Search Results

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

facebook twitter digg google delicious technorati stumbleupon myspace wordpress linkedin gmail igoogle windows live tumblr viadeo yahoo buzz yahoo mail yahoo bookmarks favorites email print

Page 417/1346 | < Previous Page | 413 414 415 416 417 418 419 420 421 422 423 424  | Next Page >

  • 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

  • Cannot inherit from generic base class and specific interface using same type with generic constrain

    - by simendsjo
    Sorry about the strange title. I really have no idea how to express it any better... I get an error on the following snippet. I use the class Dummy everywhere. Doesn't the compiler understand the constraint I've added on DummyImplBase? Is this a compiler bug as it works if I use Dummy directly instead of setting it as a constraint? Error 1 'ConsoleApplication53.DummyImplBase' does not implement interface member 'ConsoleApplication53.IRequired.RequiredMethod()'. 'ConsoleApplication53.RequiredBase.RequiredMethod()' cannot implement 'ConsoleApplication53.IRequired.RequiredMethod()' because it does not have the matching return type of 'ConsoleApplication53.Dummy'. C:\Documents and Settings\simen\My Documents\Visual Studio 2008\Projects\ConsoleApplication53\ConsoleApplication53\Program.cs 37 27 ConsoleApplication53 public class Dummy { } public interface IRequired<T> { T RequiredMethod(); } public interface IDummyRequired : IRequired<Dummy> { void OtherMethod(); } public class RequiredBase<T> : IRequired<T> { public T RequiredMethod() { return default(T); } } public abstract class DummyImplBase<T> : RequiredBase<T>, IDummyRequired where T: Dummy { public void OtherMethod() { } }

    Read the article

  • Using reflection to find all linq2sql tables and ensure they match the database

    - by Jake Stevenson
    I'm trying to use reflection to automatically test that all my linq2sql entities match the test database. I thought I'd do this by getting all the classes that inherit from DataContext from my assembly: var contexttypes = Assembly.GetAssembly(typeof (BaseRepository<,>)).GetTypes().Where( t => t.IsSubclassOf(typeof(DataContext))); foreach (var contexttype in contexttypes) { var context = Activator.CreateInstance(contexttype); var tableProperties = type.GetProperties().Where(t=> t.PropertyType.Name == typeof(ITable<>).Name); foreach (var propertyInfo in tableProperties) { var table = (propertyInfo.GetValue(context, null)); } } So far so good, this loops through each ITable< in each datacontext in the project. If I debug the code, "table" is properly instantiated, and if I expand the results view in the debugger I can see actual data. BUT, I can't figure out how to get my code to actually query that table. I'd really like to just be able to do table.FirstOrDefault() to get the top row out of each table and make sure the SQL fetch doesn't fail. But I cant cast that table to be anything I can query. Any suggestions on how I can make this queryable? Just the ability to call .Count() would be enough for me to ensure the entities don't have anything that doesn't match the table columns.

    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

  • Generic Type Parameter constraints in C# .NET

    - by activwerx
    Consider the following Generic class: public class Custom<T> where T : string { } This produces the following error: 'string' is not a valid constraint. A type used as a constraint must be an interface, a non-sealed class or a type parameter. Is there another way to constrain which types my generic class can use? Also, can I constrain to multiple types? E.G. T can only be string, int or byte

    Read the article

  • Nullable<T> as a parameter

    - by ferch
    I alredy have this: public static object GetDBValue(object ObjectEvaluated) { if (ObjectEvaluated == null) return DBNull.Value; else return ObjectEvaluated; } used like: List<SqlParameter> Params = new List<SqlParameter>(); Params.Add(new SqlParameter("@EntityType", GetDBValue(EntityType))); Now i wanted to keep the same interface but extend that to use it with nullable public static object GetDBValue(int? ObjectEvaluated) { if (ObjectEvaluated.HasValue) return ObjectEvaluated.Value; else return DBNull.Value; } public static object GetDBValue(DateTime? ObjectEvaluated) {...} but i want only 1 function GetDBValue for nullables. How do I do that and keep the call as is is? Is that possible at all? I can make it work like: public static object GetDBValue<T>(Nullable<T> ObjectEvaluated) where T : struct { if (ObjectEvaluated.HasValue) return ObjectEvaluated.Value; else return DBNull.Value; } But the call changes to: Params.Add(new SqlParameter("@EntityID ", GetDBValue<int>(EntityID)));

    Read the article

  • Generic <T> how cast ?

    - by Kris-I
    Hi, I have a "Product" base class, some other classes "ProductBookDetail","ProductDVDDetail" inherit from this class. I use a ProductService class to make operation on these classes. But, I have to do some check depending of the type (ISBN for Book, languages for DVD). I'd like to know the best way to cast "productDetail" value, I receive in SaveOrupdate. I tried GetType() and cast with (ProductBookDetail)productDetail but that's not work. Thanks, var productDetail = new ProductDetailBook() { .... }; var service = IoC.Resolve<IProductServiceGeneric<ProductDetailBook>>(); service.SaveOrUpdate(productDetail); var productDetail = new ProductDetailDVD() { .... }; var service = IoC.Resolve<IProductServiceGeneric<ProductDetailDVD>>(); service.SaveOrUpdate(productDetail); public class ProductServiceGeneric<T> : IProductServiceGeneric<T> { private readonly ISession _session; private readonly IProductRepoGeneric<T> _repo; public ProductServiceGeneric() { _session = UnitOfWork.CurrentSession; _repo = IoC.Resolve<IProductRepoGeneric<T>>(); } public void SaveOrUpdate(T productDetail) { using (ITransaction tx = _session.BeginTransaction()) { //here i'd like ot know the type and access properties depending of the class _repo.SaveOrUpdate(productDetail); tx.Commit(); } } }

    Read the article

  • c++ global operator not playing well with template class

    - by John
    ok, i found some similar posts on stackoverflow, but I couldn't find any that pertained to my exact situation and I was confused with some of the answers given. Ok, so here is my problem: I have a template matrix class as follows: template <typename T, size_t ROWS, size_t COLS> class Matrix { public: template<typename, size_t, size_t> friend class Matrix; Matrix( T init = T() ) : _matrix(ROWS, vector<T>(COLS, init)) { /*for( int i = 0; i < ROWS; i++ ) { _matrix[i] = new vector<T>( COLS, init ); }*/ } Matrix<T, ROWS, COLS> & operator+=( const T & value ) { for( vector<T>::size_type i = 0; i < this->_matrix.size(); i++ ) { for( vector<T>::size_type j = 0; j < this->_matrix[i].size(); j++ ) { this->_matrix[i][j] += value; } } return *this; } private: vector< vector<T> > _matrix; }; and I have the following global function template: template<typename T, size_t ROWS, size_t COLS> Matrix<T, ROWS, COLS> operator+( const Matrix<T, ROWS, COLS> & lhs, const Matrix<T, ROWS, COLS> & rhs ) { Matrix<T, ROWS, COLS> returnValue = lhs; return returnValue += lhs; } To me, this seems to be right. However, when I try to compile the code, I get the following error (thrown from the operator+ function): binary '+=' : no operator found which takes a right-hand operand of type 'const matrix::Matrix<T,ROWS,COLS>' (or there is no acceptable conversion) I can't figure out what to make of this. Any help if greatly appreciated!

    Read the article

  • How do I put all types implementing a certain generic interface in a dictionary?

    - by James Wenday
    Given a particular interface ITarget<T> and a particular type myType, here's how you would determine T if myType implements ITarget<T>. (This code snippet is taken from the answer to an earlier question.) foreach (var i in myType.GetInterfaces ()) if (i.IsGenericType && i.GetGenericTypeDefinition() == typeof(ITarget<>)) return i.GetGenericArguments ()[0] ; However, this only checks a single type, myType. How would I create a dictionary of all such type parameters, where the key is T and the value is myType? I think it would look something like this: var searchTarget = typeof(ITarget<>); var dict = Assembly.GetExecutingAssembly().[???] .Where(t => t.IsGenericType && t.GetGenericTypeDefinition() == searchTarget) .[???]; What goes in the blanks?

    Read the article

  • LINQ-to-SQL: Searching against a CSV

    - by Peter Bridger
    I'm using LINQtoSQL and I want to return a list of matching records for a CSV contains a list of IDs to match. The following code is my starting point, having turned a CSV string in a string array, then into a generic list (which I thought LINQ would like) - but it doesn't: Error Error 22 Operator '==' cannot be applied to operands of type 'int' and 'System.Collections.Generic.List<int>' C:\Documents and Settings\....\Search.cs 41 42 C:\...\ Code DataContext db = new DataContext(); List<int> geographyList = new List<int>( Convert.ToInt32(geography.Split(',')) ); var geographyMatches = from cg in db.ContactGeographies where cg.GeographyId == geographyList select new { cg.ContactId }; Where do I go from here?

    Read the article

  • Converting generic type to it's base and vice-versa

    - by Pajci
    Can someone help me with the conversion I am facing in enclosed code ... I commented the lines of code, where I am having problem. Is this even the right way to achieve this ... what I am trying to do, is forward responses of specified type to provided callback. public class MessageBinder { private class Subscriber<T> : IEquatable<Subscriber<T>> where T : Response { ... } private readonly Dictionary<Type, List<Subscriber<Response>>> bindings; public MessageBinder() { this.bindings = new Dictionary<Type, List<Subscriber<Response>>>(); } public void Bind<TResponse>(short shortAddress, Action<ZigbeeAsyncResponse<TResponse>> callback) where TResponse : Response { List<Subscriber<TResponse>> subscribers = this.GetSubscribers<TResponse>(); if (subscribers != null) { subscribers.Add(new Subscriber<TResponse>(shortAddress, callback)); } else { var subscriber = new Subscriber<TResponse>(shortAddress, callback); // ERROR: cannot convert from 'List<Subscriber<TResponse>>' to 'List<Subscriber<Response>>' ... tried LINQ Cast operator - does not work either this.bindings.Add(typeof(TResponse), new List<Subscriber<TResponse>> { subscriber }); } } public void Forward<TResponse>(TResponse response) where TResponse : Response { var subscribers = this.GetSubscribers<TResponse>(); if (subscribers != null) { Subscriber<TResponse> subscriber; Type responseType = typeof (TResponse); if (responseType.IsSubclassOf(typeof (AFResponse))) { // ERROR: Cannot convert type 'TResponse' to 'AFResponse' ... tried cast to object first, works, but is this the right way? var afResponse = (AFResponse)response; subscriber = subscribers.SingleOrDefault(s => s.ShortAddress == afResponse.ShortAddress); } else { subscriber = subscribers.First(); } if (subscriber != null) { subscriber.Forward(response); } } } private List<Subscriber<TResponse>> GetSubscribers<TResponse>() where TResponse : Response { List<Subscriber<Response>> subscribers; this.bindings.TryGetValue(typeof(TResponse), out subscribers); // ERROR: How can I cast List<Subscriber<Response>> to List<Subscriber<TResponse>>? return subscribers; } } Thank you for any help :)

    Read the article

  • how to make accessor for Dictionary in a way that returned Dictionary cannot be changed C# / 2.0

    - by matti
    I thought of solution below because the collection is very very small. But what if it was big? private Dictionary<string, OfTable> _folderData = new Dictionary<string, OfTable>(); public Dictionary<string, OfTable> FolderData { get { return new Dictionary<string,OfTable>(_folderData); } } With List you can make: public class MyClass { private List<int> _items = new List<int>(); public IList<int> Items { get { return _items.AsReadOnly(); } } } That would be nice! Thanks in advance, Cheers & BR - Matti NOW WHEN I THINK THE OBJECTS IN COLLECTION ARE IN HEAP. SO MY SOLUTION DOES NOT PREVENT THE CALLER TO MODIFY THEM!!! CAUSE BOTH Dictionary s CONTAIN REFERENCES TO SAME OBJECT. DOES THIS APPLY TO List EXAMPLE ABOVE? class OfTable { private string _wTableName; private int _table; private List<int> _classes; private string _label; public OfTable() { _classes = new List<int>(); } public int Table { get { return _table; } set { _table = value; } } public List<int> Classes { get { return _classes; } set { _classes = value; } } public string Label { get { return _label; } set { _label = value; } } } so how to make this immutable??

    Read the article

  • Semi-generic function

    - by Fredrik Ullner
    I have a bunch of overloaded functions that operate on certain data types such as int, double and strings. Most of these functions perform the same action, where only a specific set of data types are allowed. That means I cannot create a simple generic template function as I lose type safety (and potentially incurring a run-time problem for validation within the function). Is it possible to create a "semi-generic compile time type safe function"? If so, how? If not, is this something that will come up in C++0x? An (non-valid) idea; template <typename T, restrict: int, std::string > void foo(T bar); ... foo((int)0); // OK foo((std::string)"foobar"); // OK foo((double)0.0); // Compile Error Note: I realize I could create a class that has overloaded constructors and assignment operators and pass a variable of that class instead to the function.

    Read the article

  • Improve this generic abstract class

    - by Keivan
    I have the following abstract class design, I was wondering if anyone can suggest any improvements in terms of stronger enforcement of our requirements or simplifying implementing of the ControllerBase. //Dependency Provider base public abstract class ControllerBase<TContract, TType> where TType : TContract, class { public static TContract Instance { get { return ComponentFactory.GetComponent<TContract, TType>(); } } public TContract GetComponent<TContract, TType>() where TType : TContract, class { component = (TType)Activator.CreateInstance(typeof(TType), true); RegisterComponentInstance<TContract>(component); } } //Contract public interface IController { void DoThing(); } //Actual Class Logic public class Controller: ControllerBase<IController,Controller> { public void DoThing(); //internal constructor internal Controller(){} } //Usage public static void Main() { Controller.Instance.DoThing(); } The following facts should always be true, TType should always implement TContract (Enforced using a generic constraint) TContract must be an interface (Can't find a way to enforce it) TType shouldn't have public constructor, just an internal one, is there any way to Enforce that using ControllerBase? TType must be an concrete class (Didn't include New() as a generic constrain since the constructors should be marked as Internal)

    Read the article

  • MSMQ - Message Queue Abstraction and Pattern

    - by Maxim Gershkovich
    Hi All, Let me define the problem first and why a messagequeue has been chosen. I have a datalayer that will be transactional and EXTREMELY insert heavy and rather then attempt to deal with these issues when they occur I am hoping to implement my application from the ground up with this in mind. I have decided to tackle this problem by using the Microsoft Message Queue and perform inserts as time permits asynchronously. However I quickly ran into a problem. Certain inserts that I perform may need to be recalled (ie: retrieved) immediately (imagine this is for POS system and what happens if you need to recall the last transaction - one that still hasn’t been inserted). The way I decided to tackle this problem is by abstracting the MessageQueue and combining it in my data access layer thereby creating the illusion of a single set of data being returned to the user of the datalayer (I have considered the other issues that occur in such a scenario (ie: essentially dirty reads and such) and have concluded for my purposes I can control these issues). However this is where things get a little nasty... I’ve worked out how to get the messages back and such (trivial enough problem) but where I am stuck is; how do I create a generic (or at least somewhat generic) way of querying my message queue? One where I can minimize the duplication between the SQL queries and MessageQueue queries. I have considered using LINQ (but have very limited understanding of the technology) and have also attempted an implementation with Predicates which so far is pretty smelly. Are there any patterns for such a problem that I can utilize? Am I going about this the wrong way? Does anyone have an of their own ideas about how I can tackle this problem? Does anyone even understand what I am talking about? :-) Any and ALL input would be highly appreciated and seriously considered… Thanks again.

    Read the article

  • Inheritance and type parameters of Traversable

    - by Jesper
    I'm studying the source code of the Scala 2.8 collection classes. I have questions about the hierarchy of scala.collection.Traversable. Look at the following declarations: package scala.collection trait Traversable[+A] extends TraversableLike[A, Traversable[A]] with GenericTraversableTemplate[A, Traversable] trait TraversableLike[+A, +Repr] extends HasNewBuilder[A, Repr] with TraversableOnce[A] package scala.collection.generic trait HasNewBuilder[+A, +Repr] trait GenericTraversableTemplate[+A, +CC[X] <: Traversable[X]] extends HasNewBuilder[A, CC[A] @uncheckedVariance] Question: Why does Traversable extend GenericTraversableTemplate with type parameters [A, Traversable] - why not [A, Traversable[A]]? I tried some experimenting with a small program with the same structure and got a strange error message when I tried to change it to Traversable[A]: error: Traversable[A] takes no type parameters, expected: one I guess that the use of the @uncheckedVariance annotation in GenericTraversableTemplate also has to do with this? (That seems like a kind of potentially unsafe hack to force things to work...). Question: When you look at the hierarchy, you see that Traversable inherits HasNewBuilder twice (once via TraversableLike and once via GenericTraversableTemplate), but with slightly different type parameters. How does this work exactly? Why don't the different type parameters cause an error?

    Read the article

  • Why is TreeSet<T> an internal type in .NET?

    - by Justin Niessner
    So, I was just digging around Reflector trying to find the implementation details of HashSet (out of sheer curiosity based on the answer to another question here) and noticed the following: internal class TreeSet<T> : ICollection<T>, IEnumerable<T>, ICollection, IEnumerable, ISerializable, IDeserializationCallback Without looking too deep into the details, it looks like a Self-Balancing Binary Search Tree. My question is, is there anybody out there with the insight as to why this class is internal? Is it simply because the other collection types use it internally and hide the complexities of a BST from the general masses...or am I way off base?

    Read the article

  • How do I get a JComponent to resize after calling `setVisible(true)`?

    - by iWerner
    Our application displays a 2D view of our data (mainly maps) and then allows the user to change to a 3D view. The 2D and 3D views are generated by custom C++ code that is SWIG'ed into our Swing GUI and wrapped within a JComponent. These JComponents are then displayed within another parent JComponent. Our problem is that when we change from the 2D to the 3D view and then back to the 2D view, when we resize the window the 2D view does not get resized. The resize events don't get sent to the 2D view. Our application runs under Linux (Fedora 11). We're running Java version 1.6.0_12. Here is some sample code in which I've replaced the 2D view and 3D view with two 2 JButtons, that produces the same behaviour. Once you go to 3D and then back to 2D, resizing the window does not cause the 2D view to be resized. /* TestFrame.java * Compile with: $ javac TestFrame.java * Run with: $ java TestFrame */ import java.awt.BorderLayout; import java.awt.Container; import java.awt.event.ComponentEvent; import java.awt.event.ComponentListener; import javax.swing.JButton; public class TestFrame extends javax.swing.JFrame { private boolean mode2D = true; private JButton view2D = null; private JButton view3D = null; private Container parent = null; public TestFrame() { initComponents(); containerPanel.setLayout(new BorderLayout()); view2D = new JButton("2D View"); view2D.addComponentListener(new MyListener("2D VIEW")); containerPanel.add(view2D); } private void changerButtonActionPerformed(java.awt.event.ActionEvent evt) { if (parent == null) { parent = view2D.getParent(); } if (mode2D) { System.out.println("Going from 2D to 3D"); view2D.setVisible(false); if (view3D != null) { view3D.setVisible(true); } else { view3D = new JButton("3D View"); view3D.addComponentListener(new MyListener("3D VIEW")); parent.add(view3D); } ((JButton) evt.getSource()).setText("Change to 2D"); mode2D = false; } else { System.out.println("Going from 3D to 2D"); view3D.setVisible(false); view2D.setVisible(true); ((JButton) evt.getSource()).setText("Change to 3D"); mode2D = true; } } public static void main(String args[]) { java.awt.EventQueue.invokeLater(new Runnable() { public void run() { new TestFrame().setVisible(true); } }); } private javax.swing.JPanel containerPanel; private javax.swing.JButton changerButton; private class MyListener implements ComponentListener { private String name; public MyListener(String name) { this.name = name; } @Override public void componentHidden(ComponentEvent event) { System.out.println("@@@ [" + name + "] component Hidden"); } @Override public void componentResized(ComponentEvent event) { System.out.println("@@@ [" + name + "] component Resized"); } @Override public void componentShown(ComponentEvent event) { System.out.println("@@@ [" + name + "] component Shown"); } @Override public void componentMoved(ComponentEvent event) { System.out.println("@@@ [" + name + "] component Moved"); } }; @SuppressWarnings("unchecked") private void initComponents() { containerPanel = new javax.swing.JPanel(); changerButton = new javax.swing.JButton(); setDefaultCloseOperation(javax.swing.WindowConstants.EXIT_ON_CLOSE); containerPanel.setBorder(new javax.swing.border.MatteBorder(null)); javax.swing.GroupLayout containerPanelLayout = new javax.swing.GroupLayout(containerPanel); containerPanel.setLayout(containerPanelLayout); containerPanelLayout.setHorizontalGroup( containerPanelLayout.createParallelGroup(javax.swing.GroupLayout.Alignment.LEADING) .addGap(0, 374, Short.MAX_VALUE) ); containerPanelLayout.setVerticalGroup( containerPanelLayout.createParallelGroup(javax.swing.GroupLayout.Alignment.LEADING) .addGap(0, 239, Short.MAX_VALUE) ); changerButton.setText("Change to 3D"); changerButton.addActionListener(new java.awt.event.ActionListener() { public void actionPerformed(java.awt.event.ActionEvent evt) { changerButtonActionPerformed(evt); } }); javax.swing.GroupLayout layout = new javax.swing.GroupLayout(getContentPane()); getContentPane().setLayout(layout); layout.setHorizontalGroup( layout.createParallelGroup(javax.swing.GroupLayout.Alignment.LEADING) .addGroup(layout.createSequentialGroup() .addContainerGap() .addGroup(layout.createParallelGroup(javax.swing.GroupLayout.Alignment.LEADING) .addComponent(containerPanel, javax.swing.GroupLayout.DEFAULT_SIZE, javax.swing.GroupLayout.DEFAULT_SIZE, Short.MAX_VALUE) .addComponent(changerButton)) .addContainerGap()) ); layout.setVerticalGroup( layout.createParallelGroup(javax.swing.GroupLayout.Alignment.LEADING) .addGroup(layout.createSequentialGroup() .addContainerGap() .addComponent(containerPanel, javax.swing.GroupLayout.DEFAULT_SIZE, javax.swing.GroupLayout.DEFAULT_SIZE, Short.MAX_VALUE) .addPreferredGap(javax.swing.LayoutStyle.ComponentPlacement.RELATED) .addComponent(changerButton) .addContainerGap()) ); pack(); } } (My apologies for the Netbeans generated GUI code) I should mention that when we call parent.remove(view2D) and parent.add(view3D) to change the views the X Windows ID of our 3D view changes and we're unable to get our 3D view back. Therefore parent.remove(view2D) and parent.add(view3D) is not really a solution and we have to call setVisible(false) and setVisible(true) on the JComponents that contain our 2D and 3D views in order to hide and show them. Any help will be greatly appreciated.

    Read the article

  • Extension method question. Why do I need to use someObj = someObj.somemethod();

    - by Kettenbach
    Hi All, I have a simple extension method that I would like to use to add an item to an array of items. public static T[] addElement<T>(this T[] array, T elementToAdd) { var list = new List<T>(array) {elementToAdd}; return list.ToArray(); } this works ok, but when I use it, I am having to set the array equal to the return value. I see that I am returning an Array. I likely want this method to be void, but I would like the item added. Does anyone have any ideas on what I need to do , to make this work the way I am wanting? Instead of someArray = someArray.addElement(item), I just want to do someArray.addElement(item) and then someArray be ready to go. What am I missing here? Thanks, ~ck in San Diego

    Read the article

facebook twitter digg google delicious technorati stumbleupon myspace wordpress linkedin gmail igoogle windows live tumblr viadeo yahoo buzz yahoo mail yahoo bookmarks favorites email print

< Previous Page | 413 414 415 416 417 418 419 420 421 422 423 424  | Next Page >