe UI; font-size: 11pt; font-weight: bold; padding-top: 15px; } .code, .typeName { font-family: consolas; } .typeName { color: #2b91af; } .padTop5 { padding-top: 5px; } .padTop10 { padding-top: 10px; } .exception { background-color: #f0f0f0; font-style: italic; padding-bottom: 5px; padding-left: 5px; padding-top: 5px; padding-right: 5px; }

    Read the article

  • Java: reusable encapsulation with interface, abstract class or inner classes?

    - by HH
    I try to encapsulate. Exeption from interface, static inner class working, non-static inner class not working, cannot understand terminology: nested classes, inner classes, nested interfaces, interface-abstract-class -- sounds too Repetitive! Exception 'illegal type' from interface apparently because values being constants(?!) static interface userInfo { File startingFile=new File("."); String startingPath="dummy"; try{ startingPath=startingFile.getCanonicalPath(); }catch(Exception e){e.printStackTrace();} } Working code but no succes with non-static inner class import java.io.*; import java.util.*; public class listTest{ public interface hello{String word="hello word from Interface!";} public static class hej{ hej(){} private String hejo="hello hallo from Static class with image"; public void printHallooo(){System.out.println(hejo);} } public class nonStatic{ nonStatic(){} //HOW TO USE IT? public void printNonStatic(){System.out.println("Inside static class with an image!");} } public static void main(String[] args){ //INTERFACE TEST System.out.println(hello.word); //INNNER CLASS STATIC TEST hej h=new hej(); h.printHallooo(); //INNER CLASS NON-STATIC TEST nonStatic ns=new nonStatic(); ns.printNonStatic(); //IS there a way to it without STATIC? } } Output The above code works but how non-staticly? Output: hello word from Interface! hello hallo from Static class with image! StaticPrint without an image of the class! Related Nesting classes inner classes? interfacses

    Read the article

  • Announcing Entity Framework Code-First (CTP5 release)

    - by ScottGu
    This week the data team released the CTP5 build of the new Entity Framework Code-First library.  EF Code-First enables a pretty sweet code-centric development workflow for working with data.  It enables you to: Develop without ever having to open a designer or define an XML mapping file Define model objects by simply writing “plain old classes” with no base classes required Use a “convention over configuration” approach that enables database persistence without explicitly configuring anything Optionally override the convention-based persistence and use a fluent code API to fully customize the persistence mapping I’m a big fan of the EF Code-First approach, and wrote several blog posts about it this summer: Code-First Development with Entity Framework 4 (July 16th) EF Code-First: Custom Database Schema Mapping (July 23rd) Using EF Code-First with an Existing Database (August 3rd) Today’s new CTP5 release delivers several nice improvements over the CTP4 build, and will be the last preview build of Code First before the final release of it.  We will ship the final EF Code First release in the first quarter of next year (Q1 of 2011).  It works with all .NET application types (including both ASP.NET Web Forms and ASP.NET MVC projects). Installing EF Code First You can install and use EF Code First CTP5 using one of two ways: Approach 1) By downloading and running a setup program.  Once installed you can reference the EntityFramework.dll assembly it provides within your projects.      or: Approach 2) By using the NuGet Package Manager within Visual Studio to download and install EF Code First within a project.  To do this, simply bring up the NuGet Package Manager Console within Visual Studio (View->Other Windows->Package Manager Console) and type “Install-Package EFCodeFirst”: Typing “Install-Package EFCodeFirst” within the Package Manager Console will cause NuGet to download the EF Code First package, and add it to your current project: Doing this will automatically add a reference to the EntityFramework.dll assembly to your project:   NuGet enables you to have EF Code First setup and ready to use within seconds.  When the final release of EF Code First ships you’ll also be able to just type “Update-Package EFCodeFirst” to update your existing projects to use the final release. EF Code First Assembly and Namespace The CTP5 release of EF Code First has an updated assembly name, and new .NET namespace: Assembly Name: EntityFramework.dll Namespace: System.Data.Entity These names match what we plan to use for the final release of the library. Nice New CTP5 Improvements The new CTP5 release of EF Code First contains a bunch of nice improvements and refinements. Some of the highlights include: Better support for Existing Databases Built-in Model-Level Validation and DataAnnotation Support Fluent API Improvements Pluggable Conventions Support New Change Tracking API Improved Concurrency Conflict Resolution Raw SQL Query/Command Support The rest of this blog post contains some more details about a few of the above changes. Better Support for Existing Databases EF Code First makes it really easy to create model layers that work against existing databases.  CTP5 includes some refinements that further streamline the developer workflow for this scenario. Below are the steps to use EF Code First to create a model layer for the Northwind sample database: Step 1: Create Model Classes and a DbContext class Below is all of the code necessary to implement a simple model layer using EF Code First that goes against the Northwind database: EF Code First enables you to use “POCO” – Plain Old CLR Objects – to represent entities within a database.  This means that you do not need to derive model classes from a base class, nor implement any interfaces or data persistence attributes on them.  This enables the model classes to be kept clean, easily testable, and “persistence ignorant”.  The Product and Category classes above are examples of POCO model classes. EF Code First enables you to easily connect your POCO model classes to a database by creating a “DbContext” class that exposes public properties that map to the tables within a database.  The Northwind class above illustrates how this can be done.  It is mapping our Product and Category classes to the “Products” and “Categories” tables within the database.  The properties within the Product and Category classes in turn map to the columns within the Products and Categories tables – and each instance of a Product/Category object maps to a row within the tables. The above code is all of the code required to create our model and data access layer!  Previous CTPs of EF Code First required an additional step to work against existing databases (a call to Database.Initializer<Northwind>(null) to tell EF Code First to not create the database) – this step is no longer required with the CTP5 release.  Step 2: Configure the Database Connection String We’ve written all of the code we need to write to define our model layer.  Our last step before we use it will be to setup a connection-string that connects it with our database.  To do this we’ll add a “Northwind” connection-string to our web.config file (or App.Config for client apps) like so:   <connectionStrings>          <add name="Northwind"          connectionString="data source=.\SQLEXPRESS;Integrated Security=SSPI;AttachDBFilename=|DataDirectory|\northwind.mdf;User Instance=true"          providerName="System.Data.SqlClient" />   </connectionStrings> EF “code first” uses a convention where DbContext classes by default look for a connection-string that has the same name as the context class.  Because our DbContext class is called “Northwind” it by default looks for a “Northwind” connection-string to use.  Above our Northwind connection-string is configured to use a local SQL Express database (stored within the \App_Data directory of our project).  You can alternatively point it at a remote SQL Server. Step 3: Using our Northwind Model Layer We can now easily query and update our database using the strongly-typed model layer we just built with EF Code First. The code example below demonstrates how to use LINQ to query for products within a specific product category.  This query returns back a sequence of strongly-typed Product objects that match the search criteria: The code example below demonstrates how we can retrieve a specific Product object, update two of its properties, and then save the changes back to the database: EF Code First handles all of the change-tracking and data persistence work for us, and allows us to focus on our application and business logic as opposed to having to worry about data access plumbing. Built-in Model Validation EF Code First allows you to use any validation approach you want when implementing business rules with your model layer.  This enables a great deal of flexibility and power. Starting with this week’s CTP5 release, EF Code First also now includes built-in support for both the DataAnnotation and IValidatorObject validation support built-into .NET 4.  This enables you to easily implement validation rules on your models, and have these rules automatically be enforced by EF Code First whenever you save your model layer.  It provides a very convenient “out of the box” way to enable validation within your applications. Applying DataAnnotations to our Northwind Model The code example below demonstrates how we could add some declarative validation rules to two of the properties of our “Product” model: We are using the [Required] and [Range] attributes above.  These validation attributes live within the System.ComponentModel.DataAnnotations namespace that is built-into .NET 4, and can be used independently of EF.  The error messages specified on them can either be explicitly defined (like above) – or retrieved from resource files (which makes localizing applications easy). Validation Enforcement on SaveChanges() EF Code-First (starting with CTP5) now automatically applies and enforces DataAnnotation rules when a model object is updated or saved.  You do not need to write any code to enforce this – this support is now enabled by default.  This new support means that the below code – which violates our above rules – will automatically throw an exception when we call the “SaveChanges()” method on our Northwind DbContext: The DbEntityValidationException that is raised when the SaveChanges() method is invoked contains a “EntityValidationErrors” property that you can use to retrieve the list of all validation errors that occurred when the model was trying to save.  This enables you to easily guide the user on how to fix them.  Note that EF Code-First will abort the entire transaction of changes if a validation rule is violated – ensuring that our database is always kept in a valid, consistent state. EF Code First’s validation enforcement works both for the built-in .NET DataAnnotation attributes (like Required, Range, RegularExpression, StringLength, etc), as well as for any custom validation rule you create by sub-classing the System.ComponentModel.DataAnnotations.ValidationAttribute base class. UI Validation Support A lot of our UI frameworks in .NET also provide support for DataAnnotation-based validation rules. For example, ASP.NET MVC, ASP.NET Dynamic Data, and Silverlight (via WCF RIA Services) all provide support for displaying client-side validation UI that honor the DataAnnotation rules applied to model objects. The screen-shot below demonstrates how using the default “Add-View” scaffold template within an ASP.NET MVC 3 application will cause appropriate validation error messages to be displayed if appropriate values are not provided: ASP.NET MVC 3 supports both client-side and server-side enforcement of these validation rules.  The error messages displayed are automatically picked up from the declarative validation attributes – eliminating the need for you to write any custom code to display them. Keeping things DRY The “DRY Principle” stands for “Do Not Repeat Yourself”, and is a best practice that recommends that you avoid duplicating logic/configuration/code in multiple places across your application, and instead specify it only once and have it apply everywhere. EF Code First CTP5 now enables you to apply declarative DataAnnotation validations on your model classes (and specify them only once) and then have the validation logic be enforced (and corresponding error messages displayed) across all applications scenarios – including within controllers, views, client-side scripts, and for any custom code that updates and manipulates model classes. This makes it much easier to build good applications with clean code, and to build applications that can rapidly iterate and evolve. Other EF Code First Improvements New to CTP5 EF Code First CTP5 includes a bunch of other improvements as well.  Below are a few short descriptions of some of them: Fluent API Improvements EF Code First allows you to override an “OnModelCreating()” method on the DbContext class to further refine/override the schema mapping rules used to map model classes to underlying database schema.  CTP5 includes some refinements to the ModelBuilder class that is passed to this method which can make defining mapping rules cleaner and more concise.  The ADO.NET Team blogged some samples of how to do this here. Pluggable Conventions Support EF Code First CTP5 provides new support that allows you to override the “default conventions” that EF Code First honors, and optionally replace them with your own set of conventions. New Change Tracking API EF Code First CTP5 exposes a new set of change tracking information that enables you to access Original, Current & Stored values, and State (e.g. Added, Unchanged, Modified, Deleted).  This support is useful in a variety of scenarios. Improved Concurrency Conflict Resolution EF Code First CTP5 provides better exception messages that allow access to the affected object instance and the ability to resolve conflicts using current, original and database values.  Raw SQL Query/Command Support EF Code First CTP5 now allows raw SQL queries and commands (including SPROCs) to be executed via the SqlQuery and SqlCommand methods exposed off of the DbContext.Database property.  The results of these method calls can be materialized into object instances that can be optionally change-tracked by the DbContext.  This is useful for a variety of advanced scenarios. Full Data Annotations Support EF Code First CTP5 now supports all standard DataAnnotations within .NET, and can use them both to perform validation as well as to automatically create the appropriate database schema when EF Code First is used in a database creation scenario.  Summary EF Code First provides an elegant and powerful way to work with data.  I really like it because it is extremely clean and supports best practices, while also enabling solutions to be implemented very, very rapidly.  The code-only approach of the library means that model layers end up being flexible and easy to customize. This week’s CTP5 release further refines EF Code First and helps ensure that it will be really sweet when it ships early next year.  I recommend using NuGet to install and give it a try today.  I think you’ll be pleasantly surprised by how awesome it is. Hope this helps, Scott

    Read the article

  • C# "Rename" Property in Derived Class

    - by Eric
    When you read this you'll be awfully tempted to give advice like "this is a bad idea for the following reason..." Bear with me. I know there are other ways to approach this. This question should be considered trivia. Lets say you have a class "Transaction" that has properties common to all transactions such as Invoice, Purchase Order, and Sales Receipt. Let's take the simple example of Transaction "Amount", which is the most important monetary amount for a given transaction. public class Transaction { public double Amount { get; set; } public TxnTypeEnum TransactionType { get; set; } } This Amount may have a more specific name in a derived type... at least in the real world. For example, the following values are all actually the same thing: Transaction - Amount Invoice - Subtotal PurchaseOrder - Total Sales Receipt - Amount So now I want a derived class "Invoice" that has a Subtotal rather than the generically-named Amount. Ideally both of the following would be true: In an instance of Transaction, the Amount property would be visible. In an instance of Invoice, the Amount property would be hidden, but the Subtotal property would refer to it internally. Invoice looks like this: public class Invoice : Transaction { new private double? Amount { get { return base.Amount; } set { base.Amount = value; } } // This property should hide the generic property "Amount" on Transaction public double? SubTotal { get { return Amount; } set { Amount = value; } } public double RemainingBalance { get; set; } } But of course Transaction.Amount is still visible on any instance of Invoice. Thanks for taking a look!

    Read the article

  • How to remove CRUD operations from Entity Class

    - by GlutVonSmark
    Trying to get my head around removing dataStore access from my entity classes. Lets say I have an AccountsGroup entity class. I put the all DBAccess into AccountsGroupRepository class. Now should I have a DeleteFromDB method in the AccountsGroup class, that will call the repository? Public Sub DeleteFromDB dim repository as new AccountsGroupRepository(me) repository.DelteFromDB End Sub Or should I just always use repositry whenever I need to delete an entity, and not have the CRUD methods in the entity class? What happens when there is some business logic validation that needs to be done before the delete can proceed. For example if AccountsGroup still has some Accounts in it the delete method should throw an exception. Where do I put that?

    Read the article

  • Unable to access A class variables in B Class - Unity-Monodevelop

    - by Syed
    I have made a class including variables in Monodevelop which is: public class GridInfo : MonoBehaviour { public float initPosX; public float initPosY; public bool inUse; public int f; public int g; public int h; public GridInfo parent; public int y,x; } Now I am using its class variable in another class, Map.cs which is: public class Map : MonoBehaviour { public static GridInfo[,] Tile = new GridInfo[17, 23]; void Start() { Tile[0,0].initPosX = initPosX; //Line 49 } } Iam not getting any error on runtime, but when I play in unity it is giving me error NullReferenceException: Object reference not set to an instance of an object Map.Start () (at Assets/Scripts/Map.cs:49) I am not inserting this script in any gameobject, as Map.cs will make a GridInfo type array, I have also tried using variables using GetComponent, where is the problem ?

    Read the article

  • Making Class Diagram for MVC Pattern Project

    - by iMohammad
    I have a question about making a class diagram for an MVC based college senior project. If we have 2 actors of users in my system, lets say Undergrad and Graduate students are the children of abstract class called User. (Generalisation) Each actor has his own features. My question, in such case, do we need to have these two actors in separate classes which inherits from the abstract class User? even though, I'm going to implement them as roles using one Model called User Model ? I think you can see my confusion here. I code using MVC pattern, but I've never made a class diagram for this pattern. Thank you in advance!

    Read the article

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