Search Results

Search found 499 results on 20 pages for 'getters setters'.

Page 4/20 | < Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >

• Overriding setter on domain class in grails 1.1.2

  - by Pavel P

  I have following two domain classes in Grails 1.1.2: class A implements Serializable { MyEnumType myField Date fieldChanged void setMyField(MyEnumType val) { if (myField != null && myField != val) { myField = val fieldChanged = new Date() } } } class B extends A { List children void setMyField(MyEnumType val) { if (myField != null && myField != val) { myField = val fieldChanged = new Date() children.each { child -> child.myField = val } } } When I set B instance's myField, I get the setter into the cycle... myField = val line calls setter again instead of assiging the new value. Any hint how to override the setter correctly? Thanks

  Read the article

• Custom setter methods in Core-Data

  - by andrewebling

  I need to write a custom setter method for a field (we'll call it foo) in my subclass of NSManagedObject. foo is defined in the data model and Xcode has autogenerated @property and @dynamic fields in the .h and .m files respectively. If I write my setter like this: - (void)setFoo: (NSObject *)inFoo { [super setFoo: inFoo]; [self updateStuff]; } then I get a compiler warning on the call to super. Alternatively, if I do this: - (void)setFoo: (NSObject *)inFoo { [super setValue: inFoo forKey: inFoo]; [self updateStuff]; } then I end up in an infinite loop. So what's the correct approach to write a custom setter for a subclass of NSManagedObject?

  Read the article

• C++ Virtual Methods for Class-Specific Attributes or External Structure

  - by acanaday

  I have a set of classes which are all derived from a common base class. I want to use these classes polymorphically. The interface defines a set of getter methods whose return values are constant across a given derived class, but vary from one derived class to another. e.g.: enum AVal { A_VAL_ONE, A_VAL_TWO, A_VAL_THREE }; enum BVal { B_VAL_ONE, B_VAL_TWO, B_VAL_THREE }; class Base { //... virtual AVal getAVal() const = 0; virtual BVal getBVal() const = 0; //... }; class One : public Base { //... AVal getAVal() const { return A_VAL_ONE }; BVal getBVal() const { return B_VAL_ONE }; //... }; class Two : public Base { //... AVal getAVal() const { return A_VAL_TWO }; BVal getBVal() const { return B_VAL_TWO }; //... }; etc. Is this a common way of doing things? If performance is an important consideration, would I be better off pulling the attributes out into an external structure, e.g.: struct Vals { AVal a_val; VBal b_val; }; storing a Vals* in each instance, and rewriting Base as follows? class Base { //... public: AVal getAVal() const { return _vals->a_val; }; BVal getBVal() const { return _vals->b_val; }; //... private: Vals* _vals; }; Is the extra dereference essentially the same as the vtable lookup? What is the established idiom for this type of situation? Are both of these solutions dumb? Any insights are greatly appreciated

  Read the article

• Having Public properties in c++ class

  - by KhanS

  How do I have properties in C++ class, as you have in a C# class. I don't want to have getter and setter methods.

  Read the article

• How to make Spring accept fluent (non-void) setters?

  - by Chris

  Hi, I have an API which I am turning into an internal DSL. As such, most methods in my PoJos return a reference to this so that I can chain methods together declaratively as such (syntactic sugar). myComponent .setID("MyId") .setProperty("One") .setProperty2("Two") .setAssociation(anotherComponent) .execute(); My API does not depend on Spring but I wish to make it 'Spring-Friendly' by being PoJo friendly with zero argument constructors, getters and setters. The problem is that Spring seems to not detect my setter methods when I have a non-void return type. The return type of this is very convenient when chaining together my commands so I don't want to destroy my programmatic API just be to compatible with Spring injection. Is there a setting in Spring to allow me to use non-void setters? Chris

  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

• Computation overhead in C# - Using getters/setters vs. modifying arrays directly and casting speeds

  - by Jeffrey Kern

  I was going to write a long-winded post, but I'll boil it down here: I'm trying to emulate the graphical old-school style of the NES via XNA. However, my FPS is SLOW, trying to modify 65K pixels per frame. If I just loop through all 65K pixels and set them to some arbitrary color, I get 64FPS. The code I made to look-up what colors should be placed where, I get 1FPS. I think it is because of my object-orented code. Right now, I have things divided into about six classes, with getters/setters. I'm guessing that I'm at least calling 360K getters per frame, which I think is a lot of overhead. Each class contains either/and-or 1D or 2D arrays containing custom enumerations, int, Color, or Vector2D, bytes. What if I combined all of the classes into just one, and accessed the contents of each array directly? The code would look a mess, and ditch the concepts of object-oriented coding, but the speed might be much faster. I'm also not concerned about access violations, as any attempts to get/set the data in the arrays will done in blocks. E.g., all writing to arrays will take place before any data is accessed from them. As for casting, I stated that I'm using custom enumerations, int, Color, and Vector2D, bytes. Which data types are fastest to use and access in the .net Framework, XNA, XBox, C#? I think that constant casting might be a cause of slowdown here. Also, instead of using math to figure out which indexes data should be placed in, I've used precomputed lookup tables so I don't have to use constant multiplication, addition, subtraction, division per frame. :)

  Read the article

• Can getters and setters be inlined when definition and declaration are seperated in .h and .cpp files?

  - by Nathan

  I have searched and have been unable to verify how the GCC compiler will handle inlining getters and setters when declaration is in .h file and definition is in .cpp file. Most seem to say that GCC can't see across these source file barriers and won't be able to inline these at all, while others disagree. I have looked at the documentation and I can't find the answer there either. Did I miss it? I do realize that inlining is a choice made by the compiler and is not always guaranteed, but assuming optimal situations, is it at least possible?

  Read the article

• Is there a Java unit-test framework that auto-tests getters and setters?

  - by Michael Easter

  There is a well-known debate in Java (and other communities, I'm sure) whether or not trivial getter/setter methods should be tested. Usually, this is with respect to code coverage. Let's agree that this is an open debate, and not try to answer it here. There have been several blog posts on using Java reflection to auto-test such methods. Does any framework (e.g. jUnit) provide such a feature? e.g. An annotation that says "this test T should auto-test all the getters/setters on class C, because I assert that they are standard". It seems to me that it would add value, and if it were configurable, the 'debate' would be left as an option to the user.

  Read the article

• Java: Is clone() really ever used? What about defensive copying in getters/setters?

  - by GreenieMeanie

  Do people practically ever use defensive getters/setters? To me, 99% of the time you intend for the object you set in another object to be a copy of the same object reference, and you intend for changes you make to it to also be made in the object it was set in. If you setDate(Date dt) and modify dt later, who cares? Unless I want some basic immutable data bean that just has primitives and maybe something simple like a Date, I never use it. As far as clone, there are issues as to how deep or shallow the copy is, so it seems kind of "dangerous" to know what is going to come out when you clone an Object. I think I have only used clone() once or twice, and that was to copy the current state of the object because another thread (ie another HTTP request accessing the same object in Session) could be modifying it. Edit - A comment I made below is more the question: But then again, you DID change the Date, so it's kind of your own fault, hence whole discussion of term "defensive". If it is all application code under your own control among a small to medium group of developers, will just documenting your classes suffice as an alternative to making object copies? Or is this not necessary, since you should always assume something ISN'T copied when calling a setter/getter?

  Read the article

• JSF Pages call ManagedBeans that are not defined on the page and call all getters sometimes more tha

  - by Bill Leeper

  I have several JSF pages that are initializing and accessing ManagedBeans that are not even used on that page. This is creating a really hairy problem for initialization. I either have to make them all session scope and continually make calls to re-inialize or take the performance hit of having them read large amounts of data from the DB whenever they decide to initialize. Some of the managed beans being accessed are not even defined on the page in question. I have done some optimization based on comments related to multiple calls to getters, but I still have the issue that I have a very specialized (and expensive to initialize) bean that is getting called when I don't want it initialized. Any insight into why/what JSF calls might do something like this. I have a very complex page making use of JSTL, Tomahawk and standard JSF tags. I could include code, but its very complex and sensitive in nature.

  Read the article

• How can a collection class instantiate many objects with one database call?

  - by Buttle Butkus

  I have a baseClass where I do not want public setters. I have a load($id) method that will retrieve the data for that object from the db. I have been using static class methods like getBy($property,$values) to return multiple class objects using a single database call. But some people say that static methods are not OOP. So now I'm trying to create a baseClassCollection that can do the same thing. But it can't, because it cannot access protected setters. I don't want everyone to be able to set the object's data. But it seems that it is an all-or-nothing proposition. I cannot give just the collection class access to the setters. I've seen a solution using debug_backtrace() but that seems inelegant. I'm moving toward just making the setters public. Are there any other solutions? Or should I even be looking for other solutions?

  Read the article

• Is this a reasonable way to handle getters/setters in a PHP class?

  - by Mark Biek

  I'm going to try something with the format of this question and I'm very open to suggestions about a better way to handle it. I didn't want to just dump a bunch of code in the question so I've posted the code for the class on refactormycode. base-class-for-easy-class-property-handling My thought was that people can either post code snippets here or make changes on refactormycode and post links back to their refactorings. I'll make upvotes and accept an answer (assuming there's a clear "winner") based on that. At any rate, on to the class itself: I see a lot of debate about getter/setter class methods and is it better to just access simple property variables directly or should every class have explicit get/set methods defined, blah blah blah. I like the idea of having explicit methods in case you have to add more logic later. Then you don't have to modify any code that uses the class. However I hate having a million functions that look like this: public function getFirstName() { return $this->firstName; } public function setFirstName($firstName) { return $this->firstName; } Now I'm sure I'm not the first person to do this (I'm hoping that there's a better way of doing it that someone can suggest to me). Basically, the PropertyHandler class has a __call magic method. Any methods that come through __call that start with "get" or "set" are then routed to functions that set or retrieve values into an associative array. The key into the array is the name of the calling method after get or set. So, if the method coming into __call is "getFirstName", the array key is "FirstName". I liked using __call because it will automatically take care of the case where the subclass already has a "getFirstName" method defined. My impression (and I may be wrong) is that the __get & __set magic methods don't do that. So here's an example of how it would work: class PropTest extends PropertyHandler { public function __construct() { parent::__construct(); } } $props = new PropTest(); $props->setFirstName("Mark"); echo $props->getFirstName(); Notice that PropTest doesn't actually have "setFirstName" or "getFirstName" methods and neither does PropertyHandler. All that's doing is manipulating array values. The other case would be where your subclass is already extending something else. Since you can't have true multiple inheritance in PHP, you can make your subclass have a PropertyHandler instance as a private variable. You have to add one more function but then things behave in exactly the same way. class PropTest2 { private $props; public function __construct() { $this->props = new PropertyHandler(); } public function __call($method, $arguments) { return $this->props->__call($method, $arguments); } } $props2 = new PropTest2(); $props2->setFirstName('Mark'); echo $props2->getFirstName(); Notice how the subclass has a __call method that just passes everything along to the PropertyHandler __call method. Another good argument against handling getters and setters this way is that it makes it really hard to document. In fact, it's basically impossible to use any sort of document generation tool since the explicit methods to be don't documented don't exist. I've pretty much abandoned this approach for now. It was an interesting learning exercise but I think it sacrifices too much clarity.

  Read the article

• C++: Copy contructor: Use Getters or access member vars directly?

  - by cbrulak

  Have a simple container class: public Container { public: Container() {} Container(const Container& cont) //option 1 { SetMyString(cont.GetMyString()); } //OR Container(const Container& cont) //option 2 { m_str1 = cont.m_str1; } public string GetMyString() { return m_str1;} public void SetMyString(string str) { m_str1 = str;} private: string m_str1; } So, would you recommend this method or accessing the member variables directly? In the example, all code is inline, but in our real code there is no inline code. Update (29 Sept 09): Some of these answers are well written however they seem to get missing the point of this question: this is simple contrived example to discuss using getters/setters vs variables initializer lists or private validator functions are not really part of this question. I'm wondering if either design will make the code easier to maintain and expand. Some ppl are focusing on the string in this example however it is just an example, imagine it is a different object instead. I'm not concerned about performance. we're not programming on the PDP-11

  Read the article

• Any way to define getters for lazy variables in Javascript arrays?

  - by LLer

  I'm trying to add elements to an array that are lazy-evaluated. This means that the value for them will not be calculated or known until they are accessed. This is like a previous question I asked but for objects. What I ended up doing for objects was Object.prototype.lazy = function(var_name, value_function) { this.__defineGetter__(var_name, function() { var saved_value = value_function(); this.__defineGetter__(var_name, function() { return saved_value; }); return saved_value; }); } lazy('exampleField', function() { // the code that returns the value I want }); But I haven't figured out a way to do it for real Arrays. Arrays don't have setters like that. You could push a function to an array, but you'd have to call it as a function for it to return the object you really want. What I'm doing right now is I created an object that I treat as an array. Object.prototype.lazy_push = function(value_function) { if(!this.length) this.length = 0; this.lazy(this.length++, value_function); } So what I want to know is, is there a way to do this while still doing it on an array and not a fake array?

  Read the article

• Am I doing getters/setters the right way in Java?

  - by Sergio Tapia

  public class Persona { int Codigo; String Nombre; public Persona(int Codigo, String Nombre){ this.Codigo = Codigo; this.Nombre = Nombre; } public void setCodigo(int Codigo){ this.Codigo = Codigo; } public int getCodigo(){ return this.Codigo; } public void setNombre(String Nombre){ this.Nombre = Nombre; } public String getNombre(){ return this.Nombre; } } Or is there a much shorter (realiable) way to do it?

  Read the article

• What's the order of execution in property setters when using IDataErrorInfo?

  - by Benny Jobigan

  Situation: Many times with WPF, we use INotifyPropertyChanged and IDataErrorInfo to enable binding and validation on our data objects. I've got a lot of properties that look like this: public SomeObject SomeData { get { return _SomeData; } set { _SomeData = value; OnPropertyChanged("SomeData"); } } Of course, I have an appropriate overridden IDataErrorInfo.this[] in my class to do validation. Question: In a binding situation, when does the validation code get executed? When is the property set? When is the setter code executed? What if the validation fails? For example: User enters new data. Binding writes data to property. Property set method is executed. Binding checks this[] for validation. If the data is invalid, the binding sets the property back to the old value. Property set method is executed again. This is important if you are adding "hooks" into the set method, like: public string PathToFile { get { return _PathToFile; } set { if (_PathToFile != value && // prevent unnecessary actions OnPathToFileChanging(value)) // allow subclasses to do something or stop the setter { _PathToFile = value; OnPathToFileChanged(); // allow subclasses to do something afterwards OnPropertyChanged("PathToFile"); } } }

  Read the article

• What is the syntax in C# for creating setters and getters?

  - by Sergio Tapia

  I'm familiar with this new syntax sugar: public string Name { get; set; } But what if I was the setter of that variable to have some sort of checking. For example, I want to convert the entire string that is supposed to be Set to all lowercases. public string Name { get; set { ???? } }

  Read the article

• are there requirements for Struts setters beyond variable name matching?

  - by slk

  I have a model-driven Struts Web action: public class ModelDrivenAction<T extends Object> implements ModelDriven<T>, Preparable { protected Long id; protected T model; @Override public void prepare() {} public void setId(Long id) { this.id = id; } @Override public T getModel() { return model; } public void setModel(T model) { this.model = model; } } I have another action which is not currently model-driven: public class OtherAction implements Preparable { private ModelObj modelObj; private Long modelId; @Override public void prepare() { modelObj = repoService.retrieveModelById(modelId); } public void setModelId(Long modelId) { this.modelId = modelId; } } I wish to make it so, and would like to avoid having to track down all the instances in JavaScript where the action is passed a "modelId" parameter instead of "id" if at all possible. I thought this might work, so either modelId or id could be passed in: public class OtherAction extends ModelDrivenAction<ModelObj> { @Override public void prepare() { model = repoService.retrieveModelById(id); } public void setModelId(Long modelId) { this.id = modelId; } } However, server/path/to/other!method?modelId=123 is failing to set id. I thought so long as a setter matched a parameter name the Struts interceptor would call it on action invocation. Am I missing something here?

  Read the article

• Problem persisting inheritance tree

  - by alaiseca

  I have a problem trying to map an inheritance tree. A simplified version of my model is like this: @MappedSuperclass @Embeddable public class BaseEmbedded implements Serializable { @Column(name="BE_FIELD") private String beField; // Getters and setters follow } @MappedSuperclass @Embeddable public class DerivedEmbedded extends BaseEmbedded { @Column(name="DE_FIELD") private String deField; // Getters and setters follow } @MappedSuperclass public abstract class BaseClass implements Serializable { @Embedded protected BaseEmbedded embedded; public BaseClass() { this.embedded = new BaseEmbedded(); } // Getters and setters follow } @Entity @Table(name="MYTABLE") @Inheritance(strategy=InheritanceType.SINGLE_TABLE) @DiscriminatorColumn(name="TYPE", discriminatorType=DiscriminatorType.STRING) public class DerivedClass extends BaseClass { @Id @Column(name="ID", nullable=false) private Long id; @Column(name="TYPE", nullable=false, insertable=false, updatable=false) private String type; public DerivedClass() { this.embedded = new DerivedClass(); } // Getters and setters follow } @Entity @DiscriminatorValue("A") public class DerivedClassA extends DerivedClass { @Embeddable public static NestedClassA extends DerivedEmbedded { @Column(name="FIELD_CLASS_A") private String fieldClassA; } public DerivedClassA() { this.embedded = new NestedClassA(); } // Getters and setters follow } @Entity @DiscriminatorValue("B") public class DerivedClassB extends DerivedClass { @Embeddable public static NestedClassB extends DerivedEmbedded { @Column(name="FIELD_CLASS_B") private String fieldClassB; } public DerivedClassB() { this.embedded = new NestedClassB(); } // Getters and setters follow } At Java level, this model is working fine, and I believe is the appropriate one. My problem comes up when it's time to persist an object. At runtime, I can create an object which could be an instance of DerivedClass, DerivedClassA or DerivedClassB. As you can see, each one of the derived classes introduces a new field which only makes sense for that specific derived class. All the classes share the same physical table in the database. If I persist an object of type DerivedClass, I expect fields BE_FIELD, DE_FIELD, ID and TYPE to be persisted with their values and the remaining fields to be null. If I persist an object of type DerivedClass A, I expect those same fields plus the FIELD_CLASS_A field to be persisted with their values and field FIELD_CLASS_B to be null. Something equivalent for an object of type DerivedClassB. Since the @Embedded annotation is at the BaseClass only, Hibernate is only persisting the fields up to that level in the tree. I don't know how to tell Hibernate that I want to persist up to the appropriate level in the tree, depending on the actual type of the embedded property. I cannot have another @Embedded property in the subclasses since this would duplicate data that is already present in the superclass and would also break the Java model. I cannot declare the embedded property to be of a more specific type either, since it's only at runtime when the actual object is created and I don't have a single branch in the hierarchy. Is it possible to solve my problem? Or should I resignate myself to accept that there is no way to persist the Java model as it is? Any help will be greatly appreciated.

  Read the article

• Generated Methods with Type Hints

  - by Ondrej Brejla

  Hi all! Today we would like to introduce you just another feature from upcoming NetBeans 7.3. It's about generating setters, constructors and type hints of their parameters. For years, you can use Insert Code action to generate setters, getters, constructors and such. Nothing new. But from NetBeans 7.3 you can generate Fluent Setters! What does it mean? Simply that $this is returned from a generated setter. This is how it looks like: But that's not everything :) As you know, before a method is generated, you have to choose a field, which will be associated with that method (in case of constructors, you choose fileds which should be initialized by that constructor). And from NetBeans 7.3, type hints are generated automatically for these parameters! But only if a proper PHPDoc is used in a corresponding field declaration, of course. Here is how it looks like. And that's all for today and as usual, please test it and if you find something strange, don't hesitate to file a new issue (product php, component Editor). Thanks a lot!

  Read the article

• Managing mandatory fields with triggers

  - by okkesemin

  I would like to set mandatory field backgrounds are red and others are green. So I try to implement below. But I could not set ValueConstraint Nullable property with trigger. Could you help please ? <Window x:Class="TriggerGirilmesigerekenalanlar.Window1" xmlns="http://schemas.microsoft.com/winfx/2006/xaml/presentation" xmlns:x="http://schemas.microsoft.com/winfx/2006/xaml" xmlns:y="http://infragistics.com/Editors" Title="Window1" Height="300" Width="300"> <Window.Resources> <Style TargetType="{x:Type y:XamTextEditor}"> <Style.Triggers> <Trigger Property="ValueConstraint" Value="{x:Null}"> <Trigger.Setters> <Setter Property="Background" Value="green"></Setter> </Trigger.Setters> </Trigger> <Trigger Property="y:ValueConstraint.Nullable" Value="false"> <Trigger.Setters> <Setter Property="Background" Value="red"></Setter> </Trigger.Setters> </Trigger> </Style.Triggers> </Style> </Window.Resources> <StackPanel> <y:XamTextEditor> <y:XamTextEditor.ValueConstraint> <y:ValueConstraint Nullable="False" ></y:ValueConstraint> </y:XamTextEditor.ValueConstraint> </y:XamTextEditor> <y:XamTextEditor></y:XamTextEditor> </StackPanel> </Window>

  Read the article

• Fill object data from several tables using hibernate mapping

  - by Udo Fholl

  Hi all, I'd like to know if it is possible to fill up a class data from database using the hibernate hbm (mapping). For instance: public class someClass { List<OtherClass> otherClasses; List<YetAnotherClass> yetAnotherClasses; //Constructors ? class OtherClass { String name; //setters, getters } class YetAnotherClass { String name; //setters, getters } //setters, getters } Using an hbm can I fill in the data from tables OTHER_CLASS_TABLE and YET_ANOTHER_CLASS_TABLE? I have no such SOME_CLASS_TABLE since this info is for viewing only. I've been playing with the <join table=""><subselect> and different constructors... But it is not working Thanks! Sorry for my english!

  Read the article

• Is there a name for a pure-data Objective-C class?

  - by BrianEnigma

  This is less of a code-specific question and more of an Objective-C nomenclature question. In C you have struct for pure data. In Enterprise Java, you have "bean" classes that are purely member variables with getters and setters, but no business logic. In Adobe FLEX, you have "Value Objects". In Objective-C, is there a proper name for an object (descended from NSObject, of course) that simply has ivars and getters/setters (or @property/@synthesize, if you want to get fancy) and no real business logic? A more concrete example might be a simple class with getters and setters for filename, file size, description, and assorted other metadata. You could then take a bunch of these and easily throw them into a container (NSDictionary, NSArray) without the need for messy NSValue wrapping of a C struct. It is also a little more structure than putting, say, a bunch of loosely-typed child NSDictionaries into a parent container object.

  Read the article

• how to create a dynamic class at runtime in Java

  - by Mrityunjay

  hi, is it possible to create a new java file from existing java file after changing some of its attributes at runtime?? Suppose i have a java file pubic class Student{ private int rollNo; private String name; // getters and setters // constructor } is it possible to create something like this, provided that rollNo is key element for the table.. public class Student { private StudentKey key; private String name; //getters and setters //constructor } public class StudentKey { private int rollNo; // getters and setters // construcotors } please help..

  Read the article

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