Search Results

Search found 31954 results on 1279 pages for 'dependency object'.

Page 49/1279 | < Previous Page | 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56  | Next Page >

  • What is best practice in converting XML to Java object?

    - by newbie
    I need to convert XML data to Java objects. What would be best practice to convert this XML data to object? Idea is to fetch data via a web service (it doesn't use WSDL, just HTTP GET queries, so I cannot use any framework) and answers are in XML. What would be best practice to handle this situation?

    Read the article

  • Is possible to initialize an object in javascript in this way?

    - by Kucebe
    I'd like to initialize an object in javascript calling directly a method that belongs to it: var obj = (function(){ return{ init: function(){ console.log("initialized!"); }, uninit: function(x){ console.log("uninitialized!"); } }; }).init(); //later obj.uninit(); obj.init(); This specific example doesn't work, is there something similar?

    Read the article

  • Displaying individual elements of an object in an Arraylist through a for loop?

    - by user1180888
    I'm trying to Display individual elements of an Object I have created. It is a simple Java program that allows users to add and keep track of Player Details. I'm just stumped when it comes to displaying the details after they have been added already. here is what my code looks like I can create the object and input it into the arraylist no problem using the case 2, but when I try to print it out I want to do something like System.out.println("Player Name" + myPlayersArrayList.PlayerName + "Player Position" + myPlayerArrayList.PlayerPosition + "Player Age" + "Player Age"); I know that is not correct, but I dont really know what to do, if anyone can be of any help it would be greatly appreciated. Thanks System.out.println("Welcome to the Football Player database"); System.out.print(System.getProperty("line.separator")); UserInput myFirstUserInput = new UserInput(); int selection; ArrayList<Player> myPlayersArrayList = new ArrayList<Player>(); while (true) { System.out.println("1. View The Players"); System.out.println("2. Add A Player"); System.out.println("3. Edit A Player"); System.out.println("4. Delete A Player"); System.out.println("5. Exit ") ; System.out.print(System.getProperty("line.separator")); selection = myFirstUserInput.getInt("Please select an option"); System.out.print(System.getProperty("line.separator")); switch(selection){ case 1: if (myPlayersArrayList.isEmpty()) { System.out.println("No Players Have Been Entered Yet"); System.out.print(System.getProperty("line.separator")); break;} else {for(int i = 0; i < myPlayersArrayList.size(); i++){ System.out.println(myPlayersArrayList); } break; case 2: { String playerName,playerPos; int playerAge; playerName = (myFirstUserInput.getString("Enter Player name")); playerPos = (myFirstUserInput.getString("Enter Player Position")); playerAge = (myFirstUserInput.getInt("Enter Player Age")); myPlayersArrayList.add(new Player(playerName, playerPos, playerAge)); ; break; }

    Read the article

  • How might one teach OO without referencing physical real-world objects?

    - by hal10001
    I remember reading somewhere that the original concepts behind OO were to find a better architecture for handling the messaging of data between multiple systems in a way that protected the state of that data. Now that is probably a poor paraphrase, but it made me wonder if there is a way of teaching OO without the (Bike, Car, Person, etc.) object analogies, and that instead focuses on the messaging aspects. If you have articles, links, books, etc., that would be helpful.

    Read the article

  • Why is it a good practice to wrap all primitives and Strings?

    - by Amogh Talpallikar
    According to Jeff Bay's Essay on Object Callisthenics, One of the practices is set to be "Wrap all primitives and Strings" Can anyone elaborate on this ? In languages where we already have wrappers for primitives like C# and Java. and In languages where Collections can have generics where you are sure of what type goes into the collection, do we need to wrap string's inside their own classes ? Does it have any other advantage ?

    Read the article

  • Is it a good practice to wrap all primitives and Strings?

    - by Amogh Talpallikar
    According to Jeff Bay's Essay on Object Callisthenics, One of the practices is set to be "Wrap all primitives and Strings" Can anyone elaborate on this ? In languages where we already have wrappers for primitives like C# and Java. and In languages where Collections can have generics where you are sure of what type goes into the collection, do we need to wrap string's inside their own classes ? Does it have any other advantage ?

    Read the article

  • What is the diffference between "data hiding" and "encapsulation"?

    - by john smith optional
    I'm reading "Java concurrency in practice" and there is said: "Fortunately, the same object-oriented techniques that help you write well-organized, maintainable classes - such as encapsulation and data hiding -can also help you crate thread-safe classes." The problem #1 - I never heard about data hiding and don't know what it is. The problem #2 - I always thought that encapsulation is using private vs public, and is actually the data hiding. Can you please explain what data hiding is and how it differs from encapsulation?

    Read the article

  • what's the point of method overloading?

    - by David
    I am following a textbook in which I have just come across method overloading. It briefly described method overloading as: when the same method name is used with different parameters its called method overloading. From what I've learned so far in OOP is that if I want different behaviors from an object via methods, I should use different method names that best indicate the behavior, so why should I bother with method overloading in the first place?

    Read the article

  • Isn't MVC anti OOP?

    - by m3th0dman
    The main idea behind OOP is to unify data and behavior in a single entity - the object. In procedural programming there is data and separately algorithms modifying the data. In the Model-View-Controller pattern the data and the logic/algorithms are placed in distinct entities, the model and the controller respectively. In an equivalent OOP approach shouldn't the model and the controller be placed in the same logical entity?

    Read the article

  • Super constructor must be a first statement in Java constructor [closed]

    - by Val
    I know the answer: "we need rules to prevent shooting into your own foot". Ok, I make millions of programming mistakes every day. To be prevented, we need one simple rule: prohibit all JLS and do not use Java. If we explain everything by "not shooting your foot", this is reasonable. But there is not much reason is such reason. When I programmed in Delphy, I always wanted the compiler to check me if I read uninitializable. I have discovered myself that is is stupid to read uncertain variable because it leads unpredictable result and is errorenous obviously. By just looking at the code I could see if there is an error. I wished if compiler could do this job. It is also a reliable signal of programming error if function does not return any value. But I never wanted it do enforce me the super constructor first. Why? You say that constructors just initialize fields. Super fields are derived; extra fields are introduced. From the goal point of view, it does not matter in which order you initialize the variables. I have studied parallel architectures and can say that all the fields can even be assigned in parallel... What? Do you want to use the unitialized fields? Stupid people always want to take away our freedoms and break the JLS rules the God gives to us! Please, policeman, take away that person! Where do I say so? I'm just saying only about initializing/assigning, not using the fields. Java compiler already defends me from the mistake of accessing notinitialized. Some cases sneak but this example shows how this stupid rule does not save us from the read-accessing incompletely initialized in construction: public class BadSuper { String field; public String toString() { return "field = " + field; } public BadSuper(String val) { field = val; // yea, superfirst does not protect from accessing // inconstructed subclass fields. Subclass constr // must be called before super()! System.err.println(this); } } public class BadPost extends BadSuper { Object o; public BadPost(Object o) { super("str"); this. o = o; } public String toString() { // superconstructor will boom here, because o is not initialized! return super.toString() + ", obj = " + o.toString(); } public static void main(String[] args) { new BadSuper("test 1"); new BadPost(new Object()); } } It shows that actually, subfields have to be inilialized before the supreclass! Meantime, java requirement "saves" us from writing specializing the class by specializing what the super constructor argument is, public class MyKryo extends Kryo { class MyClassResolver extends DefaultClassResolver { public Registration register(Registration registration) { System.out.println(MyKryo.this.getDepth()); return super.register(registration); } } MyKryo() { // cannot instantiate MyClassResolver in super super(new MyClassResolver(), new MapReferenceResolver()); } } Try to make it compilable. It is always pain. Especially, when you cannot assign the argument later. Initialization order is not important for initialization in general. I could understand that you should not use super methods before initializing super. But, the requirement for super to be the first statement is different. It only saves you from the code that does useful things simply. I do not see how this adds safety. Actually, safety is degraded because we need to use ugly workarounds. Doing post-initialization, outside the constructors also degrades safety (otherwise, why do we need constructors?) and defeats the java final safety reenforcer. To conclude Reading not initialized is a bug. Initialization order is not important from the computer science point of view. Doing initalization or computations in different order is not a bug. Reenforcing read-access to not initialized is good but compilers fail to detect all such bugs Making super the first does not solve the problem as it "Prevents" shooting into right things but not into the foot It requires to invent workarounds, where, because of complexity of analysis, it is easier to shoot into the foot doing post-initialization outside the constructors degrades safety (otherwise, why do we need constructors?) and that degrade safety by defeating final access modifier When there was java forum alive, java bigots attecked me for these thoughts. Particularly, they dislaked that fields can be initialized in parallel, saying that natural development ensures correctness. When I replied that you could use an advanced engineering to create a human right away, without "developing" any ape first, and it still be an ape, they stopped to listen me. Cos modern technology cannot afford it. Ok, Take something simpler. How do you produce a Renault? Should you construct an Automobile first? No, you start by producing a Renault and, once completed, you'll see that this is an automobile. So, the requirement to produce fields in "natural order" is unnatural. In case of alarmclock or armchair, which are still chair and clock, you may need first develop the base (clock and chair) and then add extra. So, I can have examples where superfields must be initialized first and, oppositely, when they need to be initialized later. The order does not exist in advance. So, the compiler cannot be aware of the proper order. Only programmer/constructor knows is. Compiler should not take more responsibility and enforce the wrong order onto programmer. Saying that I cannot initialize some fields because I did not ininialized the others is like "you cannot initialize the thing because it is not initialized". This is a kind of argument we have. So, to conclude once more, the feature that "protects" me from doing things in simple and right way in order to enforce something that does not add noticeably to the bug elimination at that is a strongly negative thing and it pisses me off, altogether with the all the arguments to support it I've seen so far. It is "a conceptual question about software development" Should there be the requirement to call super() first or not. I do not know. If you do or have an idea, you have place to answer. I think that I have provided enough arguments against this feature. Lets appreciate the ones who benefit form it. Let it just be something more than simple abstract and stupid "write your own language" or "protection" kind of argument. Why do we need it in the language that I am going to develop?

    Read the article

  • design a model for a system of dependent variables

    - by dbaseman
    I'm dealing with a modeling system (financial) that has dozens of variables. Some of the variables are independent, and function as inputs to the system; most of them are calculated from other variables (independent and calculated) in the system. What I'm looking for is a clean, elegant way to: define the function of each dependent variable in the system trigger a re-calculation, whenever a variable changes, of the variables that depend on it A naive way to do this would be to write a single class that implements INotifyPropertyChanged, and uses a massive case statement that lists out all the variable names x1, x2, ... xn on which others depend, and, whenever a variable xi changes, triggers a recalculation of each of that variable's dependencies. I feel that this naive approach is flawed, and that there must be a cleaner way. I started down the path of defining a CalculationManager<TModel> class, which would be used (in a simple example) something like as follows: public class Model : INotifyPropertyChanged { private CalculationManager<Model> _calculationManager = new CalculationManager<Model>(); // each setter triggers a "PropertyChanged" event public double? Height { get; set; } public double? Weight { get; set; } public double? BMI { get; set; } public Model() { _calculationManager.DefineDependency<double?>( forProperty: model => model.BMI, usingCalculation: (height, weight) => weight / Math.Pow(height, 2), withInputs: model => model.Height, model.Weight); } // INotifyPropertyChanged implementation here } I won't reproduce CalculationManager<TModel> here, but the basic idea is that it sets up a dependency map, listens for PropertyChanged events, and updates dependent properties as needed. I still feel that I'm missing something major here, and that this isn't the right approach: the (mis)use of INotifyPropertyChanged seems to me like a code smell the withInputs parameter is defined as params Expression<Func<TModel, T>>[] args, which means that the argument list of usingCalculation is not checked at compile time the argument list (weight, height) is redundantly defined in both usingCalculation and withInputs I am sure that this kind of system of dependent variables must be common in computational mathematics, physics, finance, and other fields. Does someone know of an established set of ideas that deal with what I'm grasping at here? Would this be a suitable application for a functional language like F#? Edit More context: The model currently exists in an Excel spreadsheet, and is being migrated to a C# application. It is run on-demand, and the variables can be modified by the user from the application's UI. Its purpose is to retrieve variables that the business is interested in, given current inputs from the markets, and model parameters set by the business.

    Read the article

  • Making a design for a Problem [closed]

    - by Vaibhav Agarwal
    I have written many codes using OOPS and I am still to understand when is a code good enough to be accepted by experts. The thought procedure of every man is different and so is the design. My question is should I do something in particular to design my programs in such a way that they are good enough to be accepted by people. Other thing I have also read Head First Object Oriented Design but at last I feel that the way they design the problems is much different I would have designed them.

    Read the article

  • Are UML class diagrams adequated to design javascript systems?

    - by Vandell
    Given that UML is oriented towards a more classic approach to object orientation, is it still usable in a reliable way to design javascript systems? One specific problem that I can see is that class diagrams are, in fact, a structural view of the system, and javascript is more behaviour driven, how can you deal with it? Please, keep in mind that I'm not talking abot the real world domain here, It's a model for the solution that I'm trying to achieve.

    Read the article

  • What if globals make sense?

    - by Greg
    I've got a value that many objects need. For example, a financial application with different investments as objects, and most of them need the current interest rate. I was hoping to encapsulate my "financial environment" as an object, with the interest rate as a property. But, sibling objects that need that value can't get to it. So how do I share values among many objects without over-coupling my design? Obviously I'm thinking about this wrong.

    Read the article

  • What is the difference between "data hiding" and "encapsulation"?

    - by Software Engeneering Learner
    I'm reading "Java concurrency in practice" and there is said: "Fortunately, the same object-oriented techniques that help you write well-organized, maintainable classes - such as encapsulation and data hiding -can also help you create thread-safe classes." The problem #1 - I never heard about data hiding and don't know what it is. The problem #2 - I always thought that encapsulation is using private vs public, and is actually the data hiding. Can you please explain what data hiding is and how it differs from encapsulation?

    Read the article

  • Are UML class diagrams adequate to design javascript systems?

    - by Vandell
    Given that UML is oriented towards a more classic approach to object orientation, is it still usable in a reliable way to design javascript systems? One specific problem that I can see is that class diagrams are, in fact, a structural view of the system, and javascript is more behaviour driven, how can you deal with it? Please, keep in mind that I'm not talking abot the real world domain here, It's a model for the solution that I'm trying to achieve.

    Read the article

  • Should library classes be wrapped before using them in unit testing?

    - by Songo
    I'm doing unit testing and in one of my classes I need to send a mail from one of the methods, so using constructor injection I inject an instance of Zend_Mail class which is in Zend framework. Example: class Logger{ private $mailer; function __construct(Zend_Mail $mail){ $this->mail=$mail; } function toBeTestedFunction(){ //Some code $this->mail->setTo('some value'); $this->mail->setSubject('some value'); $this->mail->setBody('some value'); $this->mail->send(); //Some } } However, Unit testing demands that I test one component at a time, so I need to mock the Zend_Mail class. In addition I'm violating the Dependency Inversion principle as my Logger class now depends on concretion not abstraction. Does that mean that I can never use a library class directly and must always wrap it in a class of my own? Example: interface Mailer{ public function setTo($to); public function setSubject($subject); public function setBody($body); public function send(); } class MyMailer implements Mailer{ private $mailer; function __construct(){ $this->mail=new Zend_Mail; //The class isn't injected this time } function setTo($to){ $this->mailer->setTo($to); } //implement the rest of the interface functions similarly } And now my Logger class can be happy :D class Logger{ private $mailer; function __construct(Mailer $mail){ $this->mail=$mail; } //rest of the code unchanged } Questions: Although I solved the mocking problem by introducing an interface, I have created a totally new class Mailer that now needs to be unit tested although it only wraps Zend_Mail which is already unit tested by the Zend team. Is there a better approach to all this? Zend_Mail's send() function could actually have a Zend_Transport object when called (i.e. public function send($transport = null)). Does this make the idea of a wrapper class more appealing? The code is in PHP, but answers doesn't have to be. This is more of a design issue than a language specific feature

    Read the article

  • How to store multiple requirements with OR and AND?

    - by Cano
    Well I'm working on a personal project that needs to check if a user has met certain requirements, and they come in a form of Requirement: [c1 OR c2] AND [d1 OR d2] Requirement: [c1 AND c2] OR [d1 AND d2] Requirement: c1 AND any dn(n can be any integer) I'm just not sure how to store these sorts of requirements, I'm thinking of using another object to hold c1,c2,d1,d2....dn and OR, but that seems like a roundabout way of doing things. Is there a better method?

    Read the article

  • Handling null values and missing object properties in Silverlight 4

    - by PeterTweed
    Before Silverlight 4 to bind a data object to the UI and display a message associated with either a null value or if the binding path was wrong, you would need to write a Converter.  In Silverlight 4 we find the addition of the markup extensions TargetNullValue and FallbackValue that allows us to display a value when a null value is found in the bound to property and display a value when the property being bound to is not found. This post will show you how to use both markup extensions. Steps: 1. Create a new Silverlight 4 application 2. In the body of the MainPage.xaml.cs file replace the MainPage class with the following code:     public partial class MainPage : UserControl     {         public MainPage()         {             InitializeComponent();             this.Loaded += new RoutedEventHandler(MainPage_Loaded);         }           void MainPage_Loaded(object sender, RoutedEventArgs e)         {             person p = new person() { NameValue = "Peter Tweed" };             this.DataContext = p;         }     }       public class person     {         public string NameValue { get; set; }         public string TitleValue { get; set; }     } This code defines a class called person with two properties.  A new instance of the class is created, only defining the value for one of the properties and bound to the DataContext of the page. 3.  In the MainPage.xaml file copy the following XAML into the LayoutRoot grid:         <Grid.RowDefinitions>             <RowDefinition Height="60*" />             <RowDefinition Height="28*" />             <RowDefinition Height="28*" />             <RowDefinition Height="30*" />             <RowDefinition Height="154*" />         </Grid.RowDefinitions>         <Grid.ColumnDefinitions>             <ColumnDefinition Width="86*" />             <ColumnDefinition Width="314*" />         </Grid.ColumnDefinitions>         <TextBlock Grid.Row="1" Height="23" HorizontalAlignment="Left" Margin="32,0,0,0" Name="textBlock1" Text="Name Value:" VerticalAlignment="Top" />         <TextBlock Grid.Row="2" Height="23" HorizontalAlignment="Left" Margin="32,0,0,0" Name="textBlock2" Text="Title Value:" VerticalAlignment="Top" />         <TextBlock Grid.Row="3" Height="23" HorizontalAlignment="Left" Margin="32,0,0,0" Name="textBlock3" Text="Non Existant Value:" VerticalAlignment="Top" />         <TextBlock Grid.Column="1" Grid.Row="1" Height="23" HorizontalAlignment="Left" Name="textBlock4" Text="{Binding NameValue, TargetNullValue='No Name!!!!!!!'}" VerticalAlignment="Top" Margin="6,0,0,0" />         <TextBlock Grid.Column="1" Grid.Row="2" Height="23" HorizontalAlignment="Left" Name="textBlock5" Text="{Binding TitleValue, TargetNullValue='No Title!!!!!!!'}" VerticalAlignment="Top" Margin="6,0,0,0" />         <TextBlock Grid.Column="1" Grid.Row="3" Height="23" HorizontalAlignment="Left" Margin="6,0,0,0" Name="textBlock6" Text="{Binding AgeValue, FallbackValue='No such property!'}" VerticalAlignment="Top" />    This XAML defines three textblocks – two of which use the TargetNull and one that uses the FallbackValue markup extensions.  4. Run the application and see the person name displayed as defined for the person object, the expected string displayed for the TargetNullValue when no value exists for the boudn property and the expected string displayed for the FallbackValue when the property bound to is not found on the bound object. It's that easy!

    Read the article

  • OpenGL Fast-Object Instancing Error

    - by HJ Media Studios
    I have some code that loops through a set of objects and renders instances of those objects. The list of objects that needs to be rendered is stored as a std::map, where an object of class MeshResource contains the vertices and indices with the actual data, and an object of classMeshRenderer defines the point in space the mesh is to be rendered at. My rendering code is as follows: glDisable(GL_BLEND); glEnable(GL_CULL_FACE); glDepthMask(GL_TRUE); glClear(GL_COLOR_BUFFER_BIT | GL_DEPTH_BUFFER_BIT); glEnable(GL_DEPTH_TEST); for (std::map<MeshResource*, std::vector<MeshRenderer*> >::iterator it = renderables.begin(); it != renderables.end(); it++) { it->first->setupBeforeRendering(); cout << "<"; for (unsigned long i =0; i < it->second.size(); i++) { //Pass in an identity matrix to the vertex shader- used here only for debugging purposes; the real code correctly inputs any matrix. uniformizeModelMatrix(Matrix4::IDENTITY); /** * StartHere fix rendering problem. * Ruled out: * Vertex buffers correctly. * Index buffers correctly. * Matrices correct? */ it->first->render(); } it->first->cleanupAfterRendering(); } geometryPassShader->disable(); glDepthMask(GL_FALSE); glDisable(GL_CULL_FACE); glDisable(GL_DEPTH_TEST); The function in MeshResource that handles setting up the uniforms is as follows: void MeshResource::setupBeforeRendering() { glEnableVertexAttribArray(0); glEnableVertexAttribArray(1); glEnableVertexAttribArray(2); glEnableVertexAttribArray(3); glEnableVertexAttribArray(4); glBindBuffer(GL_ELEMENT_ARRAY_BUFFER, iboID); glBindBuffer(GL_ARRAY_BUFFER, vboID); glVertexAttribPointer(0, 3, GL_FLOAT, GL_FALSE, sizeof(Vertex), 0); // Vertex position glVertexAttribPointer(1, 3, GL_FLOAT, GL_FALSE, sizeof(Vertex), (const GLvoid*) 12); // Vertex normal glVertexAttribPointer(2, 2, GL_FLOAT, GL_FALSE, sizeof(Vertex), (const GLvoid*) 24); // UV layer 0 glVertexAttribPointer(3, 3, GL_FLOAT, GL_FALSE, sizeof(Vertex), (const GLvoid*) 32); // Vertex color glVertexAttribPointer(4, 1, GL_UNSIGNED_SHORT, GL_FALSE, sizeof(Vertex), (const GLvoid*) 44); //Material index } The code that renders the object is this: void MeshResource::render() { glDrawElements(GL_TRIANGLES, geometry->numIndices, GL_UNSIGNED_SHORT, 0); } And the code that cleans up is this: void MeshResource::cleanupAfterRendering() { glDisableVertexAttribArray(0); glDisableVertexAttribArray(1); glDisableVertexAttribArray(2); glDisableVertexAttribArray(3); glDisableVertexAttribArray(4); } The end result of this is that I get a black screen, although the end of my rendering pipeline after the rendering code (essentially just drawing axes and lines on the screen) works properly, so I'm fairly sure it's not an issue with the passing of uniforms. If, however, I change the code slightly so that the rendering code calls the setup immediately before rendering, like so: void MeshResource::render() { setupBeforeRendering(); glDrawElements(GL_TRIANGLES, geometry->numIndices, GL_UNSIGNED_SHORT, 0); } The program works as desired. I don't want to have to do this, though, as my aim is to set up vertex, material, etc. data once per object type and then render each instance updating only the transformation information. The uniformizeModelMatrix works as follows: void RenderManager::uniformizeModelMatrix(Matrix4 matrix) { glBindBuffer(GL_UNIFORM_BUFFER, globalMatrixUBOID); glBufferSubData(GL_UNIFORM_BUFFER, 0, sizeof(Matrix4), matrix.ptr()); glBindBuffer(GL_UNIFORM_BUFFER, 0); }

    Read the article

  • Binding property to Silverlight dependency property independent of DataContext

    - by Simon_Weaver
    I'm trying to make an Address control that has an IsReadOnly property, which will make every TextBox inside read only when set to true. <my:AddressControl Grid.Column="1" Margin="5" IsReadOnly="True"/> I've managed to do this just fine with a dependency property and it works. Here's a simple class with the dependency property declared : public partial class AddressControl : UserControl { public AddressControl() { InitializeComponent(); this.DataContext = this; } public static readonly DependencyProperty IsReadOnlyProperty = DependencyProperty.Register("IsReadOnly", typeof(bool), typeof(AddressControl), null); public bool IsReadOnly { get { return (bool)GetValue(IsReadOnlyProperty); } set { SetValue(IsReadOnlyProperty, value); } } } In the XAML for this codebehind file I have a Textbox for each address line: <TextBox IsReadOnly="{Binding IsReadOnly}" Text="{Binding City, Mode=TwoWay}"/> <TextBox IsReadOnly="{Binding IsReadOnly}" Text="{Binding State, Mode=TwoWay}"/> <TextBox IsReadOnly="{Binding IsReadOnly}" Text="{Binding Zip, Mode=TwoWay}"/> Like i said this works just fine. The problem is that the Address control itself is bound to its parent object (I have several addresses I am binding). <my:AddressControl DataContext="{Binding ShippingAddress, Mode=TwoWay}" IsReadOnly="True"> <my:AddressControl DataContext="{Binding BillingAddress, Mode=TwoWay}" IsReadOnly="True"> The problem is that as soon as I set DataContext to something other than 'this' then the binding for IsReadOnly breaks. Not surprising because its looking for IsReadOnly on the Address data entity and it doesn't exist or belong there. I've tried just about every combination of binding attributes to get IsReadOnly to bind to the AddressControl obejct but can't get it working. I've tried things like this, but I can't get IsReadOnly to bind independently to the AddressControl property instead of its DataContext. <TextBox IsReadOnly="{Binding RelativeSource={RelativeSource Self}, Path=IsReadOnlyProperty}" Text="{Binding City, Mode=TwoWay}" /> I think I'm pretty close. What am I doing wrong?

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56  | Next Page >