Search Results

Search found 3956 results on 159 pages for 'constructor overloading'.

Page 42/159 | < Previous Page | 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49  | Next Page >

  • Why isnt the copy constructor of member class called?

    - by sandeep
    class member { public: member() { cout<<"Calling member constr"<<'\n'; } member(const member&) { cout<<"Calling member copy constr"<<'\n'; } }; class fred { public: fred() { cout<<"calling fred constr"<<'\n'; } fred(const fred &) { cout<<"Calling fred copy constr"<<'\n'; } protected: member member_; }; int main() { fred a; fred b=a; } Output: Calling member constr calling fred constr **Calling member constr** Calling fred copy constr

    Read the article

  • PHP class constructor , how to initalize pictuer “blob” type?

    - by Iman25
    I have class and I want to initalize column that stores pictuer with type "blob" but I'm not sure how? take a look at the lat line of the code public function __construct( $data=array() ) { if ( isset( $data['id'] ) ) $this->id = (int) $data['id']; if ( isset( $data['date'] ) ) $this->date= (int) $data['date']; if ( isset( $data['topic'] ) ) $this->topic = preg_replace ( "/[^\.\,\-\_\'\"\@\?\!\:\$ a-zA-Z0-9()]/", "", $data['topic'] ); if ( isset( $data['author'] ) ) $this->author = preg_replace ( "/[^\.\,\-\_\'\"\@\?\!\:\$ a-zA-Z0-9()]/", "", $data['author'] ); if ( isset( $data['content'] ) ) $this->content = $data['content']; if ( isset( $data['picture'] ) ) $this->picture ="Here sholud be the Type" $data['picture']; }

    Read the article

  • Register all GUI components as Observers or pass current object to next object as a constructor argu

    - by Jack
    First, I'd like to say that I think this is a common issue and there may be a simple or common solution that I am unaware of. Many have probably encountered a similar problem. Thanks for reading. I am creating a GUI where each component needs to communicate (or at least be updated) by multiple other components. Currently, I'm using a Singleton class to accomplish this goal. Each GUI component gets the instance of the singleton and registers itself. When updates need to be made, the singleton can call public methods in the registered class. I think this is similar to an Observer pattern, but the singleton has more control. Currently, the program is set up something like this: class c1 { CommClass cc; c1() { cc = CommClass.getCommClass(); cc.registerC1( this ); C2 c2 = new c2(); } } class c2 { CommClass cc; c2() { cc = CommClass.getCommClass(); cc.registerC2( this ); C3 c3 = new c3(); } } class c3 { CommClass cc; c3() { cc = CommClass.getCommClass(); cc.registerC3( this ); C4 c4 = new c4(); } } etc. Unfortunately, the singleton class keeps growing larger as more communication is required between the components. I was wondering if it's a good idea to instead of using this singleton, pass the higher order GUI components as arguments in the constructors of each GUI component: class c1 { c1() { C2 c2 = new c2( this ); } } class c2 { C1 c1; c2( C1 c1 ) { this.c1 = c1 C3 c3 = new c3( c1, this ); } } class c3 { C1 c1; C2 c2; c3( C1 c1, C2 c2 ) { this.c1 = c1; this.c2 = c2; C4 c4 = new c4( c1, c2, this ); } } etc. The second version relies less on the CommClass, but it's still very messy as the private member variables increase in number and the constructors grow in length. Each class contains GUI components that need to communicate through CommClass, but I can't think of a good way to do it. If this seems strange or horribly inefficient, please describe some method of communication between classes that will continue to work as the project grows. Also, if this doesn't make any sense to anyone, I'll try to give actual code snippets in the future and think of a better way to ask the question. Thanks.

    Read the article

  • Reduce Repetitive Initialization Code in C++ Applications by Using Delegating Constructors

    You're often required to repeat identical pieces of initialization code in every constructor of a class that declares multiple constructors. That's because unlike a few other programming languages, The C++ programming language doesn't allow a constructor to call another constructor of the same class. Luckily, this problem is about to disappear with the recent approval of a new C++0x feature called delegating constructors which are explained in this C++ tutorial.

    Read the article

  • I am using a constructor for my array but why is it saying i need a return type?

    - by JB
    using System; using System.IO; using System.Data; using System.Text; using System.Drawing; using System.Data.OleDb; using System.Collections; using System.ComponentModel; using System.Windows.Forms; using System.Drawing.Printing; using System.Collections.Generic; namespace Eagle_Eye_Class_Finder { public class GetSchedule { public class IDnumber { public string Name { get; set; } public string ID { get; set; } public string year { get; set; } public string class1 { get; set; } public string class2 { get; set; } public string class3 { get; set; } public string class4 { get; set; } IDnumber[] IDnumbers = new IDnumber[3]; public GetSchedule() //here i get an error saying method must have a return type??? { IDnumbers[0] = new IDnumber() { Name = "Joshua Banks",ID = "900456317", year = "Senior", class1 = "TEET 4090", class2 = "TEET 3020", class3 = "TEET 3090", class4 = "TEET 4290" }; IDnumbers[1] = new IDnumber() { Name = "Sean Ward", ID = "900456318", year = "Junior", class1 = "ENGNR 4090", class2 = "ENGNR 3020", class3 = "ENGNR 3090", class4 = "ENGNR 4290" }; IDnumbers[2] = new IDnumber() { Name = "Terrell Johnson",ID = "900456319",year = "Sophomore", class1 = "BUS 4090", class2 = "BUS 3020", class3 = "BUS 3090", class4 = "BUS 4290" }; } static void ProcessNumber(IDnumber myNum) { StringBuilder myData = new StringBuilder(); myData.AppendLine(IDnumber.Name); myData.AppendLine(": "); myData.AppendLine(IDnumber.ID); myData.AppendLine(IDnumber.year); myData.AppendLine(IDnumber.class1); myData.AppendLine(IDnumber.class2); myData.AppendLine(IDnumber.class3); myData.AppendLine(IDnumber.class4); MessageBox.Show(myData); } public string GetDataFromNumber(string ID) { foreach (IDnumber idCandidateMatch in IDnumbers) { if (IDCandidateMatch.ID == ID) { StringBuilder myData = new StringBuilder(); myData.AppendLine(IDnumber.Name); myData.AppendLine(": "); myData.AppendLine(IDnumber.ID); myData.AppendLine(IDnumber.year); myData.AppendLine(IDnumber.class1); myData.AppendLine(IDnumber.class2); myData.AppendLine(IDnumber.class3); myData.AppendLine(IDnumber.class4); return myData; } } return ""; } } } }

    Read the article

  • Why do we (really) program to interfaces?

    - by Kyle Burns
    One of the earliest lessons I was taught in Enterprise development was "always program against an interface".  This was back in the VB6 days and I quickly learned that no code would be allowed to move to the QA server unless my business objects and data access objects each are defined as an interface and have a matching implementation class.  Why?  "It's more reusable" was one answer.  "It doesn't tie you to a specific implementation" a slightly more knowing answer.  And let's not forget the discussion ending "it's a standard".  The problem with these responses was that senior people didn't really understand the reason we were doing the things we were doing and because of that, we were entirely unable to realize the intent behind the practice - we simply used interfaces and had a bunch of extra code to maintain to show for it. It wasn't until a few years later that I finally heard the term "Inversion of Control".  Simply put, "Inversion of Control" takes the creation of objects that used to be within the control (and therefore a responsibility of) of your component and moves it to some outside force.  For example, consider the following code which follows the old "always program against an interface" rule in the manner of many corporate development shops: 1: ICatalog catalog = new Catalog(); 2: Category[] categories = catalog.GetCategories(); In this example, I met the requirement of the rule by declaring the variable as ICatalog, but I didn't hit "it doesn't tie you to a specific implementation" because I explicitly created an instance of the concrete Catalog object.  If I want to test the functionality of the code I just wrote I have to have an environment in which Catalog can be created along with any of the resources upon which it depends (e.g. configuration files, database connections, etc) in order to test my functionality.  That's a lot of setup work and one of the things that I think ultimately discourages real buy-in of unit testing in many development shops. So how do I test my code without needing Catalog to work?  A very primitive approach I've seen is to change the line the instantiates catalog to read: 1: ICatalog catalog = new FakeCatalog();   once the test is run and passes, the code is switched back to the real thing.  This obviously poses a huge risk for introducing test code into production and in my opinion is worse than just keeping the dependency and its associated setup work.  Another popular approach is to make use of Factory methods which use an object whose "job" is to know how to obtain a valid instance of the object.  Using this approach, the code may look something like this: 1: ICatalog catalog = CatalogFactory.GetCatalog();   The code inside the factory is responsible for deciding "what kind" of catalog is needed.  This is a far better approach than the previous one, but it does make projects grow considerably because now in addition to the interface, the real implementation, and the fake implementation(s) for testing you have added a minimum of one factory (or at least a factory method) for each of your interfaces.  Once again, developers say "that's too complicated and has me writing a bunch of useless code" and quietly slip back into just creating a new Catalog and chalking any test failures up to "it will probably work on the server". This is where software intended specifically to facilitate Inversion of Control comes into play.  There are many libraries that take on the Inversion of Control responsibilities in .Net and most of them have many pros and cons.  From this point forward I'll discuss concepts from the standpoint of the Unity framework produced by Microsoft's Patterns and Practices team.  I'm primarily focusing on this library because it questions about it inspired this posting. At Unity's core and that of most any IoC framework is a catalog or registry of components.  This registry can be configured either through code or using the application's configuration file and in the most simple terms says "interface X maps to concrete implementation Y".  It can get much more complicated, but I want to keep things at the "what does it do" level instead of "how does it do it".  The object that exposes most of the Unity functionality is the UnityContainer.  This object exposes methods to configure the catalog as well as the Resolve<T> method which is used to obtain an instance of the type represented by T.  When using the Resolve<T> method, Unity does not necessarily have to just "new up" the requested object, but also can track dependencies of that object and ensure that the entire dependency chain is satisfied. There are three basic ways that I have seen Unity used within projects.  Those are through classes directly using the Unity container, classes requiring injection of dependencies, and classes making use of the Service Locator pattern. The first usage of Unity is when classes are aware of the Unity container and directly call its Resolve method whenever they need the services advertised by an interface.  The up side of this approach is that IoC is utilized, but the down side is that every class has to be aware that Unity is being used and tied directly to that implementation. Many developers don't like the idea of as close a tie to specific IoC implementation as is represented by using Unity within all of your classes and for the most part I agree that this isn't a good idea.  As an alternative, classes can be designed for Dependency Injection.  Dependency Injection is where a force outside the class itself manipulates the object to provide implementations of the interfaces that the class needs to interact with the outside world.  This is typically done either through constructor injection where the object has a constructor that accepts an instance of each interface it requires or through property setters accepting the service providers.  When using dependency, I lean toward the use of constructor injection because I view the constructor as being a much better way to "discover" what is required for the instance to be ready for use.  During resolution, Unity looks for an injection constructor and will attempt to resolve instances of each interface required by the constructor, throwing an exception of unable to meet the advertised needs of the class.  The up side of this approach is that the needs of the class are very clearly advertised and the class is unaware of which IoC container (if any) is being used.  The down side of this approach is that you're required to maintain the objects passed to the constructor as instance variables throughout the life of your object and that objects which coordinate with many external services require a lot of additional constructor arguments (this gets ugly and may indicate a need for refactoring). The final way that I've seen and used Unity is to make use of the ServiceLocator pattern, of which the Patterns and Practices team has also provided a Unity-compatible implementation.  When using the ServiceLocator, your class calls ServiceLocator.Retrieve in places where it would have called Resolve on the Unity container.  Like using Unity directly, it does tie you directly to the ServiceLocator implementation and makes your code aware that dependency injection is taking place, but it does have the up side of giving you the freedom to swap out the underlying IoC container if necessary.  I'm not hugely concerned with hiding IoC entirely from the class (I view this as a "nice to have"), so the single biggest problem that I see with the ServiceLocator approach is that it provides no way to proactively advertise needs in the way that constructor injection does, allowing more opportunity for difficult to track runtime errors. This blog entry has not been intended in any way to be a definitive work on IoC, but rather as something to spur thought about why we program to interfaces and some ways to reach the intended value of the practice instead of having it just complicate your code.  I hope that it helps somebody begin or continue a journey away from being a "Cargo Cult Programmer".

    Read the article

  • How to setup the c++ rule of three in a virtual base class

    - by Minion91
    I am trying to create a pure virtual base class (or simulated pure virtual) my goal: User can't create instances of BaseClass. Derived classes have to implement default constructor, copy constructor, copy assignment operator and destructor. My attempt: class Base { public: virtual ~Base() {}; /* some pure virtual functions */ private: Base() = default; Base(const Base& base) = default; Base& operator=(const Base& base) = default; } This gives some errors complaining that (for one) the copy constructor is private. But i don't want this mimicked constructor to be called. Can anyone give me the correct construction to do this if this is at all possible?

    Read the article

  • Using Unity – Part 4

    - by nmarun
    In this part, I’ll be discussing about constructor and property or setter injection. I’ve created a new class – Product3: 1: public class Product3 : IProduct 2: { 3: public string Name { get; set; } 4: [Dependency] 5: public IDistributor Distributor { get; set; } 6: public ILogger Logger { get; set; } 7:  8: public Product3(ILogger logger) 9: { 10: Logger = logger; 11: Name = "Product 1"; 12: } 13:  14: public string WriteProductDetails() 15: { 16: StringBuilder productDetails = new StringBuilder(); 17: productDetails.AppendFormat("{0}<br/>", Name); 18: productDetails.AppendFormat("{0}<br/>", Logger.WriteLog()); 19: productDetails.AppendFormat("{0}<br/>", Distributor.WriteDistributorDetails()); 20: return productDetails.ToString(); 21: } 22: } This version has a property of type IDistributor and takes a constructor parameter of type ILogger. The IDistributor property has a Dependency attribute (Microsoft.Practices.Unity namespace) applied to it. IDistributor and its implementation are shown below: 1: public interface IDistributor 2: { 3: string WriteDistributorDetails(); 4: } 5:  6: public class Distributor : IDistributor 7: { 8: public List<string> DistributorNames = new List<string>(); 9:  10: public Distributor() 11: { 12: DistributorNames.Add("Distributor1"); 13: DistributorNames.Add("Distributor2"); 14: DistributorNames.Add("Distributor3"); 15: DistributorNames.Add("Distributor4"); 16: } 17: public string WriteDistributorDetails() 18: { 19: StringBuilder distributors = new StringBuilder(); 20: for (int i = 0; i < DistributorNames.Count; i++) 21: { 22: distributors.AppendFormat("{0}<br/>", DistributorNames[i]); 23: } 24: return distributors.ToString(); 25: } 26: } ILogger and the FileLogger have the following definition: 1: public interface ILogger 2: { 3: string WriteLog(); 4: } 5:  6: public class FileLogger : ILogger 7: { 8: public string WriteLog() 9: { 10: return string.Format("Type: {0}", GetType()); 11: } 12: } The Unity container creates an instance of the dependent class (the Distributor class) within the scope of the target object (an instance of Product3 class that will be called by doing a Resolve<IProduct>() in the calling code) and assign this dependent object to the attributed property of the target object. To add to it, property injection is a form of optional injection of dependent objects.The dependent object instance is generated before the container returns the target object. Unlike constructor injection, you must apply the appropriate attribute in the target class to initiate property injection. Let’s see how to change the config file to make this work. The first step is to add all the type aliases: 1: <typeAlias alias="Product3" type="ProductModel.Product3, ProductModel"/> 2: <typeAlias alias="ILogger" type="ProductModel.ILogger, ProductModel"/> 3: <typeAlias alias="FileLogger" type="ProductModel.FileLogger, ProductModel"/> 4: <typeAlias alias="IDistributor" type="ProductModel.IDistributor, ProductModel"/> 5: <typeAlias alias="Distributor" type="ProductModel.Distributor, ProductModel"/> Now define mappings for these aliases: 1: <type type="ILogger" mapTo="FileLogger" /> 2: <type type="IDistributor" mapTo="Distributor" /> Next step is to define the constructor and property injection in the config file: 1: <type type="IProduct" mapTo="Product3" name="ComplexProduct"> 2: <typeConfig extensionType="Microsoft.Practices.Unity.Configuration.TypeInjectionElement, Microsoft.Practices.Unity.Configuration"> 3: <constructor> 4: <param name="logger" parameterType="ILogger" /> 5: </constructor> 6: <property name="Distributor" propertyType="IDistributor"> 7: <dependency /> 8: </property> 9: </typeConfig> 10: </type> There you see a constructor element that tells there’s a property named ‘logger’ that is of type ILogger. By default, the type of ILogger gets resolved to type FileLogger. There’s also a property named ‘Distributor’ which is of type IDistributor and which will get resolved to type Distributor. On the calling side, I’ve added a new button, whose click event does the following: 1: protected void InjectionButton_Click(object sender, EventArgs e) 2: { 3: unityContainer.RegisterType<IProduct, Product3>(); 4: IProduct product3 = unityContainer.Resolve<IProduct>(); 5: productDetailsLabel.Text = product3.WriteProductDetails(); 6: } This renders the following output: This completes the part for constructor and property injection. In the next blog, I’ll talk about Arrays and Generics. Please see the code used here.

    Read the article

  • Examples of bad variable names and reasons [on hold]

    - by user470184
    I'll start with a class in the jdk package : public final class Sdp { should be : public final class SocketsDirectProtocol { Sdp is class name, this is ambigious, should be : Class<?> cl = Class.forName("java.net.SdpSocketImpl", true, null); should be : Class<?> clazz = Class.forName("java.net.SdpSocketImpl", true, null); cl is ambiguous private static void setAccessible(final AccessibleObject o) { should be : private static void setAccessible(final AccessibleObject accessibleObject) { There are various other examples in this class, do you have similar and/or differing examples of variables that were named badly ? package com.oracle.net; public final class Sdp { private Sdp() { } /** * The package-privage ServerSocket(SocketImpl) constructor */ private static final Constructor<ServerSocket> serverSocketCtor; static { try { serverSocketCtor = (Constructor<ServerSocket>) ServerSocket.class.getDeclaredConstructor(SocketImpl.class); setAccessible(serverSocketCtor); } catch (NoSuchMethodException e) { throw new AssertionError(e); } } /** * The package-private SdpSocketImpl() constructor */ private static final Constructor<SocketImpl> socketImplCtor; static { try { Class<?> cl = Class.forName("java.net.SdpSocketImpl", true, null); socketImplCtor = (Constructor<SocketImpl>)cl.getDeclaredConstructor(); setAccessible(socketImplCtor); } catch (ClassNotFoundException e) { throw new AssertionError(e); } catch (NoSuchMethodException e) { throw new AssertionError(e); } } private static void setAccessible(final AccessibleObject o) { AccessController.doPrivileged(new PrivilegedAction<Void>() { public Void run() { o.setAccessible(true); return null; } }); } /** * SDP enabled Socket. */ private static class SdpSocket extends Socket { SdpSocket(SocketImpl impl) throws SocketException { super(impl); } } /** * Creates a SDP enabled SocketImpl */ private static SocketImpl createSocketImpl() { try { return socketImplCtor.newInstance(); } catch (InstantiationException x) { throw new AssertionError(x); } catch (IllegalAccessException x) { throw new AssertionError(x); } catch (InvocationTargetException x) { throw new AssertionError(x); } } /** * Creates an unconnected and unbound SDP socket. The {@code Socket} is * associated with a {@link java.net.SocketImpl} of the system-default type. * * @return a new Socket * * @throws UnsupportedOperationException * If SDP is not supported * @throws IOException * If an I/O error occurs */ public static Socket openSocket() throws IOException { SocketImpl impl = createSocketImpl(); return new SdpSocket(impl); } /** * Creates an unbound SDP server socket. The {@code ServerSocket} is * associated with a {@link java.net.SocketImpl} of the system-default type. * * @return a new ServerSocket * * @throws UnsupportedOperationException * If SDP is not supported * @throws IOException * If an I/O error occurs */ public static ServerSocket openServerSocket() throws IOException { // create ServerSocket via package-private constructor SocketImpl impl = createSocketImpl(); try { return serverSocketCtor.newInstance(impl); } catch (IllegalAccessException x) { throw new AssertionError(x); } catch (InstantiationException x) { throw new AssertionError(x); } catch (InvocationTargetException x) { Throwable cause = x.getCause(); if (cause instanceof IOException) throw (IOException)cause; if (cause instanceof RuntimeException) throw (RuntimeException)cause; throw new RuntimeException(x); } } /** * Opens a socket channel to a SDP socket. * * <p> The channel will be associated with the system-wide default * {@link java.nio.channels.spi.SelectorProvider SelectorProvider}. * * @return a new SocketChannel * * @throws UnsupportedOperationException * If SDP is not supported or not supported by the default selector * provider * @throws IOException * If an I/O error occurs. */ public static SocketChannel openSocketChannel() throws IOException { FileDescriptor fd = SdpSupport.createSocket(); return sun.nio.ch.Secrets.newSocketChannel(fd); } /** * Opens a socket channel to a SDP socket. * * <p> The channel will be associated with the system-wide default * {@link java.nio.channels.spi.SelectorProvider SelectorProvider}. * * @return a new ServerSocketChannel * * @throws UnsupportedOperationException * If SDP is not supported or not supported by the default selector * provider * @throws IOException * If an I/O error occurs */ public static ServerSocketChannel openServerSocketChannel() throws IOException { FileDescriptor fd = SdpSupport.createSocket(); return sun.nio.ch.Secrets.newServerSocketChannel(fd); } }

    Read the article

  • C++ - what does the colon after a constructor mean?

    - by waitinforatrain
    I'd happily Google this but don't know what to call it to Google it. I have a piece of code here: class demo { private: unsigned char len, *dat; public: demo(unsigned char le = 5, unsigned char default) : len(le) { dat = new char[len]; for (int i = 0; i <= le; i++) dat[i] = default; } void ~demo(void) { delete [] *dat; } }; class newdemo : public demo { private: int *dat1; public: newdemo(void) : demo(0, 0) { *dat1 = 0; return 0; } }; (It's from a past exam paper and the question is to correct errors in the code so ignore errors!) My question is, what are the ": len(le) " and " : demo(0, 0)" called? Something to do with inheritance?

    Read the article

  • Inherit all methods of object (including "constructor"), but modify some of them.

    - by Kirzilla
    Hello, Let's imagine that we have object Animal $.Animal = function(options) { this.defaults = { name : null } this.options = $.extend(this.defaults, options); } $.Animal.prototype.saySomething = function() { alert("I'm animal!"); } Now I'd like to create Cat object. It is absolutely similar to $.Annimal, but method saySomething() will look like this one... $.Cat.prototype.saySomething = function() { alert("I'm cat!"); } How can I inherit from Animal to create new object Cat and redefine saySomething() method? Thank you.

    Read the article

  • How to call constructor of the current class and parent class at the same time?

    - by Siegfried
    public class A{ public A(int a, int b) {...} } public class B : A{ List a; List b; public B(){...} //constructor1 public B(int a, int b) : base(a,b){...} //constructor2 } My question is I need to initialize both list a and b in class B. If I put them in the constructor1, how can I call constructor1 in constructor2? I don't want to rewrite the initialization statements in constructor2 again. Thanks!

    Read the article

  • C# Virtual method call in constructor - how to refactor?

    - by Cristi Diaconescu
    I have an abstract class for database-agnostic cursor actions. Derived from that, there are classes that implement the abstract methods for handling database-specific stuff. The problem is, the base class ctor needs to call an abstract method - when the ctor is called, it needs to initialize the database-specific cursor. I know why this shouldn't be done, I don't need that explanation! This is my first implementation, that obviously doesn't work - it's the textbook "wrong way" of doing it. The overridden method accesses a field from the derived class, which is not yet instantiated: public abstract class CursorReader { private readonly int m_rowCount; protected CursorReader() { m_rowCount = CreateCursor(sqlCmd); //virtual call ! } protected abstract int CreateCursor(string sqlCmd); } public class SqlCursorReader : CursorReader { private SqlConnection m_sqlConnection; public SqlCursorReader(string sqlCmd, SqlConnection sqlConnection) { m_sqlConnection = sqlConnection; //field initialized here } protected override int CreateCursor(string sqlCmd) { //uses not-yet-initialized member *m_sqlConnection* //so this throws a NullReferenceException var cursor = new CustomCursor(sqlCmd, m_sqlConnection); return cursor.Count(); } } I will follow up with an answer on my attempts to fix this...

    Read the article

  • What happens if a bean attempts to load the Spring application context in its constructor?

    - by Derek Mahar
    Given the following Spring application context and class A, what happens when you run class A? applicationContext.xml (in classpath): <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?> <beans xmlns="http://www.springframework.org/schema/beans" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xsi:schemaLocation="http://www.springframework.org/schema/beans http://www.springframework.org/schema/beans/spring-beans-2.5.xsd"> <bean name="a" class="A"/> </beans> A.java: class A { private ApplicationContext applicationContext = new ClassPathXmlApplicationContext("applicationContext.xml"); public static void main(String[] args) { A a = new A(); } }

    Read the article

  • How to expose a constructor variable(sic!) as read-only?

    - by Malax
    Hi StackOverflow! I have this rather simple question about Scala. Given that i have to following class definition: class Foo(var bar: Int) The code which is able to construct an instance of Foo must be able to pass the initial value for bar. But if I define bar as var the User is also able to change its value at runtime which is not what I want. The User should only be able to read bar. bar itself is modified internally so a val is not an option. I think I might be getting an answer very soon as this question is so simple. :-) Cheers, Malax

    Read the article

  • Is is possible to intercept a constructor on a class you do not own?

    - by code poet
    Referring to my possible answer to this question: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/2907535/how-would-you-audit-asp-net-membership-tables-while-recording-what-user-made-the/2911616#2911616 Is it possible to intercept a call, coming from code you do not own, to a ctor on a sealed internal class that you do not own with the intention of manipulating the object before returning? Concrete example: SqlMembershipProvider, for all of it's data access, instantiates a connection helper class, System.Web.DataAccess.SqlConnectionHolder. The desired result is to intercept this instantiation and perform an operation on the public connection that is opened in the ctor of System.Web.DataAccess.SqlConnectionHolder before letting execution continue. Is this possible. If so, an brief example would be appreciated.

    Read the article

  • Problem with number/type of arguments passed to an overloaded c++ constructor wrapped with swig.

    - by MiKo
    I am trying to wrap a c++ class (let's call it "Spam") written by someone else with swig to expose it to Python. After solving several problems, I am able to import the module in python, but when I try to create an object of such class I obtain the following error: foo = Spam.Spam('abc',3) Traceback (most recent call last): File "<stdin>", line 1, in <module> File "Spam.py", line 96, in __init__ this = _Spam.new_Spam(*args) NotImplementedError: Wrong number of arguments for overloaded function 'new_Spam'. Possible C/C++ prototypes are: Spam(unsigned char *,unsigned long,bool,unsigned int,SSTree::io_action,char const *) Spam(unsigned char *,unsigned long,bool,unsigned int,SSTree::io_action) Spam(unsigned char *,unsigned long,bool,unsigned int) Spam(unsigned char *,unsigned long,bool) Spam(unsigned char *,unsigned long) Googling around, I realized that the error is probably caused by the type of the arguments and not by the number (which is quite confusing), but I still cannot identify. I suspect the problem lies in passing a string as the first argument, but have no idea on how to fix it (keep in mind that I know almost no c/c++).

    Read the article

  • How to ensure that a member variable is initialized before calling a class method

    - by Omkar Ekbote
    There's a class with a parametrized constructor that initializes a member variable. All public methods of the class then use this member variable to do something. I want to ensure that the caller always creates an object using the parametrized constructor (there is also a setter for this member variable) and then call that object's methods. In essence, it should be impossible for the caller to call any method without setting a value to the member variable (either by using the parametrized constructor or the setter). Currently, a caller can simply make an object using the default constructor and then call that object's method - I want to avoid checking whether or not the member variable is set in each and every one of the 20-odd methods of the class (and throw an exception if it is not). Though a runtime solution is acceptable (better than the one I mentioned above); a compile-time solution is preferable so that any developer will not be allowed to make that mistake and then waste hours debuggging it!

    Read the article

  • How can one enforce calling a base class function after derived class constructor?

    - by Mike Elkins
    I'm looking for a clean C++ idiom for the following situation: class SomeLibraryClass { public: SomeLibraryClass() { /* start initialization */ } void addFoo() { /* we are a collection of foos */ } void funcToCallAfterAllAddFoos() { /* Making sure this is called is the issue */ } }; class SomeUserClass : public SomeLibraryClass { public: SomeUserClass() { addFoo(); addFoo(); addFoo(); // SomeUserClass has three foos. } }; class SomeUserDerrivedClass : public SomeUserClass { public: SomeUserDerrivedClass() { addFoo(); // This one has four foos. } }; So, what I really want is for SomeLibraryClass to enforce the calling of funcToCallAfterAllAddFoos at the end of the construction process. The user can't put it at the end of SomeUserClass::SomeUserClass(), that would mess up SomeUserDerrivedClass. If he puts it at the end of SomeUserDerrivedClass, then it never gets called for SomeUserClass. To further clarify what I need, imagine that /* start initialization */ acquires a lock, and funcToCallAfterAllAddFoos() releases a lock. The compiler knows when all the initializations for an object are done, but can I get at that information by some nice trick?

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49  | Next Page >