Search Results

Search found 13710 results on 549 pages for 'partial methods'.

Page 4/549 | < Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >

  • MVC - Ajax form - return partial view doesnt update in <div> target

    - by Jack
    I have an index view that I want to update automatically as the user types in a client id. I got something similiar to work (only it was updating just a label) - but this will not work. What happens is the partial is just rendered by itself (not in place of the UpdateTargetID). So the data is rendered on a new page. Here is my code: Controller: public ActionResult ClientList(string queryText) { var clients = CR.GetClientLike(queryText); return PartialView("ClientIndex", clients); } Partial View: <table> <thead> <tr> <td>Client ID</td> <td>Phone1</td> <td>Phone2</td> <td>Phone3</td> <td>Phone4</td> </tr> </thead> <tbody> <% if (Model != null) { foreach (Client c in Model) { %> <tr> <td><%= Html.Encode(c.ClientID)%></td> <td><%= Html.Encode(c.WorkPhone)%></td> <td><%= Html.Encode(c.WorkPhone1)%></td> <td><%= Html.Encode(c.WorkPhone2)%></td> <td><%= Html.Encode(c.WorkPhone3)%></td> </tr> <% } } %> </tbody> Main View: Insert code messed up, so this is just copy/pasted: $(function() { $("#queryText").keyup(function() { $('#sForm').submit(); }); }); <% using (Ajax.BeginForm("ClientList", /* new { queryText = Form.Controls[2] ?? }*/"", new AjaxOptions { UpdateTargetId = "status", InsertionMode = InsertionMode.Replace }, new { @id = "sForm" })) { % <% } % <div id="status" class="status" name="status"> <%--<% Html.RenderPartial("ClientIndex", ViewData["clients"]); %> Should this be here???? --%> </div>

    Read the article

  • ASP.NET MVC 2 loading partial view using jQuery - no client side validation

    - by brainnovative
    I am using jQuery.load() to render a partial view. This part looks like this: $('#sizeAddHolder').load( '/MyController/MyAction', function () { ... }); The code for actions in my controller is the following: public ActionResult MyAction(byte id) { var model = new MyModel { ObjectProp1 = "Some text" }; return View(model); } [HttpPost] public ActionResult MyAction(byte id, FormCollection form) { // TODO: DB insert logic goes here var result = ...; return Json(result); } I am returning a partial view that looks something like this: <% using (Html.BeginForm("MyAction", "MyController")) {%> <%= Html.ValidationSummary(true) %> <h3>Create my object</h3> <fieldset> <legend>Fields</legend> <div class="editor-label"> <%= Html.LabelFor(model => model.ObjectProp1) %> </div> <div class="editor-field"> <%= Html.TextBoxFor(model => model.Size.ObjectProp1) %> <%= Html.ValidationMessageFor(model => model.ObjectProp1) %> </div> div class="editor-label"> <%= Html.LabelFor(model => model.ObjectProp2) %> </div> <div class="editor-field"> <%= Html.TextBoxFor(model => model.ObjectProp2) %> <%= Html.ValidationMessageFor(model => model.ObjectProp2) %> </div> <p> <input type="submit" value="Create" /> </p> </fieldset> <% } %> Client side validation does not work in this case. What is more the script that contains validation messages also isn't included in the view that's returned. Both properties in my model class have Required and StringLength attributes. Is there any way to trigger client side validation in a view which has been loaded like this?

    Read the article

  • $(document).ready() and partial view load

    - by user252160
    I am developing an application using Asp.net mvc and jquery. I'd like to use the same naming convention (classes and ids) for html elements in different views. In case when I want to load a partial view asynchronously, the $(document).ready() piece of code in the main view loses its usefulness because none of the patial view's html tags and css naming is recognized by jquery. I certainly do not want to write the same code for every view. What's th ebest way to solve this issue?

    Read the article

  • ColdFusion CFC implementation of C# Partial Class?

    - by Brian David Berman
    Does ColdFusion offer a mechanism for splitting CFCs into multiple files? I am NOT talking about extension, I am talking about splitting the SAME CFC into multiple files; the same way C# allows for "partial" classes. The reason for this is because I am using T4 to generate a bunch of CFCs and I want to be able to tag functionality onto the generated CFC by doing so in another file. I want to do this in a way that doesn't violate the Open-Closed Principle.

    Read the article

  • asp.net MVC Partial Views how to initialise javascript

    - by Simon G
    Hi, I have an edit form that uses an ajax form to submit to the controller. Depending on the data submitted I redirect the user to one of two pages (by returning a partial view). Both pages rely on javascript/jquery and neither use anything common between the pages. What is the best way to initialise these javascripts on each page? I know there is the AjaxOption OnComplete but both pages are quite dynamic depending on the Model passed and I would rather keep the javascript for both pages seperate rather than having a common method. Thanks

    Read the article

  • Edit and Create view using EditCreate.ascx partial in ASP.NET MVC

    - by mare
    If you look at the NerdDinner example of creating and editing dinners then you see they use a partial (ViewUserControl or ASCX) DinnerForm to put the functionality of creating and editing dinners into one file because it is essential the same and they use it using RenderPartial("DinnerForm"). This approach seems fine for me but I've run into a problem where you have to add additonal route values or html properties to the Form tag. This picks up the current action and controller automatically: <% using (Html.BeginForm()) { %> However, if I use another BeginForm() overload which allows to pass in enctype or any other attribute I have to do it like this: <% using ("Create", "Section", new { modal = true }, FormMethod.Post, new { enctype = "multipart/form-data" })) and as you can see we lose the ability to automatically detect in which View we are calling RenderPartial("OurCreateEditFormPartial"). We can't have hardcoded values in there because in Edit View this postback will fail or won't postback to the right controller action. What should I do in this case?

    Read the article

  • Stepping into Ruby Meta-Programming: Generating proxy methods for multiple internal methods

    - by mstksg
    Hi all; I've multiply heard Ruby touted for its super spectacular meta-programming capabilities, and I was wondering if anyone could help me get started with this problem. I have a class that works as an "archive" of sorts, with internal methods that process and output data based on an input. However, the items in the archive in the class itself are represented and processed with integers, for performance purposes. The actual items outside of the archive are known by their string representation, which is simply number_representation.to_s(36). Because of this, I have hooked up each internal method with a "proxy method" that converts the input into the integer form that the archive recognizes, runs the internal method, and converts the output (either a single other item, or a collection of them) back into strings. The naming convention is this: internal methods are represented by _method_name; their corresponding proxy method is represented by method_name, with no leading underscore. For example: class Archive ## PROXY METHODS ## ## input: string representation of id's ## output: string representation of id's def do_something_with id result = _do_something_with id.to_i(36) return nil if result == nil return result.to_s(36) end def do_something_with_pair id_1,id_2 result = _do_something_with_pair id_1.to_i(36), id_2.to_i(36) return nil if result == nil return result.to_s(36) end def do_something_with_these ids result = _do_something_with_these ids.map { |n| n.to_i(36) } return nil if result == nil return result.to_s(36) end def get_many_from id result = _get_many_from id return nil if result == nil # no sparse arrays returned return result.map { |n| n.to_s(36) } end ## INTERNAL METHODS ## ## input: integer representation of id's ## output: integer representation of id's def _do_something_with id # does something with one integer-represented id, # returning an id represented as an integer end def do_something_with_pair id_1,id_2 # does something with two integer-represented id's, # returning an id represented as an integer end def _do_something_with_these ids # does something with multiple integer ids, # returning an id represented as an integer end def _get_many_from id # does something with one integer-represented id, # returns a collection of id's represented as integers end end There are a couple of reasons why I can't just convert them if id.class == String at the beginning of the internal methods: These internal methods are somewhat computationally-intensive recursive functions, and I don't want the overhead of checking multiple times at every step There is no way, without adding an extra parameter, to tell whether or not to re-convert at the end I want to think of this as an exercise in understanding ruby meta-programming Does anyone have any ideas? edit The solution I'd like would preferably be able to take an array of method names @@PROXY_METHODS = [:do_something_with, :do_something_with_pair, :do_something_with_these, :get_many_from] iterate through them, and in each iteration, put out the proxy method. I'm not sure what would be done with the arguments, but is there a way to test for arguments of a method? If not, then simple duck typing/analogous concept would do as well.

    Read the article

  • Dynamically render partial templates using mustache

    - by btakita
    Is there a way to dynamically inject partial templates (and have it work the same way in both Ruby & Javascript)? Basically, I'm trying to render different types of objects in a list. The best I can come up with is this: <div class="items"> {{#items}} <div class="item"> {{#is_message}} {{< message}} {{/is_message}} {{^is_message}} {{#is_picture}} {{< picture}} {{/is_picture}} {{^is_picture}} {{/is_picture}} {{/is_message}} </div> {{/items}} </div> For obvious reasons, I'm not super-psyched about this approach. Is there a better way? Also note that the different types of models for the views can have non-similar fields. I suppose I could always go to the lowest common denominator and have the data hash contain the html, however I would rather use the mustache templates.

    Read the article

  • How do I generate optimized SQL with my (added) partial methods on LINQ entities

    - by Ra
    Let's say I have a Person table with a FirstName and LastName column. I extended the Person LINQ entity class with a get property "FullName", that concatenates the first and last names. A LINQ query like: from person... select fullName where id = x generates SQL selecting all Patient columns, since FullName is evaluated after firing the query. I would like to limit the select clause to only the 2 columns required. This is a simple example, but the limitation it shows is that I cannot isolate my business/formatting rules but have to embed them in the LINQ query, so they're not reusable (since it is in the select part) or I need select both columns separately, and then concatenate them higher up in the data or business layer with static helper methods. Any ideas for a clean design using the entity partial classes or extensions? Thanks

    Read the article

  • Get and Set property accessors are ‘actually’ methods

    - by nmarun
    Well, they are ‘special’ methods, but they indeed are methods. See the class below: 1: public class Person 2: { 3: private string _name; 4:  5: public string Name 6: { 7: get 8: { 9: return _name; 10: } 11: set 12: { 13: if (value == "aaa") 14: { 15: throw new ArgumentException("Invalid Name"); 16: } 17: _name = value; 18: } 19: } 20:  21: public void Save() 22: { 23: Console.WriteLine("Saving..."); 24: } 25: } Ok, so a class with a field, a property with the get and set accessors and a method. Now my calling code says: 1: static void Main() 2: { 3: try 4: { 5: Person person1 = new Person 6: { 7: Name = "aaa", 8: }; 9:  10: } 11: catch (Exception ex) 12: { 13: Console.WriteLine(ex.Message); 14: Console.WriteLine(ex.StackTrace); 15: Console.WriteLine("--------------------"); 16: } 17: } When the code is run, you’ll get the following exception message displayed: Now, you see the first line of the stack trace where it says that the exception was thrown in the method set_Name(String value). Wait a minute, we have not declared any method with that name in our Person class. Oh no, we actually have. When you create a property, this is what happens behind the screen. The CLR creates two methods for each get and set property accessor. Let’s look at the signature once again: set_Name(String value) This also tells you where the ‘value’ keyword comes from in our set property accessor. You’re actually wiring up a method parameter to a field. 1: set 2: { 3: if (value == "aaa") 4: { 5: throw new ArgumentException("Invalid Name"); 6: } 7: _name = value; 8: } Digging deeper on this, I ran the ILDasm tool and this is what I see: We see the ‘free’ constructor (named .ctor) that the compiler gives us, the _name field, the Name property and the Save method. We also see the get_Name and set_Name methods. In order to compare the Save and the set_Name methods, I double-clicked on the two methods and this is what I see: The ‘.method’ keyword tells that both Save and set_Name are both methods (no guessing there!). Seeing the set_Name method as a public method did kinda surprise me. So I said, why can’t I do a person1.set_Name(“abc”) since it is declared as public. This cannot be done because the get_Name and set_Name methods have an extra attribute called ‘specialname’. This attribute is used to identify an IL (Intermediate Language) token that can be treated with special care by the .net language. So the thumb-rule is that any method with the ‘specialname’ attribute cannot be generally called / invoked by the user (a simple test using intellisense proves this). Their functionality is exposed through other ways. In our case, this is done through the property itself. The same concept gets extended to constructors as well making them special methods too. These so-called ‘special’ methods can be identified through reflection. 1: static void ReflectOnPerson() 2: { 3: Type personType = typeof(Person); 4:  5: MethodInfo[] methods = personType.GetMethods(); 6:  7: for (int i = 0; i < methods.Length; i++) 8: { 9: Console.Write("Method: {0}", methods[i].Name); 10: // Determine whether or not each method is a special name. 11: if (methods[i].IsSpecialName) 12: { 13: Console.Write(" has 'SpecialName' attribute"); 14: } 15: Console.WriteLine(); 16: } 17: } Line 11 shows the ‘IsSpecialName’ boolean property. So a method with a ‘specialname’ attribute gets mapped to the IsSpecialName property. The output is displayed as: Wuhuuu! There they are.. our special guests / methods. Verdict: Getting to know the internals… helps!

    Read the article

  • Extension Methods and Application Code

    - by Mystagogue
    I have seen plenty of online guidelines for authoring extension methods, usually along these lines: 1) Avoid authoring extension methods when practical - prefer other approaches first (e.g. regular static methods). 2) Don't author extension methods to extend code you own or currently develop. Instead, author them to extend 3rd party or BCL code. But I have the impression that a couple more guidelines are either implied or advisable. What does the community think of these two additional guidelines: A) Prefer to author extension methods to contain generic functionality rather than application-specific logic. (This seems to follow from guideline #2 above) B) An extension method should be sizeable enough to justify itself (preferably at least 5 lines of code in length). Item (B) is intended to discourage a develoer from writing dozens of extension methods (totalling X lines of code) to refactor or replace what originally was already about X lines of inline code. Perhaps item (B) is badly qualified, or even misinformed about how a one line extension method is actually powerful and justified. I'm curious to know. But if item (B) is somehow dismissed by the community, I must admist I'm still particularly interested in feedback on guideline (A).

    Read the article

  • Extension methods for encapsulation and reusability

    - by tzaman
    In C++ programming, it's generally considered good practice to "prefer non-member non-friend functions" instead of instance methods. This has been recommended by Scott Meyers in this classic Dr. Dobbs article, and repeated by Herb Sutter and Andrei Alexandrescu in C++ Coding Standards (item 44); the general argument being that if a function can do its job solely by relying on the public interface exposed by the class, it actually increases encapsulation to have it be external. While this confuses the "packaging" of the class to some extent, the benefits are generally considered worth it. Now, ever since I've started programming in C#, I've had a feeling that here is the ultimate expression of the concept that they're trying to achieve with "non-member, non-friend functions that are part of a class interface". C# adds two crucial components to the mix - the first being interfaces, and the second extension methods: Interfaces allow a class to formally specify their public contract, the methods and properties that they're exposing to the world. Any other class can choose to implement the same interface and fulfill that same contract. Extension methods can be defined on an interface, providing any functionality that can be implemented via the interface to all implementers automatically. And best of all, because of the "instance syntax" sugar and IDE support, they can be called the same way as any other instance method, eliminating the cognitive overhead! So you get the encapsulation benefits of "non-member, non-friend" functions with the convenience of members. Seems like the best of both worlds to me; the .NET library itself providing a shining example in LINQ. However, everywhere I look I see people warning against extension method overuse; even the MSDN page itself states: In general, we recommend that you implement extension methods sparingly and only when you have to. So what's the verdict? Are extension methods the acme of encapsulation and code reuse, or am I just deluding myself?

    Read the article

  • Partial template specialization: matching on properties of specialized template parameter

    - by Kenzo
    template <typename X, typename Y> class A {}; enum Property {P1,P2}; template <Property P> class B {}; class C {}; Is there any way to define a partial specialization of A such that A<C, B<P1> > would be A's normal template, but A<C, B<P2> > would be the specialization? Replacing the Y template parameter by a template template parameter would be nice, but is there a way to partially specialize it based on P then? template <typename X, template <Property P> typename Y> class A {}; // template <typename X> class A<X,template<> Y<P2> > {}; <-- not valid Is there a way by adding traits to a specialization template<> B<P2> and then using SFINAE in A?

    Read the article

  • Problem with jquery #find on partial postback

    - by anonymous
    I have a third party component. It is a calendar control. I have a clientside event on it which fires javascript to show a popup menu. I do everything client side so I can use MVC. dd function MouseDown(oDayView, oEvent, element) { try { e = oEvent.event; var rightClick = (e.button == 2); if (rightClick) { var menu = $find("2_menuSharedCalPopUp"); menu.showAt(200, 200, e); } } catch (err) { alert("MouseDown() err: " + err.description); } } The javascript fires perfectly withe $find intially. I have another clientside method which updates the calendar via a partial postback. Once I have done this all subsequent MouseDowns( rightclicks) which use the $find statment error with 'null'. All similar problems people have out there seem to be around calling javascript after a postback - with solutions being re-registering an event using PageRequestManager or registering a clientside function on the server - et cetera. However, the event is firing, and the javascript working - it's the reference in the DOM that seems an issue. Any ideas?

    Read the article

  • page.insert_html not rendering partial correctly

    - by mathee
    The following is in the text_field. = f.text_field :title, :size => 50, :onchange => remote_function(:update => :suggestions, :url => {:action => :display_question_search_results}) The following is in display_questions_search_results.rjs. page.insert_html :bottom, 'suggestions', :partial => 'suggestions' Whenever the user types, I'd like to search the database for any tuples that match the keywords in the text field. Then, display those results. But, at the moment, _suggestions.haml only contains the word "suggestions!!". But, instead of seeing "suggestions!!" in the suggestions div tag, I get: try { Element.insert("suggestions", { bottom: "suggestions!!" }); } catch (e) { alert('RJS error:\n\n' + e.toString()); alert('Element.insert(\"suggestions\", { bottom: \"suggestions!!\" });'); throw e } I've been trying to find out why this is being done, but the previously asked questions I found seem more complicated than what I'm doing...

    Read the article

  • How to prevent duplicate data access methods that retrieve similar data?

    - by Ronald Wildenberg
    In almost every project I work on with a team, the same problem seems to creep in. Someone writes UI code that needs data and writes a data access method: AssetDto GetAssetById(int assetId) A week later someone else is working on another part of the application and also needs an AssetDto but now including 'approvers' and writes the following: AssetDto GetAssetWithApproversById(int assetId) A month later someone needs an asset but now including the 'questions' (or the 'owners' or the 'running requests', etc): AssetDto GetAssetWithQuestionsById(int assetId) AssetDto GetAssetWithOwnersById(int assetId) AssetDto GetAssetWithRunningRequestsById(int assetId) And it gets even worse when methods like GetAssetWithOwnerAndQuestionsById start to appear. You see the pattern that emerges: an object is attached to a large object graph and you need different parts of this graph in different locations. Of course, I'd like to prevent having a large number of methods that do almost the same. Is it simply a matter of team discipline or is there some pattern I can use to prevent this? In some cases it might make sense to have separate methods, i.e. getting an asset with running requests may be expensive so I do not want to include these all the time. How to handle such cases?

    Read the article

  • Issue with class template partial specialization

    - by DeadMG
    I've been trying to implement a function that needs partial template specializations and fallen back to the static struct technique, and I'm having a number of problems. template<typename T> struct PushImpl<const T&> { typedef T* result_type; typedef const T& argument_type; template<int StackSize> static result_type Push(IStack<StackSize>* sptr, argument_type ref) { // Code if the template is T& } }; template<typename T> struct PushImpl<const T*> { typedef T* result_type; typedef const T* argument_type; template<int StackSize> static result_type Push(IStack<StackSize>* sptr, argument_type ptr) { return PushImpl<const T&>::Push(sptr, *ptr); } }; template<typename T> struct PushImpl { typedef T* result_type; typedef const T& argument_type; template<int StackSize> static result_type Push(IStack<StackSize>* sptr, argument_type ref) { // Code if the template is neither T* nor T& } }; template<typename T> typename PushImpl<T>::result_type Push(typename PushImpl<T>::argument_type ref) { return PushImpl<T>::Push(this, ref); } First: The struct is nested inside another class (the one that offers Push as a member func), but it can't access the template parameter (StackSize), even though my other nested classes all could. I've worked around it, but it would be cleaner if they could just access StackSize like a normal class. Second: The compiler complains that it doesn't use or can't deduce T. Really? Thirdly: The compiler complains that it can't specialize a template in the current scope (class scope). I can't see what the problem is. Have I accidentally invoked some bad syntax?

    Read the article

  • Resolve a URL from a Partial View (ASP.NET MVC)

    Working on an ASP.NET MVC application and needed the ability to resolve a URL from a partial view. For example, I have an image I want to display, but I need to resolve the virtual path (say, ~/Content/Images/New.png) into a relative path that the browser can use, such as ../../Content/Images/New.png or /MyAppName/Content/Images/New.png. Astandard view derives from the System.Web.UI.Page class, meaning you have access to the ResolveUrl and ResolveClientUrl methods. Consequently, you can write markup/code like the following:' /The problem is that the above code does not work as expected in a partial view. What's a little confusing is that while the above code compiles and the page, when visited through a browser, renders, the call to Page.ResolveClientUrl returns precisely what you pass in, ~/Content/Images/New.png, in this instance. The browser doesn't know what to do with ~, it presumes it's part of the URL, so it sends the request to the server for the image with the ~ in the URL, which results in a broken image.I did a bit of searching online and found this handy tip from Stephen Walther - Using ResolveUrl in an HTML Helper. In a nutshell, Stephen shows how to create an extension method for the HtmlHelper class that uses the UrlHelper class to resolve a URL. Specifically, Stephen shows how to add an Image extension method to HtmlHelper. I incorporated Stephen's code into my codebase and also created a more generic extension method, which I named ResolveUrl.public static MvcHtmlString ResolveUrl(this HtmlHelper htmlHelper, string url) { var urlHelper = new UrlHelper(htmlHelper.ViewContext.RequestContext); return MvcHtmlString.Create(urlHelper.Content(url)); }With this method in place you can resolve a URL in a partial view like so:' /Or you could use Stephen's Html.Image extension method (althoughmy more generic Html.ResolveUrl method could be used in non-image related scenarios where you needed to get a relative URL from a virtual one in a partial view). Thanks for the helpful tip, Stephen!Happy Programming!Did you know that DotNetSlackers also publishes .net articles written by top known .net Authors? We already have over 80 articles in several categories including Silverlight. Take a look: here.

    Read the article

  • Resolve a URL from a Partial View (ASP.NET MVC)

    Working on an ASP.NET MVC application and needed the ability to resolve a URL from a partial view. For example, I have an image I want to display, but I need to resolve the virtual path (say, ~/Content/Images/New.png) into a relative path that the browser can use, such as ../../Content/Images/New.png or /MyAppName/Content/Images/New.png. Astandard view derives from the System.Web.UI.Page class, meaning you have access to the ResolveUrl and ResolveClientUrl methods. Consequently, you can write markup/code like the following:' /The problem is that the above code does not work as expected in a partial view. What's a little confusing is that while the above code compiles and the page, when visited through a browser, renders, the call to Page.ResolveClientUrl returns precisely what you pass in, ~/Content/Images/New.png, in this instance. The browser doesn't know what to do with ~, it presumes it's part of the URL, so it sends the request to the server for the image with the ~ in the URL, which results in a broken image.I did a bit of searching online and found this handy tip from Stephen Walther - Using ResolveUrl in an HTML Helper. In a nutshell, Stephen shows how to create an extension method for the HtmlHelper class that uses the UrlHelper class to resolve a URL. Specifically, Stephen shows how to add an Image extension method to HtmlHelper. I incorporated Stephen's code into my codebase and also created a more generic extension method, which I named ResolveUrl.public static MvcHtmlString ResolveUrl(this HtmlHelper htmlHelper, string url) { var urlHelper = new UrlHelper(htmlHelper.ViewContext.RequestContext); return MvcHtmlString.Create(urlHelper.Content(url)); }With this method in place you can resolve a URL in a partial view like so:' /Or you could use Stephen's Html.Image extension method (althoughmy more generic Html.ResolveUrl method could be used in non-image related scenarios where you needed to get a relative URL from a virtual one in a partial view). Thanks for the helpful tip, Stephen!Happy Programming!Did you know that DotNetSlackers also publishes .net articles written by top known .net Authors? We already have over 80 articles in several categories including Silverlight. Take a look: here.

    Read the article

  • Use python decorators on class methods and subclass methods

    - by AlexH
    Goal: Make it possible to decorate class methods. When a class method gets decorated, it gets stored in a dictionary so that other class methods can reference it by a string name. Motivation: I want to implement the equivalent of ASP.Net's WebMethods. I am building this on top of google app engine, but that does not affect the point of difficulty that I am having. How it Would look if it worked: class UsefulClass(WebmethodBaseClass): def someMethod(self, blah): print(blah) @webmethod def webby(self, blah): print(blah) # the implementation of this class could be completely different, it does not matter # the only important thing is having access to the web methods defined in sub classes class WebmethodBaseClass(): def post(self, methodName): webmethods[methodName]("kapow") ... a = UsefulClass() a.post("someMethod") # should error a.post("webby") # prints "kapow" There could be other ways to go about this. I am very open to suggestions

    Read the article

  • Information on Rojiani's Numerical methods C textbook

    - by yCalleecharan
    Hi, having taken a look at a few textbooks that discuss numerical methods and C programming, I was gladly surprised when browsing through "programming in C with numerical methods for engineers" by Rojiani. I understand of course it's important that one need to have a solid background in numerical methods prior to try implementing them on a computer. I would like to know if someone here has been using this book and if possible point out strengths and weaknesses of this textbook. Thanks a lot...

    Read the article

  • object / class methods serialized as well?

    - by Mat90
    I know that data members are saved to disk but I was wondering whether object's/class' methods are saved in binary format as well? Because I found some contradictionary info, for example: Ivor Horton: "Class objects contain function members as well as data members, and all the members, both data and functions, have access specifiers; therefore, to record objects in an external file, the information written to the file must contain complete specifications of all the class structures involved." and: Are methods also serialized along with the data members in .NET? Thus: are method's assembly instructions (opcodes and operands) stored to disk as well? Just like a precompiled LIB or DLL? During the DOS ages I used assembly so now and then. As far as I remember from Delphi and the following site (answer by dan04): Are methods also serialized along with the data members in .NET? sizeof(<OBJECT or CLASS>) will give the size of all data members together (no methods/procedures). Also a nice C example is given there with data and members declared in one class/struct but at runtime these methods are separate procedures acting on a struct of data. However, I think that later class/object implementations like Pascal's VMT may be different in memory.

    Read the article

  • Structure for Django methods that span different models

    - by Duncan
    I have two models (say A and B) which are independent and have independent methods. I want to add some methods that operate on both models though. for example, addX() will create an object from both models A and B. What's the best way to structure code in this situation, since it doesnt make sense to have the method belong to either of the models methods. Is the standard to write a service for the kind of 'abstract' model?

    Read the article

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