Search Results

Search found 456 results on 19 pages for 'getter'.

Page 4/19 | < Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >

• Is a Critical Section around an integer getter and setter redundant?

  - by Tim Gradwell

  Do critical sections inside trivial int accessors actually do anything useful? int GetFoo() { CriticalSection(crit_id); return foo; } void SetFoo(int value) { CriticalSection(crit_id); foo = value; } Is it possible for two threads to be attempting to read and write foo simultaneously? I'd have thought 'no' unless integers are written byte-at-a-time, in which case I can see the use. But I'd have though modern cpus would read/write integers in a single atomic action...

  Read the article

• Writting a getter for a pointer to a function .

  - by nomemory

  I have the following problem: "list.c" struct nmlist_element_s { void *data; struct nmlist_element_s *next; }; struct nmlist_s { nmlist_element *head; nmlist_element *tail; unsigned int size; void (*destructor)(void *data); int (*match)(const void *e1, const void *e2); }; /*** Other code ***/ What will be the signature for a function that returns 'destructor' ?

  Read the article

• Do ALL your variables need to be declared private?

  - by shovonr

  I know that it's best practice to stay safe, and that we should always prevent others from directly accessing a class' properties. I hear this all the time from university professors, and I also see this all the time in a lot of source code released on the App Hub. In fact, professors say that they will actually take marks off for every variable that gets declared public. Now, this leaves me always declaring variables as private. No matter what. Even if each of these variables were to have both a getter and a setter. But here's the problem: it's tedious work. I tend to quickly loose interest in a project every time I need to have a variable in a class that could have simply been declared public instead of private with a getter and a setter. So my question is, do I really need to declare all my variables private? Or could I declare some variables public whenever they require both a getter and a setter?

  Read the article

• creative way for implementing Data object with it's corespanding buisness logic class in java

  - by ekeren

  I have a class that need to be serialized (for both persistentcy and client-server communication) for simplicity reasons lets call the classes Business a BusinessData and I prefix for their Interfaces. All the getter and setter are delegated from Business class to BusinessData class. I thought about implementing IBusinessData interface that will contain all the getter and setters and IBusiness interface that will extend it. I can either make Business extend BuisnessData so I will not need to implement all getter and setter delegates, or make some abstract class ForwardingBusinessData that will only delegate getter and setters. Any of the above option I loose my hierarchy freedom, does any of you have any creative solution for this problem... I also reviewed DAO pattern: http://java.sun.com/blueprints/patterns/DAO.html

  Read the article

• Simple Constructor With Initializer List? - C++

  - by Alex

  Hi all, below I've included my h file, and my problem is that the compiler is not liking my simple exception class's constructor's with initializer lists. It also is saying that string is undeclared identifier, even though I have #include <string> at the top of the h file. Do you see something I am doing wrong? For further explanation, this is one of my domain classes that I'm integrating into a wxWidgets GUI application on Windows. Thanks! Time.h #pragma once #include <string> #include <iostream> // global constants for use in calculation const int HOURS_TO_MINUTES = 60; const int MINUTES_TO_HOURS = 100; class Time { public: // default Time class constructor // initializes all vars to default values Time(void); // ComputeEndTime computes the new delivery end time // params - none // preconditions - vars will be error-free // postconditions - the correct end time will be returned as an int // returns an int int ComputeEndTime(); // GetStartTime is the getter for var startTime // params - none // returns an int int GetStartTime() { return startTime; } // GetEndTime is the getter for var endTime // params - none // returns an int int GetEndTime() { return endTime; } // GetTimeDiff is the getter for var timeDifference // params - none // returns a double double GetTimeDiff() { return timeDifference; } // SetStartTime is the setter for var startTime // params - an int // returns void void SetStartTime(int s) { startTime = s; } // SetEndTime is the setter for var endTime // params - an int // returns void void SetEndTime(int e) { endTime = e; } // SetTimeDiff is the setter for var timeDifference // params - a double // returns void void SetTimeDiff(double t) { timeDifference = t; } // destructor for Time class ~Time(void); private: int startTime; int endTime; double timeDifference; }; class HourOutOfRangeException { public: // param constructor // initializes message to passed paramater // preconditions - param will be a string // postconditions - message will be initialized // params a string // no return type HourOutOfRangeException(string pMessage) : message(pMessage) {} // GetMessage is getter for var message // params none // preconditions - none // postconditions - none // returns string string GetMessage() { return message; } // destructor ~HourOutOfRangeException() {} private: string message; }; class MinuteOutOfRangeException { public: // param constructor // initializes message to passed paramater // preconditions - param will be a string // postconditions - message will be initialized // params a string // no return type MinuteOutOfRangeException(string pMessage) : message(pMessage) {} // GetMessage is getter for var message // params none // preconditions - none // postconditions - none // returns string string GetMessage() { return message; } // destructor ~MinuteOutOfRangeException() {} private: string message; }; class PercentageOutOfRangeException { public: // param constructor // initializes message to passed paramater // preconditions - param will be a string // postconditions - message will be initialized // params a string // no return type PercentageOutOfRangeException(string pMessage) : message(pMessage) {} // GetMessage is getter for var message // params none // preconditions - none // postconditions - none // returns string string GetMessage() { return message; } // destructor ~PercentageOutOfRangeException() {} private: string message; }; class StartEndException { public: // param constructor // initializes message to passed paramater // preconditions - param will be a string // postconditions - message will be initialized // params a string // no return type StartEndException(string pMessage) : message(pMessage) {} // GetMessage is getter for var message // params none // preconditions - none // postconditions - none // returns string string GetMessage() { return message; } // destructor ~StartEndException() {} private: string message; };

  Read the article

• creative way for implementing Data object with its corresponding business logic class in java

  - by ekeren

  I have a class that need to be serialized (for both persistentcy and client-server communication) for simplicity's sake let's call the classes Business a BusinessData and I prefix for their Interfaces. All the getter and setter are delegated from Business class to BusinessData class. I thought about implementing IBusinessData interface that will contain all the getter and setters and IBusiness interface that will extend it. I can either make Business extend BuisnessData so I will not need to implement all getter and setter delegates, or make some abstract class ForwardingBusinessData that will only delegate getter and setters. Any of the above option I lose my hierarchy freedom, do any of you have any creative solutions for this problem... I also reviewed DAO pattern: http://java.sun.com/blueprints/patterns/DAO.html

  Read the article

• How do you pass a generic delegate argument to a method in .NET 2.0 - UPDATED

  - by Seth Spearman

  Hello, I have a class with a delegate declaration as follows... Public Class MyClass Public Delegate Function Getter(Of TResult)() As TResult ''#the following code works. Public Shared Sub MyMethod(ByVal g As Getter(Of Boolean)) ''#do stuff End Sub End Class However, I do not want to explicitly type the Getter delegate in the Method call. Why can I not declare the parameter as follows... ... (ByVal g As Getter(Of TResult)) Is there a way to do it? My end goal was to be able to set a delegate for property setters and getters in the called class. But my reading indicates you can't do that. So I put setter and getter methods in that class and then I want the calling class to set the delegate argument and then invoke. Is there a best practice for doing this. I realize in the above example that I can set set the delegate variable from the calling class...but I am trying to create a singleton with tight encapsulation. For the record, I can't use any of the new delegate types declared in .net35. Answers in C# are welcome. Any thoughts? Seth

  Read the article

• How do you pass a generic delegate argument to a method in .NET 2.0

  - by Seth Spearman

  Hello, I have a class with a delegate declaration as follows... Public Class MyClass Public Delegate Function Getter(Of TResult)() As TResult 'the following code works. Public Shared Sub MyMethod(ByVal g As Getter(Of Boolean)) 'do stuff End Sub End Class However, I do not want to explicitly type the Getter delegate in the Method call. Why can I not declare the parameter as follows... ... (ByVal g As Getter(Of TResult)) Is there a way to do it? My end goal was to be able to set a delegate for property setters and getters in the called class. But my reading indicates you can't do that. So I put setter and getter methods in that class and then I want the calling class to set the delegate argument and then invoke. Is there a best practice for doing this. I realize in the above example that I can set set the delegate variable from the calling class...but I am trying to create a singleton with tight encapsulation. For the record, I can't use any of the new delegate types declared in .net35. Answers in C# are welcome. Any thoughts? Seth

  Read the article

• @property objective-c syntax

  - by okami

  I'm looking for the syntax of the getter/setter. Which is the setter and which is the getter?? Is the readwrite attribute the getter? Is the assign the setter? @interface SomeClass : NSObject { NSString *str; NSDate *date; } @property (readwrite, assign) NSString *str; @property (readwrite, assign) NSDate *date;

  Read the article

• How we can get the reputed value of a variable in one class into another class

  - by sairam333

  Hi all, I want to get a updated value of a variable into other class .i set value to that variable using setter method.when i use the getter in the same class it returns the setter value.But i want that getter value in another class.When i create a new object for that class and call getter method it returns null.What can i do for this .Thanks in adance

  Read the article

• @property objective-c sintax

  - by okami

  I'm looking for the sintax of the getter/setter. Which is the setter and which is the getter?? Is the readwrite attribute the getter? Is the assign the setter? @interface SomeClass : NSObject { NSString *str; NSDate *date; } @property (readwrite, assign) NSString *str; @property (readwrite, assign) NSDate *date;

  Read the article

• Do ALL your variables need to be declared private? [closed]

  - by skizeey

  Possible Duplicate: Why do we need private variables? I know that it's best practice to stay safe, and that we should always prevent others from directly accessing a class' properties. I hear this all the time from university professors, and I also see this all the time in a lot of source code released on the App Hub. In fact, professors say that they will actually take marks off for every variable that gets declared public. Now, this leaves me always declaring variables as private. No matter what. Even if each of these variables were to have both a getter and a setter. But here's the problem: it's tedious work. I tend to quickly lose interest in a project every time I need to have a variable in a class that could have simply been declared public instead of private with a getter and a setter. So my question is, do I really need to declare all my variables private? Or could I declare some variables public whenever they require both a getter and a setter?

  Read the article

• MVC Communication Pattern

  - by Kedu

  This is kind of a follow up question to this http://stackoverflow.com/questions/23743285/model-view-controller-and-callbacks, but I wanted to post it separately, because its kind of a different topic. I'm working on a multiplayer cardgame for the Android platform. I split the project into MVC which fits the needs pretty good, but I'm currently stuck because I can't figure out a good way to communicate between the different parts. I have everything setup and working with the controller being a big state machine, which is called over and over from the gameloop, and calls getter methods from the GUI and the android/network part to get the input. The input itself in the GUI and network is set by inputlisteners that set a local variable which I read in the getter method. So far so good, this is working. But my problem is, the controller has to check every input separately,so if I want to add an input I have to check in which states its valid and call the getter method from all these states. This is not good, and lets the code look pretty ugly, makes additions uncomfortable and adds redundance. So what I've got from the question I mentioned above is that some kind of command or event pattern will fit my needs. What I want to do is to create a shared and threadsafe queue in the controller and instead of calling all these getter methods, I just check the queue for new input and proceed it. On the other side, the GUI and network don't have all these getters, but instead create an event or command and send it to the controller through, for example, observer/observable. Now my problem: I can't figure out a way, for these commands/events to fit a common interface (which the queue can store) and still transport different kind of data (button clicks, cards that are played, the player id the command comes from, synchronization data etc.). If I design the communication as command pattern, I have to stick all the information that is needed to execute the command into it when its created, that's impossible because the GUI or network has no knowledge of all the things the controller needs to execute stuff that needs to be done when for example a card is played. I thought about getting this stuff into the command when executing it. But over all the different commands I have, I would need all the information the controller has, and thus give the command a reference to the controller which would make everything in it public, which is real bad design I guess. So, I could try some kind of event pattern. I have to transport data in the event. So, like the command, I would have an interface, which all events have in common, and can be stored in the shared queue. I could create a big enum with all the different events that a are possible, save one of these enums in the actual event, and build a big switch case for the events, to proceed different stuff for different events. The problem here: I have different data for all the events. But I need a common interface, to store the events in a queue. How do I get the specific data, if I can only access the event through the interface? Even if that wouldn't be a problem, I'm creating another big switch case, which looks ugly, and when i want to add a new event, I have to create the event itself, the case, the enum, and the method that's called with the data. I could of course check the event with the enum and cast it to its type, so I can call event type specific methods that give me the data I need, but that looks like bad design too.

  Read the article

• Java Swing MVC question

  - by juFo

  I'm following this MVC model: http://java.sun.com/developer/technicalArticles/javase/mvc/ In my model I have an "ArrayList shapes" field and I need the shapes in my view. Is the only way of getting my shapes by getting them in the modelPropertyChange method? public void modelPropertyChange(PropertyChangeEvent evt) { if (evt.getPropertyName().equals(MyController.PROPERTY_TEXT)) { ArrayList<Shape> shapes = (ArrayList<Shape>) evt.getNewValue(); } } or should I also create a generic getter method in my controller? like this generic setter method: protected void setModelProperty(String propertyName, Object newValue) { for (AbstractModel model: registeredModels) { try { Method method = model.getClass(). getMethod("set"+propertyName, new Class[] { newValue.getClass() } ); method.invoke(model, newValue); } catch (Exception ex) { // Handle exception. } } } If I need such a generic getter method, I have no clue how to transform this generic setter above to a generic getter method. If I don't need such a generic getter method to retreive my data from the model, if I only need the modelPropertyChange method from my View. How would I get my data from the model the first time the application starts? :o Pfft I need to get my arraylist of shapes from my model in my view :( (and later I need to get some other data also) So confusing :(

  Read the article

• Why Java language does not offer a way to declare getters and setters of a given "field" through ann

  - by zim2001

  I actually happily design and develop JEE Applications for quite 9 years, but I realized recently that as time goes by, I feel more and more fed up of dragging all these ugly bean classes with their bunch of getters and setters. Considering a basic bean like this : public class MyBean { // needs getter AND setter private int myField1; // needs only a getter, no setter private int myField2; // needs only a setter, no getter private int myField3; /** * Get the field1 * @return the field1 */ public int getField1() { return myField1; } /** * Set the field1 * @param value the value */ public void setField1(int value) { myField1 = value; } /** * Get the field2 * @return the field2 */ public int getField2() { return myField2; } /** * Set the field3 * @param value the value */ public void setField3(int value) { myField3 = value; } } I'm dreaming of something like this : public class MyBean { @inout(public,public) private int myField1; @out(public) private int myField2; @in(public) private int myField3; } No more stupid javadoc, just tell the important thing... It would still be possible to mix annotation and written down getters or setters, to cover cases when it should do non-trivial sets and gets. In other words, annotation would auto-generate the getter / setter code piece except when a literate one is provided. Moreover, I'm also dreaming of replacing things like that : MyBean b = new MyBean(); int v = b.getField1(); b.setField3(v+1); by such : MyBean b = new MyBean(); int v = b.field1; b.field3 = v+1; In fact, writing "b.field1" on the right side of an expression would be semantically identical to write "b.getField1()", I mean as if it has been replaced by some kind of a preprocessor. It's just an idea but I'm wondering if I'm alone on that topic, and also if it has major flaws. I'm aware that this question doesn't exactly meet the SO credo (we prefer questions that can be answered, not just discussed) so I flag it community wiki...

  Read the article

• Creating a property setter delegate

  - by Jim C

  I have created methods for converting a property lambda to a delegate: public static Delegate MakeGetter<T>(Expression<Func<T>> propertyLambda) { var result = Expression.Lambda(propertyLambda.Body).Compile(); return result; } public static Delegate MakeSetter<T>(Expression<Action<T>> propertyLambda) { var result = Expression.Lambda(propertyLambda.Body).Compile(); return result; } These work: Delegate getter = MakeGetter(() => SomeClass.SomeProperty); object o = getter.DynamicInvoke(); Delegate getter = MakeGetter(() => someObject.SomeProperty); object o = getter.DynamicInvoke(); but these won't compile: Delegate setter = MakeSetter(() => SomeClass.SomeProperty); setter.DynamicInvoke(new object[]{propValue}); Delegate setter = MakeSetter(() => someObject.SomeProperty); setter.DynamicInvoke(new object[]{propValue}); The MakeSetter lines fail with "The type arguments cannot be inferred from the usage. Try specifying the type arguments explicitly." Is what I'm trying to do possible? Thanks in advance.

  Read the article

• Flex ChangeWatcher bind to a negative condition

  - by bedwyr

  I have a bindable getter in a component which informs me when a [hidden] timer is running. I also have a context menu which, if this timer is running, should disable one of the menu items. Is it possible to create a ChangeWatcher which watches for the negative condition of a bindable property/getter and changes the enabled property of the menu item? Here are the basic methods I'm trying to bind together: Class A: [Bindable] public function get isPlaying():Boolean { return (_timer != null) ? _timer.running : false; } Class B: private var _playingWatcher:ChangeWatcher; public function createContextMenu():void { //...blah blah, creating context menu var newItem:ContextMenuItem = new ContextMenuItem(); _playingWatcher = BindingUtils.bindProperty(newItem, "enabled", _classA, "isPlaying"); } In the code above, I have the inverse case: when isPlaying() is true, the menu item is enabled; I want it to only be enabled when the condition is false. I could create a second getter (there are other bindings which rely on the current getter) to return the inverse condition, but that sounds ugly to me: [Bindable] public function get isNotPlaying():Boolean { return !isPlaying; } Is this possible, or is there another approach I'm completely missing?

  Read the article

• Is it proper to get and especially set Perl module's global variables directly?

  - by DVK

  I was wondering what the best practice in Perl is regarding getting - or, more importantly, setting - a global variable of some module by directly accessing $Module::varName in case the module didn't provide getter/setter method for it. The reason it smells bad to me is the fact that it sort of circumvents encapsulation. Just because I can do it in Perl, I'm not entirely certain I should (assuming there actually is an alternative such as adding a getter/setter to the module). I'm asking this because I'm about to request an addition of a getter/setter for a global variable in one of the core Perl modules, and I would like to avoid it soundly and unanimously rejected on the grounds of "Why the heck do you need one when you can access the variable in the package directly?" - in case doing the latter is actually considered perfectly OK by the community.

  Read the article

• What is common case for @dynamic usage ?

  - by Forrest

  There is previous post about difference of @synthesize and @dynamic. I wanna to know more about dynamic from the perspective of how to use @dynamic usually. Usually we use @dynamic together with NSManagedObject // Movie.h @interface Movie : NSManagedObject { } @property (retain) NSString* title; @end // Movie.m @implementation Movie @dynamic title; @end Actually there are no generated getter/setter during compiler time according to understanding of @dynamic, so it is necessary to implement your own getter/setter. My question is that in this NSManagedObject case, what is the rough implementation of getter/setter in super class NSManagedObject ? Except above case, how many other cases to use @dynamic ? Thanks,

  Read the article

• Not found in protocol

  - by Alex

  I've subclassed MKAnnotation so that i can assign objects to annotations and then assign this object to a view controller like so: - (void)mapView:(MKMapView *)mapView annotationView:(MKAnnotationView *)view calloutAccessoryControlTapped:(UIControl *)control { PlaceDetailView *detailView = [[PlaceDetailView alloc] initWithStyle:UITableViewStyleGrouped]; detailView.place = [view.annotation place]; [self.navigationController pushViewController:detailView animated:YES]; [detailView release]; } This is working great but i'm having the following issues: If i try and access the place getter method like so view.annotation.place i recieve an error: Accessing unknown place getter method If i acces the place getter method like so [view.annotation place] i receive a warning: place not found in protocol From my understanding this is because the place object is not defined in the MKAnnotation protocol, although i'm aware of this i'm not sure how to tell the complier that place does exist and it's not calling it blind.

  Read the article

• Printing a list using reflection

  - by TFool

  public class Service{ String serviceName; //setter and getter } public class Version{ String VersionID; //setter and getter } public void test(Object list){ //it shd print the obtained list } List< Service list1; //Service is a Bean List< Version list2; //Version is a Bean test(list1); test(list2); Now the test method shd print the obtained list - (i.e) If the list is of type Service ,then serviceName should be printed using its getter. If the list type is Version versionID should be printed. Is it possible to achieve this without using Interface or abstract class?

  Read the article

• Is 2 lines of push/pop code for each pre-draw-state too many?

  - by Griffin

  I'm trying to simplify vector graphics management in XNA; currently by incorporating state preservation. 2X lines of push/pop code for X states feels like too many, and it just feels wrong to have 2 lines of code that look identical except for one being push() and the other being pop(). The goal is to eradicate this repetitiveness,and I hoped to do so by creating an interface in which a client can give class/struct refs in which he wants restored after the rendering calls. Also note that many beginner-programmers will be using this, so forcing lambda expressions or other advanced C# features to be used in client code is not a good idea. I attempted to accomplish my goal by using Daniel Earwicker's Ptr class: public class Ptr<T> { Func<T> getter; Action<T> setter; public Ptr(Func<T> g, Action<T> s) { getter = g; setter = s; } public T Deref { get { return getter(); } set { setter(value); } } } an extension method: //doesn't work for structs since this is just syntatic sugar public static Ptr<T> GetPtr <T> (this T obj) { return new Ptr<T>( ()=> obj, v=> obj=v ); } and a Push Function: //returns a Pop Action for later calling public static Action Push <T> (ref T structure) where T: struct { T pushedValue = structure; //copies the struct data Ptr<T> p = structure.GetPtr(); return new Action( ()=> {p.Deref = pushedValue;} ); } However this doesn't work as stated in the code. How might I accomplish my goal? Example of code to be refactored: protected override void RenderLocally (GraphicsDevice device) { if (!(bool)isCompiled) {Compile();} //TODO: make sure state settings don't implicitly delete any buffers/resources RasterizerState oldRasterState = device.RasterizerState; DepthFormat oldFormat = device.PresentationParameters.DepthStencilFormat; DepthStencilState oldBufferState = device.DepthStencilState; { //Rendering code } device.RasterizerState = oldRasterState; device.DepthStencilState = oldBufferState; device.PresentationParameters.DepthStencilFormat = oldFormat; }

  Read the article

• Are trivial protected getters blatant overkill?

  - by Panzercrisis

  Something I really have not thought about before (AS3 syntax): private var m_obj:Object; protected function get obj():Object { return m_obj; } private var m_str:String; protected function get str():String { return m_str; } At least subclasses won't be able to set m_obj or m_str (though they could still modify m_obj). Is this just blatant overkill? I am not talking about doing this as opposed to making them public. I am talking about doing this instead of just making the variables themselves protected. Like this: protected var m_obj:Object; //more accessible than a private variable with a protected getter protected var m_str:String; //more accessible than a private variable with a protected getter

  Read the article

• NetBeans "Find Usages" Tool Integrates JSF Expression Language

  - by Geertjan

  I saw this by Adam on Twitter today: Interesting. Let's try it. Here's my method "getCustomerId". I select it, right-click, and choose "Find Usages" (or press Alt-F7): A nice dialog appears: Then click "Find" and, guess what, this is what I see (click to enlarge it): Clearly, as you can see, I'm not only finding the Java controller class where the getter is used, but also the Facelets files, and, within those, the exact lines where the JSF expression language makes use of the getter. This is not a new feature, tried it and got the same result in 7.1.1, but it's really cool to know about nonetheless.

  Read the article

• I dont understand Access modifiers in OOP (JAVA)

  - by Imran

  I know this is a silly question but i don't understand Access Modifiers in OOP. Why do we make for example in JAVA instance variables private and then use public getter and setter methods to access them? I mean whats the reasoning/logic behind this? You still get to the instance variable but why use setter and getter methods when you can just make your variables public? please excuse my ignorance as i'm simply trying to understand why we do this? Thank you in advance;-)

  Read the article

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