Search Results

Search found 45620 results on 1825 pages for 'derived class'.

Page 48/1825 | < Previous Page | 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55  | Next Page >

  • factory class, wrong number of arguments being passed to subclass constructor

    - by Hugh Bothwell
    I was looking at Python: Exception in the separated module works wrong which uses a multi-purpose GnuLibError class to 'stand in' for a variety of different errors. Each sub-error has its own ID number and error format string. I figured it would be better written as a hierarchy of Exception classes, and set out to do so: class GNULibError(Exception): sub_exceptions = 0 # patched with dict of subclasses once subclasses are created err_num = 0 err_format = None def __new__(cls, *args): print("new {}".format(cls)) # DEBUG if len(args) and args[0] in GNULibError.sub_exceptions: print(" factory -> {} {}".format(GNULibError.sub_exceptions[args[0]], args[1:])) # DEBUG return super(GNULibError, cls).__new__(GNULibError.sub_exceptions[args[0]], *(args[1:])) else: print(" plain {} {}".format(cls, args)) # DEBUG return super(GNULibError, cls).__new__(cls, *args) def __init__(self, *args): cls = type(self) print("init {} {}".format(cls, args)) # DEBUG self.args = args if cls.err_format is None: self.message = str(args) else: self.message = "[GNU Error {}] ".format(cls.err_num) + cls.err_format.format(*args) def __str__(self): return self.message def __repr__(self): return '{}{}'.format(type(self).__name__, self.args) class GNULibError_Directory(GNULibError): err_num = 1 err_format = "destination directory does not exist: {}" class GNULibError_Config(GNULibError): err_num = 2 err_format = "configure file does not exist: {}" class GNULibError_Module(GNULibError): err_num = 3 err_format = "selected module does not exist: {}" class GNULibError_Cache(GNULibError): err_num = 4 err_format = "{} is expected to contain gl_M4_BASE({})" class GNULibError_Sourcebase(GNULibError): err_num = 5 err_format = "missing sourcebase argument: {}" class GNULibError_Docbase(GNULibError): err_num = 6 err_format = "missing docbase argument: {}" class GNULibError_Testbase(GNULibError): err_num = 7 err_format = "missing testsbase argument: {}" class GNULibError_Libname(GNULibError): err_num = 8 err_format = "missing libname argument: {}" # patch master class with subclass reference # (TO DO: auto-detect all available subclasses instead of hardcoding them) GNULibError.sub_exceptions = { 1: GNULibError_Directory, 2: GNULibError_Config, 3: GNULibError_Module, 4: GNULibError_Cache, 5: GNULibError_Sourcebase, 6: GNULibError_Docbase, 7: GNULibError_Testbase, 8: GNULibError_Libname } This starts out with GNULibError as a factory class - if you call it with an error number belonging to a recognized subclass, it returns an object belonging to that subclass, otherwise it returns itself as a default error type. Based on this code, the following should be exactly equivalent (but aren't): e = GNULibError(3, 'missing.lib') f = GNULibError_Module('missing.lib') print e # -> '[GNU Error 3] selected module does not exist: 3' print f # -> '[GNU Error 3] selected module does not exist: missing.lib' I added some strategic print statements, and the error seems to be in GNULibError.__new__: >>> e = GNULibError(3, 'missing.lib') new <class '__main__.GNULibError'> factory -> <class '__main__.GNULibError_Module'> ('missing.lib',) # good... init <class '__main__.GNULibError_Module'> (3, 'missing.lib') # NO! ^ why? I call the subclass constructor as subclass.__new__(*args[1:]) - this should drop the 3, the subclass type ID - and yet its __init__ is still getting the 3 anyway! How can I trim the argument list that gets passed to subclass.__init__?

    Read the article

  • An Xml Serializable PropertyBag Dictionary Class for .NET

    - by Rick Strahl
    I don't know about you but I frequently need property bags in my applications to store and possibly cache arbitrary data. Dictionary<T,V> works well for this although I always seem to be hunting for a more specific generic type that provides a string key based dictionary. There's string dictionary, but it only works with strings. There's Hashset<T> but it uses the actual values as keys. In most key value pair situations for me string is key value to work off. Dictionary<T,V> works well enough, but there are some issues with serialization of dictionaries in .NET. The .NET framework doesn't do well serializing IDictionary objects out of the box. The XmlSerializer doesn't support serialization of IDictionary via it's default serialization, and while the DataContractSerializer does support IDictionary serialization it produces some pretty atrocious XML. What doesn't work? First off Dictionary serialization with the Xml Serializer doesn't work so the following fails: [TestMethod] public void DictionaryXmlSerializerTest() { var bag = new Dictionary<string, object>(); bag.Add("key", "Value"); bag.Add("Key2", 100.10M); bag.Add("Key3", Guid.NewGuid()); bag.Add("Key4", DateTime.Now); bag.Add("Key5", true); bag.Add("Key7", new byte[3] { 42, 45, 66 }); TestContext.WriteLine(this.ToXml(bag)); } public string ToXml(object obj) { if (obj == null) return null; StringWriter sw = new StringWriter(); XmlSerializer ser = new XmlSerializer(obj.GetType()); ser.Serialize(sw, obj); return sw.ToString(); } The error you get with this is: System.NotSupportedException: The type System.Collections.Generic.Dictionary`2[[System.String, mscorlib, Version=4.0.0.0, Culture=neutral, PublicKeyToken=b77a5c561934e089],[System.Object, mscorlib, Version=4.0.0.0, Culture=neutral, PublicKeyToken=b77a5c561934e089]] is not supported because it implements IDictionary. Got it! BTW, the same is true with binary serialization. Running the same code above against the DataContractSerializer does work: [TestMethod] public void DictionaryDataContextSerializerTest() { var bag = new Dictionary<string, object>(); bag.Add("key", "Value"); bag.Add("Key2", 100.10M); bag.Add("Key3", Guid.NewGuid()); bag.Add("Key4", DateTime.Now); bag.Add("Key5", true); bag.Add("Key7", new byte[3] { 42, 45, 66 }); TestContext.WriteLine(this.ToXmlDcs(bag)); } public string ToXmlDcs(object value, bool throwExceptions = false) { var ser = new DataContractSerializer(value.GetType(), null, int.MaxValue, true, false, null); MemoryStream ms = new MemoryStream(); ser.WriteObject(ms, value); return Encoding.UTF8.GetString(ms.ToArray(), 0, (int)ms.Length); } This DOES work but produces some pretty heinous XML (formatted with line breaks and indentation here): <ArrayOfKeyValueOfstringanyType xmlns="http://schemas.microsoft.com/2003/10/Serialization/Arrays" xmlns:i="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance"> <KeyValueOfstringanyType> <Key>key</Key> <Value i:type="a:string" xmlns:a="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema">Value</Value> </KeyValueOfstringanyType> <KeyValueOfstringanyType> <Key>Key2</Key> <Value i:type="a:decimal" xmlns:a="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema">100.10</Value> </KeyValueOfstringanyType> <KeyValueOfstringanyType> <Key>Key3</Key> <Value i:type="a:guid" xmlns:a="http://schemas.microsoft.com/2003/10/Serialization/">2cd46d2a-a636-4af4-979b-e834d39b6d37</Value> </KeyValueOfstringanyType> <KeyValueOfstringanyType> <Key>Key4</Key> <Value i:type="a:dateTime" xmlns:a="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema">2011-09-19T17:17:05.4406999-07:00</Value> </KeyValueOfstringanyType> <KeyValueOfstringanyType> <Key>Key5</Key> <Value i:type="a:boolean" xmlns:a="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema">true</Value> </KeyValueOfstringanyType> <KeyValueOfstringanyType> <Key>Key7</Key> <Value i:type="a:base64Binary" xmlns:a="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema">Ki1C</Value> </KeyValueOfstringanyType> </ArrayOfKeyValueOfstringanyType> Ouch! That seriously hurts the eye! :-) Worse though it's extremely verbose with all those repetitive namespace declarations. It's good to know that it works in a pinch, but for a human readable/editable solution or something lightweight to store in a database it's not quite ideal. Why should I care? As a little background, in one of my applications I have a need for a flexible property bag that is used on a free form database field on an otherwise static entity. Basically what I have is a standard database record to which arbitrary properties can be added in an XML based string field. I intend to expose those arbitrary properties as a collection from field data stored in XML. The concept is pretty simple: When loading write the data to the collection, when the data is saved serialize the data into an XML string and store it into the database. When reading the data pick up the XML and if the collection on the entity is accessed automatically deserialize the XML into the Dictionary. (I'll talk more about this in another post). While the DataContext Serializer would work, it's verbosity is problematic both for size of the generated XML strings and the fact that users can manually edit this XML based property data in an advanced mode. A clean(er) layout certainly would be preferable and more user friendly. Custom XMLSerialization with a PropertyBag Class So… after a bunch of experimentation with different serialization formats I decided to create a custom PropertyBag class that provides for a serializable Dictionary. It's basically a custom Dictionary<TType,TValue> implementation with the keys always set as string keys. The result are PropertyBag<TValue> and PropertyBag (which defaults to the object type for values). The PropertyBag<TType> and PropertyBag classes provide these features: Subclassed from Dictionary<T,V> Implements IXmlSerializable with a cleanish XML format ToXml() and FromXml() methods to export and import to and from XML strings Static CreateFromXml() method to create an instance It's simple enough as it's merely a Dictionary<string,object> subclass but that supports serialization to a - what I think at least - cleaner XML format. The class is super simple to use: [TestMethod] public void PropertyBagTwoWayObjectSerializationTest() { var bag = new PropertyBag(); bag.Add("key", "Value"); bag.Add("Key2", 100.10M); bag.Add("Key3", Guid.NewGuid()); bag.Add("Key4", DateTime.Now); bag.Add("Key5", true); bag.Add("Key7", new byte[3] { 42,45,66 } ); bag.Add("Key8", null); bag.Add("Key9", new ComplexObject() { Name = "Rick", Entered = DateTime.Now, Count = 10 }); string xml = bag.ToXml(); TestContext.WriteLine(bag.ToXml()); bag.Clear(); bag.FromXml(xml); Assert.IsTrue(bag["key"] as string == "Value"); Assert.IsInstanceOfType( bag["Key3"], typeof(Guid)); Assert.IsNull(bag["Key8"]); //Assert.IsNull(bag["Key10"]); Assert.IsInstanceOfType(bag["Key9"], typeof(ComplexObject)); } This uses the PropertyBag class which uses a PropertyBag<string,object> - which means it returns untyped values of type object. I suspect for me this will be the most common scenario as I'd want to store arbitrary values in the PropertyBag rather than one specific type. The same code with a strongly typed PropertyBag<decimal> looks like this: [TestMethod] public void PropertyBagTwoWayValueTypeSerializationTest() { var bag = new PropertyBag<decimal>(); bag.Add("key", 10M); bag.Add("Key1", 100.10M); bag.Add("Key2", 200.10M); bag.Add("Key3", 300.10M); string xml = bag.ToXml(); TestContext.WriteLine(bag.ToXml()); bag.Clear(); bag.FromXml(xml); Assert.IsTrue(bag.Get("Key1") == 100.10M); Assert.IsTrue(bag.Get("Key3") == 300.10M); } and produces typed results of type decimal. The types can be either value or reference types the combination of which actually proved to be a little more tricky than anticipated due to null and specific string value checks required - getting the generic typing right required use of default(T) and Convert.ChangeType() to trick the compiler into playing nice. Of course the whole raison d'etre for this class is the XML serialization. You can see in the code above that we're doing a .ToXml() and .FromXml() to serialize to and from string. The XML produced for the first example looks like this: <?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?> <properties> <item> <key>key</key> <value>Value</value> </item> <item> <key>Key2</key> <value type="decimal">100.10</value> </item> <item> <key>Key3</key> <value type="___System.Guid"> <guid>f7a92032-0c6d-4e9d-9950-b15ff7cd207d</guid> </value> </item> <item> <key>Key4</key> <value type="datetime">2011-09-26T17:45:58.5789578-10:00</value> </item> <item> <key>Key5</key> <value type="boolean">true</value> </item> <item> <key>Key7</key> <value type="base64Binary">Ki1C</value> </item> <item> <key>Key8</key> <value type="nil" /> </item> <item> <key>Key9</key> <value type="___Westwind.Tools.Tests.PropertyBagTest+ComplexObject"> <ComplexObject> <Name>Rick</Name> <Entered>2011-09-26T17:45:58.5789578-10:00</Entered> <Count>10</Count> </ComplexObject> </value> </item> </properties>   The format is a bit cleaner than the DataContractSerializer. Each item is serialized into <key> <value> pairs. If the value is a string no type information is written. Since string tends to be the most common type this saves space and serialization processing. All other types are attributed. Simple types are mapped to XML types so things like decimal, datetime, boolean and base64Binary are encoded using their Xml type values. All other types are embedded with a hokey format that describes the .NET type preceded by a three underscores and then are encoded using the XmlSerializer. You can see this best above in the ComplexObject encoding. For custom types this isn't pretty either, but it's more concise than the DCS and it works as long as you're serializing back and forth between .NET clients at least. The XML generated from the second example that uses PropertyBag<decimal> looks like this: <?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?> <properties> <item> <key>key</key> <value type="decimal">10</value> </item> <item> <key>Key1</key> <value type="decimal">100.10</value> </item> <item> <key>Key2</key> <value type="decimal">200.10</value> </item> <item> <key>Key3</key> <value type="decimal">300.10</value> </item> </properties>   How does it work As I mentioned there's nothing fancy about this solution - it's little more than a subclass of Dictionary<T,V> that implements custom Xml Serialization and a couple of helper methods that facilitate getting the XML in and out of the class more easily. But it's proven very handy for a number of projects for me where dynamic data storage is required. Here's the code: /// <summary> /// Creates a serializable string/object dictionary that is XML serializable /// Encodes keys as element names and values as simple values with a type /// attribute that contains an XML type name. Complex names encode the type /// name with type='___namespace.classname' format followed by a standard xml /// serialized format. The latter serialization can be slow so it's not recommended /// to pass complex types if performance is critical. /// </summary> [XmlRoot("properties")] public class PropertyBag : PropertyBag<object> { /// <summary> /// Creates an instance of a propertybag from an Xml string /// </summary> /// <param name="xml">Serialize</param> /// <returns></returns> public static PropertyBag CreateFromXml(string xml) { var bag = new PropertyBag(); bag.FromXml(xml); return bag; } } /// <summary> /// Creates a serializable string for generic types that is XML serializable. /// /// Encodes keys as element names and values as simple values with a type /// attribute that contains an XML type name. Complex names encode the type /// name with type='___namespace.classname' format followed by a standard xml /// serialized format. The latter serialization can be slow so it's not recommended /// to pass complex types if performance is critical. /// </summary> /// <typeparam name="TValue">Must be a reference type. For value types use type object</typeparam> [XmlRoot("properties")] public class PropertyBag<TValue> : Dictionary<string, TValue>, IXmlSerializable { /// <summary> /// Not implemented - this means no schema information is passed /// so this won't work with ASMX/WCF services. /// </summary> /// <returns></returns> public System.Xml.Schema.XmlSchema GetSchema() { return null; } /// <summary> /// Serializes the dictionary to XML. Keys are /// serialized to element names and values as /// element values. An xml type attribute is embedded /// for each serialized element - a .NET type /// element is embedded for each complex type and /// prefixed with three underscores. /// </summary> /// <param name="writer"></param> public void WriteXml(System.Xml.XmlWriter writer) { foreach (string key in this.Keys) { TValue value = this[key]; Type type = null; if (value != null) type = value.GetType(); writer.WriteStartElement("item"); writer.WriteStartElement("key"); writer.WriteString(key as string); writer.WriteEndElement(); writer.WriteStartElement("value"); string xmlType = XmlUtils.MapTypeToXmlType(type); bool isCustom = false; // Type information attribute if not string if (value == null) { writer.WriteAttributeString("type", "nil"); } else if (!string.IsNullOrEmpty(xmlType)) { if (xmlType != "string") { writer.WriteStartAttribute("type"); writer.WriteString(xmlType); writer.WriteEndAttribute(); } } else { isCustom = true; xmlType = "___" + value.GetType().FullName; writer.WriteStartAttribute("type"); writer.WriteString(xmlType); writer.WriteEndAttribute(); } // Actual deserialization if (!isCustom) { if (value != null) writer.WriteValue(value); } else { XmlSerializer ser = new XmlSerializer(value.GetType()); ser.Serialize(writer, value); } writer.WriteEndElement(); // value writer.WriteEndElement(); // item } } /// <summary> /// Reads the custom serialized format /// </summary> /// <param name="reader"></param> public void ReadXml(System.Xml.XmlReader reader) { this.Clear(); while (reader.Read()) { if (reader.NodeType == XmlNodeType.Element && reader.Name == "key") { string xmlType = null; string name = reader.ReadElementContentAsString(); // item element reader.ReadToNextSibling("value"); if (reader.MoveToNextAttribute()) xmlType = reader.Value; reader.MoveToContent(); TValue value; if (xmlType == "nil") value = default(TValue); // null else if (string.IsNullOrEmpty(xmlType)) { // value is a string or object and we can assign TValue to value string strval = reader.ReadElementContentAsString(); value = (TValue) Convert.ChangeType(strval, typeof(TValue)); } else if (xmlType.StartsWith("___")) { while (reader.Read() && reader.NodeType != XmlNodeType.Element) { } Type type = ReflectionUtils.GetTypeFromName(xmlType.Substring(3)); //value = reader.ReadElementContentAs(type,null); XmlSerializer ser = new XmlSerializer(type); value = (TValue)ser.Deserialize(reader); } else value = (TValue)reader.ReadElementContentAs(XmlUtils.MapXmlTypeToType(xmlType), null); this.Add(name, value); } } } /// <summary> /// Serializes this dictionary to an XML string /// </summary> /// <returns>XML String or Null if it fails</returns> public string ToXml() { string xml = null; SerializationUtils.SerializeObject(this, out xml); return xml; } /// <summary> /// Deserializes from an XML string /// </summary> /// <param name="xml"></param> /// <returns>true or false</returns> public bool FromXml(string xml) { this.Clear(); // if xml string is empty we return an empty dictionary if (string.IsNullOrEmpty(xml)) return true; var result = SerializationUtils.DeSerializeObject(xml, this.GetType()) as PropertyBag<TValue>; if (result != null) { foreach (var item in result) { this.Add(item.Key, item.Value); } } else // null is a failure return false; return true; } /// <summary> /// Creates an instance of a propertybag from an Xml string /// </summary> /// <param name="xml"></param> /// <returns></returns> public static PropertyBag<TValue> CreateFromXml(string xml) { var bag = new PropertyBag<TValue>(); bag.FromXml(xml); return bag; } } } The code uses a couple of small helper classes SerializationUtils and XmlUtils for mapping Xml types to and from .NET, both of which are from the WestWind,Utilities project (which is the same project where PropertyBag lives) from the West Wind Web Toolkit. The code implements ReadXml and WriteXml for the IXmlSerializable implementation using old school XmlReaders and XmlWriters (because it's pretty simple stuff - no need for XLinq here). Then there are two helper methods .ToXml() and .FromXml() that basically allow your code to easily convert between XML and a PropertyBag object. In my code that's what I use to actually to persist to and from the entity XML property during .Load() and .Save() operations. It's sweet to be able to have a string key dictionary and then be able to turn around with 1 line of code to persist the whole thing to XML and back. Hopefully some of you will find this class as useful as I've found it. It's a simple solution to a common requirement in my applications and I've used the hell out of it in the  short time since I created it. Resources You can find the complete code for the two classes plus the helpers in the Subversion repository for Westwind.Utilities. You can grab the source files from there or download the whole project. You can also grab the full Westwind.Utilities assembly from NuGet and add it to your project if that's easier for you. PropertyBag Source Code SerializationUtils and XmlUtils Westwind.Utilities Assembly on NuGet (add from Visual Studio) © Rick Strahl, West Wind Technologies, 2005-2011Posted in .NET  CSharp   Tweet (function() { var po = document.createElement('script'); po.type = 'text/javascript'; po.async = true; po.src = 'https://apis.google.com/js/plusone.js'; var s = document.getElementsByTagName('script')[0]; s.parentNode.insertBefore(po, s); })();

    Read the article

  • WPF derived ComboBox SelectedValuePath issue

    - by opedog
    In our application we have a very large set of data that acts as our data dictionary for ComboBox lists, etc. This data is staticly cached and keyed off of 2 variables, so I thought it wise to write a control that derived from ComboBox and exposed the 2 keys as DPs. When those 2 keys have proper values I set the ItemsSource of the ComboBox automatically from the data dictionary list it corresponds to. I also automatically set the SelectedValuePath and DisplayMemberPath to Code and Description, respectively. Here's how an example of how an item in the ItemsSource from the data dictionary list always looks: public class DataDictionaryItem { public string Code { get; set; } public string Description { get; set; } public string Code3 { get { return this.Get.Substring(0, 3); } } } The value of Code is always 4 bytes long, but sometimes I only need to bind 3 bytes of it. Hence, the Code3 property. Here's how the code looks inside my custom combobox to set the ItemsSource: private static void SetItemsSource(CustomComboBox combo) { if (string.IsNullOrEmpty(combo.Key1) || string.IsNullOrEmpty(combo.Key2)) { combo.ItemsSource = null; return; } List<DataDictionaryItem> list = GetDataDictionaryList(combo.Key1, combo.Key2); combo.ItemsSource = list; } Now, my problem is, when I change the SelectedValuePath in the XAML to Code3, it doesn't work. What I bind to SelectedValue still gets the full 4 character Code from DataDictionaryItem. I even tried rerunning SetItemsSource when the SelectedValuePath was changed and no dice. Can anyone see what I need to do to get my custom combobox to wake up and use the SelectedValuePath provided if it's overridden in the XAML? Tweaking the value in the property setter in my SelectedValue bound business object is not an option.

    Read the article

  • Google Python Class Day 2 Part 1

    Google Python Class Day 2 Part 1 Google Python Class Day 2 Part 1: Regular Expressions. By Nick Parlante. Support materials and exercises: code.google.com From: GoogleDevelopers Views: 18 0 ratings Time: 42:00 More in Science & Technology

    Read the article

  • The ORDER BY clause is invalid in views, inline functions, derived tables, subqueries, and common ta

    - by zurna
    I get "The ORDER BY clause is invalid in views, inline functions, derived tables, subqueries, and common table expressions, unless TOP or FOR XML is also specified." error with the following code. I initially had two tables, ADSAREAS & CATEGORIES. I started receiving this error when I removed CATEGORIES table. Select Case SIDX Case "ID" : SQLCONT1 = " AdsAreasID" Case "Page" : SQLCONT1 = " AdsAreasName" Case Else : SQLCONT1 = " AdsAreasID" End Select Select Case SORD Case "asc" : SQLCONT2 = " ASC" Case "desc" : SQLCONT2 = " DESC" Case Else : SQLCONT2 = " ASC" End Select ''# search feature ---> Select Case SEARCHFIELD Case "ID" : SQLSFIELD = "AND AdsAreasID" Case "Ads Areas" : SQLSFIELD = "AND AdsAreasName" Case Else : SQLSFIELD = "" End Select Select Case SEARCHOPER Case "eq" : SQLSOPER = " = " & SEARCHSTRING Case "ne" : SQLSOPER = " <> " & SEARCHSTRING Case "lt" : SQLSOPER = " <" & SEARCHSTRING Case "le" : SQLSOPER = " <= " & SEARCHSTRING Case "gt" : SQLSOPER = " >" & SEARCHSTRING Case "ge" : SQLSOPER = " >= " & SEARCHSTRING Case "bw" : SQLSOPER = " LIKE '" & SEARCHSTRING & "%' " Case "ew" : SQLSOPER = " LIKE '%" & SEARCHSTRING & "' " Case "cn" : SQLSOPER = " LIKE '%" & SEARCHSTRING & "%' " Case Else : SQLSOPER = "" End Select ''# search feature ---> SQL = "SELECT * FROM ( SELECT A.AdsAreasID, A.AdsAreasName, ROW_NUMBER() OVER (ORDER BY A.AdsAreasID) As Row" SQL = SQL & " FROM ADSAREAS A" SQL = SQL & " WHERE Row > ("& RecordsPageSize - RecordsPerPage &") AND Row <= ("& RecordsPageSize &") ORDER BY" & SQLCONT1 & SQLCONT2 Set objXML = objConn.Execute(SQL)

    Read the article

  • Google Python Class Day 1 Part 3

    Google Python Class Day 1 Part 3 Google Python Class Day 1 Part 3: Dicts and Files. By Nick Parlante. Support materials and exercises: code.google.com From: GoogleDevelopers Views: 7 0 ratings Time: 28:59 More in Science & Technology

    Read the article

  • Google Python Class Day 2 Part 2

    Google Python Class Day 2 Part 2 Google Python Class Day 2 Part 2: Utilities: OS and Commands. By Nick Parlante. Support materials and exercises: code.google.com From: GoogleDevelopers Views: 11 1 ratings Time: 20:20 More in Science & Technology

    Read the article

  • Google Python Class Day 1 Part 1

    Google Python Class Day 1 Part 1 Google Python Class Day 1 Part 1: Introduction and Strings. By Nick Parlante. Support materials and exercises: code.google.com From: GoogleDevelopers Views: 137 1 ratings Time: 51:37 More in Science & Technology

    Read the article

  • Google Python Class Day 1 Part 2

    Google Python Class Day 1 Part 2 Google Python Class Day 1 Part 2: Lists, Sorting, and Tuples. By Nick Parlante. Support materials and exercises: code.google.com From: GoogleDevelopers Views: 13 0 ratings Time: 35:12 More in Science & Technology

    Read the article

  • Importance of a 1st Class Degree

    - by Nipuna Silva
    I'm currently at the 3rd year following a degree in Software Engineering. I'm thinking of moving into a research field in the future (programming language design, AI etc.) My problems are, What is the advantage/importance of carrying a 1st Class Degree (Honors for Americans) in to the industry rather than with just simple pass. Is it really important to have a 1st Class? Is it the practical knowledge i have to give priority or the theoretical knowledge, or both?

    Read the article

  • Google Python Class Day 2 Part 3

    Google Python Class Day 2 Part 3 Google Python Class Day 2 Part 3: Utilities: urls and HTTP, Exceptions. By Nick Parlante. Support materials and exercises: code.google.com From: GoogleDevelopers Views: 29 1 ratings Time: 25:51 More in Science & Technology

    Read the article

  • Google Python Class Day 2 Part 4

    Google Python Class Day 2 Part 4 Google Python Class Day 1 Part 1: Closing Thoughts. By Nick Parlante. Support materials and exercises: code.google.com From: GoogleDevelopers Views: 129 1 ratings Time: 11:16 More in Science & Technology

    Read the article

  • MyContainer derived from FrameworkElement with binding support.

    - by alex2k8
    To understand how the binding works, I implemented MyContainer derived from FrameworkElement. This container allowes to set Children and adds them into the logical tree. But the binding by ElementName does not work. What can I do with MyContainer to make it work, leaving the parent as FrameworkElement? C#: public class MyContainer : FrameworkElement { public MyContainer() { Children = new List<FrameworkElement>(); } public List<FrameworkElement> Children { get; set; } protected override IEnumerator LogicalChildren { get { return Children.GetEnumerator(); } } } XAML: <Window x:Class="WpfLogicalTree.Window1" xmlns="http://schemas.microsoft.com/winfx/2006/xaml/presentation" xmlns:x="http://schemas.microsoft.com/winfx/2006/xaml" xmlns:local="clr-namespace:WpfLogicalTree" Title="Window1" Height="300" Width="300"> <StackPanel> <local:MyContainer> <local:MyContainer.Children> <TextBlock Text="Foo" x:Name="_source" /> <TextBlock Text="{Binding Path=Text, ElementName=_source}" x:Name="_target"/> </local:MyContainer.Children> </local:MyContainer> <Button Click="Button_Click">Test</Button> </StackPanel> </Window> Window1.cs private void Button_Click(object sender, RoutedEventArgs e) { MessageBox.Show(_target.Text); }

    Read the article

  • SortedSet Collection Class in .NET 4.0

    This article explains SortedSet Collection class added in Base Class Libraries (BCL) of .NET 4.0...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

  • Circular class dependency

    - by shad0w
    Is it bad design to have 2 classes which need each other? I'm writing a small game in which I have a GameEngine class which has got a few GameState objects. To access several rendering methods, these GameState objects also need to know the GameEngine class - so it's a circular dependency. Would you call this bad design? I am just asking, because I am not quite sure and at this time I am still able to refactor these things.

    Read the article

  • 3 Benefits of Multiple C Class Hosting

    Multiple C Class hosting has become an essential tool for marketers striving to have their websites rank highly in the search engines. The ability to interlink websites while having search engines actually count rather than discount the links is invaluable. What are the benefits of Multiple C Class hosting? Read on to find out.

    Read the article

  • which style of member-access is preferable

    - by itwasntpete
    the purpose of oop using classes is to encapsulate members from the outer space. i always read that accessing members should be done by methods. for example: template<typename T> class foo_1 { T state_; public: // following below }; the most common doing that by my professor was to have a get and set method. // variant 1 T const& getState() { return state_; } void setState(T const& v) { state_ = v; } or like this: // variant 2 // in my opinion it is easier to read T const& state() { return state_; } void state(T const& v) { state_ = v; } assume the state_ is a variable, which is checked periodically and there is no need to ensure the value (state) is consistent. Is there any disadvantage of accessing the state by reference? for example: // variant 3 // do it by reference T& state() { return state_; } or even directly, if I declare the variable as public. template<typename T> class foo { public: // variant 4 T state; }; In variant 4 I could even ensure consistence by using c++11 atomic. So my question is, which one should I prefer?, Is there any coding standard which would decline one of these pattern? for some code see here

    Read the article

  • Why am I seeing so many instantiable classes without state?

    - by futlib
    I'm seeing a lot of instantiable classes in the C++ and Java world that don't have any state. I really can't figure out why people do that, they could just use a namespace with free functions in C++, or a class with a private constructor and only static methods in Java. The only benefit I can think of is that you don't have to change most of your code if you later decide that you want a different implementation in certain situations. But isn't that a case of premature design? It could be turned into a class later, when/if it becomes appropriate. Am I getting this wrong? Is it not OOP if I don't put everything into objects (i.e. instantiated classes)? Then why are there so many utility namespaces and classes in the standard libraries of C++ and Java? Update: I've certainly seen a lot examples of this in my previous jobs, but I'm struggling to find open source examples, so maybe it's not that common after all. Still, I'm wondering why people do it, and how common it is.

    Read the article

  • Passing variables, creating instances, self, The mechanics and usage of classes: need explenation

    - by Baf
    I've been sitting over this the whole day and Im a little tired already so please excuse me being brief. Im new to python. I just rewrrote a working program, into a bunch of functions in a class and everzthings messed up. I dont know if its me but Im very surprised i couldn t find a beginners tutorial on how to handle classes on the web so I have a few questions. First of all, in the init section of the class i have declared a bunch of variables with self.variable=something. Is it correct that i should be able to access/modify these variables in every function of the class by using self.variable in that function? In other words by declaring self.variable i have made these variables, global variables in the scope of the class right? If not how do i handle self. ? Secondly how do i correctly pass arguments to the class? some example code would be cool. thirdly how do i call a function of the class outside of the class scope? some example code would be cool. fouthly how do I create an Instance of the class INITIALCLASS in another class OTHERCLASS, passing variables from OTHERCLASS to INITIALCLASS? some example code would be cool. I Want to call a function from OTHERCLASS with arguments from INITIALCLASS. What Ive done so far is. class OTHERCLASS(): def __init__(self,variable1,variable2,variable3): self.variable1=variable1 self.variable2=variable2 self.variable3=variable3 def someotherfunction(self): something=somecode(using self.variable3) self.variable2.append(something) print self.variable2 def somemorefunctions(self): self.variable2.append(variable1) class INITIALCLASS(): def __init__(self): self.variable1=value1 self.variable2=[] self.variable3='' self.DoIt=OTHERCLASS(variable1,variable2,variable3) def somefunction(self): variable3=Somecode #tried this self.DoIt.someotherfunctions() #and this DoIt.someotherfunctions() I clearly havent understood how to pass variables to classes or how to handle self, when to use it and when not, I probably also havent understood how to properly create an isntance of a class. In general i havent udnerstood the mechanics of classes So please help me and explain it to me like i have no Idea( which i dont it seems). Or point me to a thorough video, or readable tutorial. All i find on the web is super simple examples, that didnt help me much. Or just very short definitions of classes and class methods instances etc. I can send you my original code if you guys want, but its quite long. Thanks for the Help Much appreciated!

    Read the article

  • JavaScript Class Patterns

    - by Liam McLennan
    To write object-oriented programs we need objects, and likely lots of them. JavaScript makes it easy to create objects: var liam = { name: "Liam", age: Number.MAX_VALUE }; But JavaScript does not provide an easy way to create similar objects. Most object-oriented languages include the idea of a class, which is a template for creating objects of the same type. From one class many similar objects can be instantiated. Many patterns have been proposed to address the absence of a class concept in JavaScript. This post will compare and contrast the most significant of them. Simple Constructor Functions Classes may be missing but JavaScript does support special constructor functions. By prefixing a call to a constructor function with the ‘new’ keyword we can tell the JavaScript runtime that we want the function to behave like a constructor and instantiate a new object containing the members defined by that function. Within a constructor function the ‘this’ keyword references the new object being created -  so a basic constructor function might be: function Person(name, age) { this.name = name; this.age = age; this.toString = function() { return this.name + " is " + age + " years old."; }; } var john = new Person("John Galt", 50); console.log(john.toString()); Note that by convention the name of a constructor function is always written in Pascal Case (the first letter of each word is capital). This is to distinguish between constructor functions and other functions. It is important that constructor functions be called with the ‘new’ keyword and that not constructor functions are not. There are two problems with the pattern constructor function pattern shown above: It makes inheritance difficult The toString() function is redefined for each new object created by the Person constructor. This is sub-optimal because the function should be shared between all of the instances of the Person type. Constructor Functions with a Prototype JavaScript functions have a special property called prototype. When an object is created by calling a JavaScript constructor all of the properties of the constructor’s prototype become available to the new object. In this way many Person objects can be created that can access the same prototype. An improved version of the above example can be written: function Person(name, age) { this.name = name; this.age = age; } Person.prototype = { toString: function() { return this.name + " is " + this.age + " years old."; } }; var john = new Person("John Galt", 50); console.log(john.toString()); In this version a single instance of the toString() function will now be shared between all Person objects. Private Members The short version is: there aren’t any. If a variable is defined, with the var keyword, within the constructor function then its scope is that function. Other functions defined within the constructor function will be able to access the private variable, but anything defined outside the constructor (such as functions on the prototype property) won’t have access to the private variable. Any variables defined on the constructor are automatically public. Some people solve this problem by prefixing properties with an underscore and then not calling those properties by convention. function Person(name, age) { this.name = name; this.age = age; } Person.prototype = { _getName: function() { return this.name; }, toString: function() { return this._getName() + " is " + this.age + " years old."; } }; var john = new Person("John Galt", 50); console.log(john.toString()); Note that the _getName() function is only private by convention – it is in fact a public function. Functional Object Construction Because of the weirdness involved in using constructor functions some JavaScript developers prefer to eschew them completely. They theorize that it is better to work with JavaScript’s functional nature than to try and force it to behave like a traditional class-oriented language. When using the functional approach objects are created by returning them from a factory function. An excellent side effect of this pattern is that variables defined with the factory function are accessible to the new object (due to closure) but are inaccessible from anywhere else. The Person example implemented using the functional object construction pattern is: var personFactory = function(name, age) { var privateVar = 7; return { toString: function() { return name + " is " + age * privateVar / privateVar + " years old."; } }; }; var john2 = personFactory("John Lennon", 40); console.log(john2.toString()); Note that the ‘new’ keyword is not used for this pattern, and that the toString() function has access to the name, age and privateVar variables because of closure. This pattern can be extended to provide inheritance and, unlike the constructor function pattern, it supports private variables. However, when working with JavaScript code bases you will find that the constructor function is more common – probably because it is a better approximation of mainstream class oriented languages like C# and Java. Inheritance Both of the above patterns can support inheritance but for now, favour composition over inheritance. Summary When JavaScript code exceeds simple browser automation object orientation can provide a powerful paradigm for controlling complexity. Both of the patterns presented in this article work – the choice is a matter of style. Only one question still remains; who is John Galt?

    Read the article

  • JavaScript Class Patterns

    - by Liam McLennan
    To write object-oriented programs we need objects, and likely lots of them. JavaScript makes it easy to create objects: var liam = { name: "Liam", age: Number.MAX_VALUE }; But JavaScript does not provide an easy way to create similar objects. Most object-oriented languages include the idea of a class, which is a template for creating objects of the same type. From one class many similar objects can be instantiated. Many patterns have been proposed to address the absence of a class concept in JavaScript. This post will compare and contrast the most significant of them. Simple Constructor Functions Classes may be missing but JavaScript does support special constructor functions. By prefixing a call to a constructor function with the ‘new’ keyword we can tell the JavaScript runtime that we want the function to behave like a constructor and instantiate a new object containing the members defined by that function. Within a constructor function the ‘this’ keyword references the new object being created -  so a basic constructor function might be: function Person(name, age) { this.name = name; this.age = age; this.toString = function() { return this.name + " is " + age + " years old."; }; } var john = new Person("John Galt", 50); console.log(john.toString()); Note that by convention the name of a constructor function is always written in Pascal Case (the first letter of each word is capital). This is to distinguish between constructor functions and other functions. It is important that constructor functions be called with the ‘new’ keyword and that not constructor functions are not. There are two problems with the pattern constructor function pattern shown above: It makes inheritance difficult The toString() function is redefined for each new object created by the Person constructor. This is sub-optimal because the function should be shared between all of the instances of the Person type. Constructor Functions with a Prototype JavaScript functions have a special property called prototype. When an object is created by calling a JavaScript constructor all of the properties of the constructor’s prototype become available to the new object. In this way many Person objects can be created that can access the same prototype. An improved version of the above example can be written: function Person(name, age) { this.name = name; this.age = age; } Person.prototype = { toString: function() { return this.name + " is " + this.age + " years old."; } }; var john = new Person("John Galt", 50); console.log(john.toString()); In this version a single instance of the toString() function will now be shared between all Person objects. Private Members The short version is: there aren’t any. If a variable is defined, with the var keyword, within the constructor function then its scope is that function. Other functions defined within the constructor function will be able to access the private variable, but anything defined outside the constructor (such as functions on the prototype property) won’t have access to the private variable. Any variables defined on the constructor are automatically public. Some people solve this problem by prefixing properties with an underscore and then not calling those properties by convention. function Person(name, age) { this.name = name; this.age = age; } Person.prototype = { _getName: function() { return this.name; }, toString: function() { return this._getName() + " is " + this.age + " years old."; } }; var john = new Person("John Galt", 50); console.log(john.toString()); Note that the _getName() function is only private by convention – it is in fact a public function. Functional Object Construction Because of the weirdness involved in using constructor functions some JavaScript developers prefer to eschew them completely. They theorize that it is better to work with JavaScript’s functional nature than to try and force it to behave like a traditional class-oriented language. When using the functional approach objects are created by returning them from a factory function. An excellent side effect of this pattern is that variables defined with the factory function are accessible to the new object (due to closure) but are inaccessible from anywhere else. The Person example implemented using the functional object construction pattern is: var john = new Person("John Galt", 50); console.log(john.toString()); var personFactory = function(name, age) { var privateVar = 7; return { toString: function() { return name + " is " + age * privateVar / privateVar + " years old."; } }; }; var john2 = personFactory("John Lennon", 40); console.log(john2.toString()); Note that the ‘new’ keyword is not used for this pattern, and that the toString() function has access to the name, age and privateVar variables because of closure. This pattern can be extended to provide inheritance and, unlike the constructor function pattern, it supports private variables. However, when working with JavaScript code bases you will find that the constructor function is more common – probably because it is a better approximation of mainstream class oriented languages like C# and Java. Inheritance Both of the above patterns can support inheritance but for now, favour composition over inheritance. Summary When JavaScript code exceeds simple browser automation object orientation can provide a powerful paradigm for controlling complexity. Both of the patterns presented in this article work – the choice is a matter of style. Only one question still remains; who is John Galt?

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55  | Next Page >