Search Results

Search found 33640 results on 1346 pages for 'java generics'.

Page 416/1346 | < Previous Page | 412 413 414 415 416 417 418 419 420 421 422 423  | Next Page >

  • Generic cast type to primitive.

    - by Nix
    Is there a way to do the below? Imagine a generic result wrapper class. Where you have a type and an associated error list. When there is no result to return to the user we will use boolean to indicate success failure. I want to create a constructor that takes in an error list, and if the list is null or count 0, AND the type is a bool/Boolean i want to set it to true.... Seemingly simple, but amazingly not possible. public class Result<T>{ private T valueObject { get;set;} private List<Error> errors{ get;set;} public Result(T valueObj, List<Error> errorList){ this.valueObject = valueObj; this.errors = errorList; } public Result(List<Error> errors) { this.valueObject = default(ReturnType); if (valueObject is Boolean) { //Wont work compile //(valueObject as Boolean) = ((errors == null) || errors.Count == 0); //Compiles but detaches reference //bool temp = ((bool)(valueObject as object)) ; //temp = ((errors == null) || errors.Count == 0); } this.errors = errors; } } } Am I missing something simple? And in general I would prefer to do it without reflection.

    Read the article

  • Can a Generic Method handle both Reference and Nullable Value types?

    - by Adam Lassek
    I have a series of Extension methods to help with null-checking on IDataRecord objects, which I'm currently implementing like this: public static int? GetNullableInt32(this IDataRecord dr, int ordinal) { int? nullInt = null; return dr.IsDBNull(ordinal) ? nullInt : dr.GetInt32(ordinal); } public static int? GetNullableInt32(this IDataRecord dr, string fieldname) { int ordinal = dr.GetOrdinal(fieldname); return dr.GetNullableInt32(ordinal); } and so on, for each type I need to deal with. I'd like to reimplement these as a generic method, partly to reduce redundancy and partly to learn how to write generic methods in general. I've written this: public static Nullable<T> GetNullable<T>(this IDataRecord dr, int ordinal) { Nullable<T> nullValue = null; return dr.IsDBNull(ordinal) ? nullValue : (Nullable<T>) dr.GetValue(ordinal); } which works as long as T is a value type, but if T is a reference type it won't. This method would need to return either a Nullable type if T is a value type, and default(T) otherwise. How would I implement this behavior?

    Read the article

  • Generic Type constraint in .net

    - by Jose
    Okay I'm looking for some input, I'm pretty sure this is not currently supported in .NET 3.5 but here goes. I want to require a generic type passed into my class to have a constructor like this: new(IDictionary<string,object>) so the class would look like this public MyClass<T> where T : new(IDictionary<string,object>) { T CreateObject(IDictionary<string,object> values) { return new T(values); } } But the compiler doesn't support this, it doesn't really know what I'm asking. Some of you might ask, why do you want to do this? Well I'm working on a pet project of an ORM so I get values from the DB and then create the object and load the values. I thought it would be cleaner to allow the object just create itself with the values I give it. As far as I can tell I have two options: 1) Use reflection(which I'm trying to avoid) to grab the PropertyInfo[] array and then use that to load the values. 2) require T to support an interface like so: public interface ILoadValues { void LoadValues(IDictionary values); } and then do this public MyClass<T> where T:new(),ILoadValues { T CreateObject(IDictionary<string,object> values) { T obj = new T(); obj.LoadValues(values); return obj; } } The problem I have with the interface I guess is philosophical, I don't really want to expose a public method for people to load the values. Using the constructor the idea was that if I had an object like this namespace DataSource.Data { public class User { protected internal User(IDictionary<string,object> values) { //Initialize } } } As long as the MyClass<T> was in the same assembly the constructor would be available. I personally think that the Type constraint in my opinion should ask (Do I have access to this constructor? I do, great!) Anyways any input is welcome.

    Read the article

  • Generic Lists copying references rather than creating a copiedList

    - by Dean
    I was developing a small function when trying to run an enumerator across a list and then carry out some action. (Below is an idea of what I was trying to do. When trying to remove I got a "Collection cannot be modified" which after I had actually woken up I realised that tempList must have just been assigned myLists reference rather than a copy of myLists. After that I tried to find a way to say tempList = myList.copy However nothing seems to exist?? I ended up writing a small for loop that then just added each item from myLsit into tempList but I would have thought there would have been another mechanism (like clone??) So my question(s): is my assumption about tempList receiving a reference to myList correct How should a list be copied to another list? private myList as List (Of something) sub new() myList.add(new Something) end sub sub myCalledFunction() dim tempList as new List (Of Something) tempList = myList Using i as IEnumerator = myList.getEnumarator while i.moveNext 'if some critria is met then tempList.remove(i.current) end end using end sub

    Read the article

  • Passing an empty IEnumerable argument to a method

    - by avance70
    I have this method (simplified): void DoSomething(IEnumerable<int> numbers); And I invoke it like this: DoSomething(condition==true?results:new List<int>()); The variable results is formed with a LINQ select condition (IEnumerable). I was wondering is this List<int>() the best way (the fastest?) to pass an empty collection, or is new int[0] better? Or, something else would be faster, a Collection, etc.? In my example null wouldn't be ok.

    Read the article

  • Dynamically Run IQueryable Method

    - by Micah
    Hi! I'm trying to run the Count() function of a Linq statement in an overriden Gridview function. Basically, I want to be able to assign a linq query to a gridview, and on the OnDataBound(e) event in my new extended gridview have it retrieve the count, using the IQueryable. This is where I'm at so far: protected override void OnDataBound(EventArgs e) { IEnumerable _data = null; if (this.DataSource is IQueryable) { _data = (IQueryable)this.DataSource; } System.Type dataSourceType = _data.GetType(); System.Type dataItemType = typeof(object); if (dataSourceType.HasElementType) { dataItemType = dataSourceType.GetElementType(); } else if (dataSourceType.IsGenericType) { dataItemType = dataSourceType.GetGenericArguments()[0]; } else if (_data is IEnumerable) { IEnumerator dataEnumerator = _data.GetEnumerator(); if (dataEnumerator.MoveNext() && dataEnumerator.Current != null) { dataItemType = dataEnumerator.Current.GetType(); } } Object o = Activator.CreateInstance(dataItemType); object[] objArray = new object[] { o }; RowCount = (int)dataSourceType.GetMethod("Count").Invoke(_data, objArray); Any ideas? I'm really new with working with IQueryables and Linq so I may be way off. How can I get my _data to allow me to run the Count function?

    Read the article

  • Dynamic casting using a generic interface

    - by Phil Whittaker
    Hi Is there any way to cast to a dynamic generic interface.. Site s = new Site(); IRepository<Site> obj = (IRepository<s.GetType()>)ServiceLocator.Current.GetInstance(t) obviously the above won't compile with this cast. Is there anyway to do a dynamic cast of a generic interface. I have tried adding a non generic interface but the system is looses objects in the Loc container. Thanks Phil

    Read the article

  • Set environment variable in Ubuntu

    - by Junho Park
    In Ubuntu, I'd like to switch my JAVA_HOME environment variable back and forth between Java 5 and 6. I open a terminal and type in the following to set the JAVA_HOME environment variable: export JAVA_HOME=/usr/lib/jvm/java-1.5.0-sun And in that same terminal window, I type the following to check that the environment variable has been updated: echo $JAVA_HOME And I see /usr/lib/jvm/java-1.5.0-sun which is what I'm expecting to see. In addition, I modify ~/.profile and set the JAVA_HOME environment variable to /usr/lib/jvm/java-1.5.0-sun. And now for the problem--when I open a new terminal window and I check my JAVA_HOME environment variable by typing in echo $JAVA_HOME I see that my JAVA_HOME environment variable has been reverted back to Java 6. When I reboot my machine (or log out and back in, I suppose) the JAVA_HOME environment variable is set to Java 5 (presumably because of the modification I made in my ~/.profile). Is there a way around this so that I can change my JAVA_HOME environment without having to log out and back in (AND make that environment variable change stick in all new terminal windows)?

    Read the article

  • Where are the function literals in c++?

    - by academicRobot
    First of all, maybe literals is not the right term for this concept, but its the closest I could think of (not literals in the sense of functions as first class citizens). The idea is that when you make a conventional function call, it compiles to something like this: callq <immediate address> But if you make a function call using a function pointer, it compiles to something like this: mov <memory location>,%rax callq *%rax Which is all well and good. However, what if I'm writing a template library that requires a callback of some sort with a specified argument list and the user of the library is expected to know what function they want to call at compile time? Then I would like to write my template to accept a function literal as a template parameter. So, similar to template <int int_literal> struct my_template {...};` I'd like to write template <func_literal_t func_literal> struct my_template {...}; and have calls to func_literal within my_template compile to callq <immediate address>. Is there a facility in C++ for this, or a work around to achieve the same effect? If not, why not (e.g. some cataclysmic side effects)? How about C++0x or another language? Solutions that are not portable are fine. Solutions that include the use of member function pointers would be ideal. I'm not particularly interested in being told "You are a <socially unacceptable term for a person of low IQ>, just use function pointers/functors." This is a curiosity based question, and it seems that it might be useful in some (albeit limited) applications. It seems like this should be possible since function names are just placeholders for a (relative) memory address, so why not allow more liberal use (e.g. aliasing) of this placeholder. p.s. I use function pointers and functions objects all the the time and they are great. But this post got me thinking about the don't pay for what you don't use principle in relation to function calls, and it seems like forcing the use of function pointers or similar facility when the function is known at compile time is a violation of this principle, though a small one.

    Read the article

  • I want to get 2 values returned by my query. How to do, using linq-to-entity

    - by Shantanu Gupta
    var dept_list = (from map in DtMapGuestDepartment.AsEnumerable() where map.Field<Nullable<long>>("GUEST_ID") == DRowGuestPI.Field<Nullable<long>>("PK_GUEST_ID") join dept in DtDepartment.AsEnumerable() on map.Field<Nullable<long>>("DEPARTMENT_ID") equals dept.Field<Nullable<long>>("DEPARTMENT_ID") select new { dept_id=dept.Field<long>("DEPARTMENT_ID") ,dept_name=dept.Field<long>("DEPARTMENT_NAME") }).Distinct(); DataTable dt = new DataTable(); dt.Columns.Add("DEPARTMENT_ID"); dt.Columns.Add("DEPARTMENT_NAME"); foreach (long? dept_ in dept_list) { dt.Rows.Add(dept_[0], dept_[1]); } EDIT In the previous question asked by me. I got an answer like this for single value. What is the difference between the two ? foreach (long? dept in dept_list) { dt.Rows.Add(dept); }

    Read the article

  • How to create a generic list in this wierd case in c#

    - by Marc Bettex
    Hello, In my program, I have a class A which is extended by B, C and many more classes. I have a method GetInstance() which returns a instance of B or C (or of one of the other child), but I don't know which one, so the return type of the method is A. In the method CreateGenericList(), I have a variable v of type A, which is in fact either a B, a C or another child type and I want to create a generic list of the proper type, i.e. List<B> if v is a B or List<C> if v is a C, ... Currently I do it by using reflection, which works, but this is extremely slow. I wanted to know if there is another way to to it, which doesn't use reflection. Here is an example of the code of my problem: class A { } class B : A { } class C : A { } // More childs of A. class Program { static A GetInstance() { // returns an instance of B or C } static void CreateGenericList() { A v = Program.GetInstance(); IList genericList = // Here I want an instance of List<B> or List<C> or ... depending of the real type of v, not a List<A>. } } I tried the following hack. I call the following method, hoping the type inferencer will guess the type of model, but it doesn't work and return a List<A>. I believe that because c# is statically typed, T is resolved as A and not as the real type of model at runtime. static List<T> CreateGenericListFromModel<T>(T model) where T : A { return new List<T> (); } Does anybody have a solution to that problem that doesn't use reflection or that it is impossible to solve that problem without reflection? Thank you very much, Marc

    Read the article

  • Multi-tier applications using L2S, WCF and Base Class

    - by Gena Verdel
    Hi all. One day I decided to build this nice multi-tier application using L2S and WCF. The simplified model is : DataBase-L2S-Wrapper(DTO)-Client Application. The communication between Client and Database is achieved by using Data Transfer Objects which contain entity objects as their properties. abstract public class BaseObject { public virtual IccSystem.iccObjectTypes ObjectICC_Type { get { return IccSystem.iccObjectTypes.unknownType; } } [global::System.Data.Linq.Mapping.ColumnAttribute(Storage = "_ID", AutoSync = AutoSync.OnInsert, DbType = "BigInt NOT NULL IDENTITY", IsPrimaryKey = true, IsDbGenerated = true)] [global::System.Runtime.Serialization.DataMemberAttribute(Order = 1)] public virtual long ID { //get; //set; get { return _ID; } set { _ID = value; } } } [DataContract] public class BaseObjectWrapper<T> where T : BaseObject { #region Fields private T _DBObject; #endregion #region Properties [DataMember] public T Entity { get { return _DBObject; } set { _DBObject = value; } } #endregion } Pretty simple, isn't it?. Here's the catch. Each one of the mapped classes contains ID property itself so I decided to override it like this [global::System.Data.Linq.Mapping.TableAttribute(Name="dbo.Divisions")] [global::System.Runtime.Serialization.DataContractAttribute()] public partial class Division : INotifyPropertyChanging, INotifyPropertyChanged { [global::System.Data.Linq.Mapping.ColumnAttribute(Storage="_ID", AutoSync=AutoSync.OnInsert, DbType="BigInt NOT NULL IDENTITY", IsPrimaryKey=true, IsDbGenerated=true)] [global::System.Runtime.Serialization.DataMemberAttribute(Order=1)] public override long ID { get { return this._ID; } set { if ((this._ID != value)) { this.OnIDChanging(value); this.SendPropertyChanging(); this._ID = value; this.SendPropertyChanged("ID"); this.OnIDChanged(); } } } } Wrapper for division is pretty straightforward as well: public class DivisionWrapper : BaseObjectWrapper<Division> { } It worked pretty well as long as I kept ID values at mapped class and its BaseObject class the same(that's not very good approach, I know, but still) but then this happened: private CentralDC _dc; public bool UpdateDivision(ref DivisionWrapper division) { DivisionWrapper tempWrapper = division; if (division.Entity == null) { return false; } try { Table<Division> table = _dc.Divisions; var q = table.Where(o => o.ID == tempWrapper.Entity.ID); if (q.Count() == 0) { division.Entity._errorMessage = "Unable to locate entity with id " + division.Entity.ID.ToString(); return false; } var realEntity = q.First(); realEntity = division.Entity; _dc.SubmitChanges(); return true; } catch (Exception ex) { division.Entity._errorMessage = ex.Message; return false; } } When trying to enumerate over the in-memory query the following exception occurred: Class member BaseObject.ID is unmapped. Although I'm stating the type and overriding the ID property L2S fails to work. Any suggestions?

    Read the article

  • C# - Dictionary with generic array as value

    - by alhazen
    In my class, I want to use a dictionary with the following declaration: Dictionary<string, T[]> Since the operations of my class are exactly the same for all generic types, I do not wish to define my class as generic (which means I would have to create a separate instance of my class for each generic type I insert into the dictionary ?). One alternative I'm attempting is to use Dictionary<string, object> instead: public void Add<T>(string str, T value) { // Assuming key already exists var array = (T[]) dictionary[str]; array[0] = value; } However, when iterating over the dictionary, how do I cast the object value back to an array ? foreach(string strKey in dictionary.Keys) { var array = (T[]) dictionary[strKey]; // How to cast here ? //... array[0] = default(T); } Thanks.

    Read the article

  • Why is Func<T> ambiguous with Func<IEnumerable<T>>?

    - by Matt Hamilton
    This one's got me flummoxed, so I thought I'd ask here in the hope that a C# guru can explain it to me. Why does this code generate an error? class Program { static void Main(string[] args) { Foo(X); // the error is on this line } static String X() { return "Test"; } static void Foo(Func<IEnumerable<String>> x) { } static void Foo(Func<String> x) { } } The error in question: Error 1 The call is ambiguous between the following methods or properties: 'ConsoleApplication1.Program.Foo(System.Func<System.Collections.Generic.IEnumerable<string>>)' and 'ConsoleApplication1.Program.Foo(System.Func<string>)' C:\Users\mabster\AppData\Local\Temporary Projects\ConsoleApplication1\Program.cs 12 13 ConsoleApplication1 It doesn't matter what type I use - if you replace the "String" declarations with "int" in that code you'll get the same sort of error. It's like the compiler can't tell the difference between Func<T> and Func<IEnumerable<T>>. Can someone shed some light on this?

    Read the article

  • JSP property lookup error

    - by AEIOU
    I'm getting the following error in ours logs: Error looking up property "foo" in object type "foo.bar". Cause: null java.lang.reflect.InvocationTargetException at sun.reflect.GeneratedMethodAccessor363.invoke(Unknown Source) at sun.reflect.DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.invoke(DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.java:25) at java.lang.reflect.Method.invoke(Method.java:597) at org.apache.commons.beanutils.PropertyUtilsBean.invokeMethod(PropertyUtilsBean.java:1773) I cannot for the life of me recreate it, I was wondering if anyone has any experience with this kind of problem with JSP/Java Bean. What I wanted to know was, will this prevent the user from getting the web page to show up? I know this isn't a whole lot of information, but any advice could help.

    Read the article

  • Best way to test if a generic type is a string? (c#)

    - by Rex M
    I have a generic class that should allow any type, primitive or otherwise. The only problem with this is using default(T). When you call default on a value type or a string, it initializes it to a reasonable value (such as empty string). When you call default(T) on an object, it returns null. For various reasons we need to ensure that if it is not a primitive type, then we will have a default instance of the type, not null. Here is attempt 1: T createDefault() { if(typeof(T).IsValueType) { return default(T); } else { return Activator.CreateInstance<T>(); } } Problem - string is not a value type, but it does not have a parameterless constructor. So, the current solution is: T createDefault() { if(typeof(T).IsValueType || typeof(T).FullName == "System.String") { return default(T); } else { return Activator.CreateInstance<T>(); } } But this feels like a kludge. Is there a nicer way to handle the string case?

    Read the article

  • what is the best way to have a Generic Comparer

    - by oo
    I have a lot of comparer classes where the class being compared is simply checking the name property of the object and doing a string compare. For example: public class ExerciseSorter : IComparer<Exercise> { public int Compare(Exercise x, Exercise y) { return String.Compare(x.Name, y.Name); } } public class CarSorter : IComparer<Car> { public int Compare(Car x, Car y) { return String.Compare(x.Name, y.Name); } } what is the best way to have this code generic so i dont need to write redundant code over and over again.

    Read the article

  • How to implement == or >= operators for generic type

    - by momsd
    I have a generic type Foo which has a internal generic class Boo. Boo class a property Value of type K. In a method inside Foo i want to do a boo.Value >= value Note that second operand value is of type T. while compiling i am getting following error: Operator '=' cannot be applied to operands of type 'T' and 'T' Can anyone please tell me whats the problem here?

    Read the article

  • What's the best way of using a pair (triple, etc) of values as one value in C#?

    - by Yacoder
    That is, I'd like to have a tuple of values. The use case on my mind: Dictionary<Pair<string, int>, object> or Dictionary<Triple<string, int, int>, object> Are there built-in types like Pair or Triple? Or what's the best way of implementing it? Update There are some general-purpose tuples implementations described in the answers, but for tuples used as keys in dictionaries you should additionaly verify correct calculation of the hash code. Some more info on that in another question. Update 2 I guess it is also worth reminding, that when you use some value as a key in dictionary, it should be immutable.

    Read the article

  • Create Generic Class Instance from Static Method in a Derived Class

    - by user343547
    I have a class in C# with a template and static method similar to class BClass<T> { public static BClass<T> Create() { return new BClass<T>(); } } From this I derive a class and specify a template parameter to the base class class DClass : BClass<int> { } A problem occurs when I try to use the static method to create an instance of D class Program { static void Main(string[] args) { DClass d = DClass.Create(); } } Gives a compiler error "Cannot implicitly convert type 'Test.BClass<int ' to 'Test.DClass'." Adding the below cast leads to a runtime casting exception. DClass d = (DClass)DClass.Create(); Is there any succint way to allow the static method to create instances of the derived class? Ideally I would like the equivalent of a c++ typedef and I don't want the below syntax (which does work). BClass<int> d = DClass.Create();

    Read the article

  • Create generic class instance throws TypeLoadException

    - by Elisa
    My TestLayer class has the namespace: "BLL.Infrastructure.TestLayer" and is inside the assembly: "BLL" public class LayerFactory<T, U> { public static IBaseLayer<T, U> Get() { var obj = Activator.CreateInstance("BLL", "BLL.Infrastructure.TestLayer", new object[] { (IBaseLayer<T, U>)null }); } } When I run the code the Activator throws an TypeLoadException with no more details Thats the concrete class it should create: GenericBaseLayer implements the IBaseLayer. public class TestLayer<T, U> : GenericBaseLayer<MyRequest, MyInfo.ActionType> { public TestLayer(IBaseLayer<MyRequest, MyInfo.ActionType> layer) : base(layer) { } } What do I wrong?

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 412 413 414 415 416 417 418 419 420 421 422 423  | Next Page >