Search Results

Search found 15432 results on 618 pages for 'private inheritance'.

Page 49/618 | < Previous Page | 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56  | Next Page >

  • Trying to recognize _NSFaultingMutableSet as member of NSSet

    - by Will
    I'm trying to recognize the result of a generic query to a managed object as an NSSet. Currently the class returned is a member of _NSFaultingMutableSet, which is clearly related, but fails the isMemberOf:[NSSet class] and isKindOf:[NSSet class] calls. Given that Cocoa doesn't do a direct implementation of NSSet, it's not surprising that I've got some air in the pipes, but I'm wondering if I'm messing something obvious up or this requires a higher grade of kung-fu than I possess. Code follows: SEL selector = NSSelectorFromString(someString); if(![self respondsToSelector:selector]){ NSLog(@"Error processing item"); return; } id items = [self performSelector:selector]; Class itemsClass = [items class]; if ( [itemsClass isKindOfClass:[NSSet class]]) { // do something }

    Read the article

  • How to find the first declaring method for a reference method

    - by Oliver Gierke
    Suppose you have a generic interface and an implementation: public interface MyInterface<T> { void foo(T param); } public class MyImplementation<T> implements MyInterface<T> { void foo(T param) { } } These two types are frework types. In the next step I want allow users to extend that interface as well as redeclare foo(T param) to maybe equip it with further annotations. public interface MyExtendedInterface extends MyInterface<Bar> { @Override void foo(Bar param); // Further declared methods } I create an AOP proxy for the extended interface and intercept especially the calls to furtherly declared methods. As foo(…) is no redeclared in MyExtendedInterface I cannot execute it by simply invoking MethodInvocation.proceed() as the instance of MyImplementation only implements MyInterface.foo(…) and not MyExtendedInterface.foo(…). So is there a way to get access to the method that declared a method initially? Regarding this example is there a way to find out that foo(Bar param) was declared in MyInterface originally and get access to the accoriding Method instance? I already tried to scan base class methods to match by name and parameter types but that doesn't work out as generics pop in and MyImplementation.getMethod("foo", Bar.class) obviously throws a NoSuchMethodException. I already know that MyExtendedInterface types MyInterface to Bar. So If I could create some kind of "typed view" on MyImplementation my math algorithm could work out actually.

    Read the article

  • How can you extend the Bitmap class

    - by vrish88
    Hello, I am trying to extend the Bitmap class so that I can apply my own effects to an image. When I use this code: namespace ImageEditor { public class Effects : System.Drawing.Bitmap { public void toBlackAndWhite() { System.Drawing.Bitmap image = (Bitmap)this; AForge.Imaging.Filters.Grayscale filter = new AForge.Imaging.Filters.Grayscale(); this = filter.Apply(this); } } } I get the following error: 'ImageEditor.Effects': cannot derive from sealed type 'System.Drawing.Bitmap' So is there a way to get around this or is it simply not possible to extend the class? Thanks.

    Read the article

  • Binding functions of derived class with luabind

    - by Anamon
    I am currently developing a plugin-based system in C++ which provides a Lua scripting interface, for which I chose to use luabind. I'm using Lua 5 and luabind 0.9, both statically linked and compiled with MSVC++ 8. I am now having trouble binding functions with luabind when they are defined in a derived class, but not its parent class. More specifically, I have an abstract base class called 'IPlugin' from which all plugin classes inherit. When the plugin manager initialises, it registers that class and its functions like this: luabind::open(L); luabind::module(L) [ luabind::class_("IPlugin") .def("start", (void(IPlugin::*)())&IPlugin::start) ]; As it is only known at runtime what effective plugin classes are available, I had to solve loading plugins in a kind of roundabout way. The plugin manager exposes a factory function to Lua, which takes the name of a plugin class and a desired object name. The factory then creates the object, registers the plugin's class as inheriting from the 'IPlugin' base class, and immediately calls a function on the created object that registers itself as a global with the Lua state, like this: void PluginExample::registerLuaObject(lua_State *L, string a_name) { luabind::globals(L)[a_name] = (PluginExample*)this; } I initially did this because I had problems with Lua determining the most derived class of the object, as if I register it from the StreamManager it is only known as a subtype of 'IPlugin' and not the specific subtype. I'm not sure anymore if this is even necessary though, but it works and the created object is subsequently accessible from Lua under 'a_name'. The problem I have, though, is that functions defined in the derived class, which were not declared at all in the parent class, cannot be used. Virtual functions defined in the base class, such as 'start' above, work fine, and calling them from Lua on the new object runs the respective redefined code from the 'PluginExample' class. But if I add a new function to 'PluginExample', here for example a function taking no arguments and returning void, and register it like this: luabind::module(L) [ luabind::class_("PluginExample") .def(luabind::constructor()) .def("func", &PluginExample::func) ]; calling 'func' on the new object yields the following Lua runtime error: No matching overload found, candidates: void func(PluginExample&) I am correctly using the ':' syntax so the 'self' argument is not needed and it seems suddenly Lua cannot determine the derived type of the object anymore. I am sure I am doing something wrong, probably having to do with the two-step binding required by my system architecture, but I can't figure out where. I'd much appreciate some help =)

    Read the article

  • Me As Child Type

    - by Steven
    I have a MustInherit Parent class with two Child classes which Inherit from the Parent. How can I use (or Cast) Me in a Parent function as the the child type of that instance? EDIT: My actual goal is to be able to serialize (BinaryFormatter.Serialize(Stream, Object)) either of my child classes. However, "repeating the code" in each child "seems" wrong.

    Read the article

  • Why do pure virtual base classes get direct access to static data members while derived instances do

    - by Shamster
    I've created a simple pair of classes. One is pure virtual with a static data member, and the other is derived from the base, as follows: #include <iostream> template <class T> class Base { public: Base (const T _member) { member = _member; } static T member; virtual void Print () const = 0; }; template <class T> T Base<T>::member; template <class T> void Base<T>::Print () const { std::cout << "Base: " << member << std::endl; } template <class T> class Derived : public Base<T> { public: Derived (const T _member) : Base<T>(_member) { } virtual void Print () const { std::cout << "Derived: " << this->member << std::endl; } }; I've found from this relationship that when I need access to the static data member in the base class, I can call it with direct access as if it were a regular, non-static class member. i.e. - the Base::Print() method does not require a this- modifier. However, the derived class does require the this-member indirect access syntax. I don't understand why this is. Both class methods are accessing the same static data, so why does the derived class need further specification? A simple call to test it is: int main () { Derived<double> dd (7.0); dd.Print(); return 0; } which prints the expected "Derived: 7"

    Read the article

  • Sharing view logic in Django

    - by Jeremy B.
    I've begun diving into Django again and I'm having trouble finding the parallel to some common concepts from my life in C#. While using .NET MVC I very often find myself creating a base controller which will provide a base action implementation to take care of the type of stuff I want to do on every request, like retrieving user information, getting localization values. Where I'm finding myself confused is how to do this in Django. I am getting more familiar with the MVT concept but I can't seem to find how to solve this scenario. I've looked at class based views and the generic views yet they didn't seem to work how I expected. What am I missing? How can i create default logic that each view will be instructed to run but not have to write it in each view method?

    Read the article

  • Use super class's address/pointer in initialization list

    - by JQ
    context 1: class D : public B1, public B2{}; context 2: B2 takes B1 to initialize: B2( B1 * ) //B2's constructor my question is in D's initialization list: D::D() : B1(), B2( ? )... What should be in ? I don't want to put " (B1*)this " in the ? place, because it's no good to use "this" in initialization list. And since B1 part has been initialized, it makes sense to use it. What should I do ?

    Read the article

  • Define interface for loading custom UserControls through reflection

    - by Tim
    I'm loading custom user controls into my form using reflection. I would like all my user controls to have a "Start" and "End" method so they should all be like: public interface IStartEnd { void Start(); void End(); } public class AnotherControl : UserControl, IStartEnd { public void Start() { } public void End() { } } I would like an interface to load through reflection, but the following obviously wont work as an interface cannot inherit a class: public interface IMyUserControls : UserControl, IInit, IDispose { }

    Read the article

  • django class with an array of "parent" foreignkeys issue

    - by user298032
    Let's say I have a class called Fruit with child classes of the different kinds of Fruit with their own specific attributes, and I want to collect them in a FruitBasket: class Fruit(models.Model):     type = models.CharField(max_length=120,default='banana',choices=FRUIT_TYPES)     ... class Banana(Fruit):     """banana (fruit type)"""     length = models.IntegerField(blank=True, null=True)     ... class Orange(Fruit):     """orange (fruit type)"""     diameter = models.IntegerField(blank=True, null=True)     ... class FruitBasket(models.Model):     fruits = models.ManyToManyField(Fruit)     ... The problem I seem to be having is when I retrieve and inspect the Fruits in a FruitBasket, I only retrieve the Fruit base class and can't get at the Fruit child class attributes. I think I understand what is happening--when the array is retrieved from the database, the only fields that are retrieved are the Fruit base class fields. But is there some way to get the child class attributes as well without multiple expensive database transactions? (For example, I could get the array, then retrieve the child Fruit classes by the id of each array element). thanks in advance, Chuck

    Read the article

  • How do I prevent JAXB from binding superclass methods of the @XmlRootElement when marshalling?

    - by Matt Fisher
    I have a class that is annotated as the @XmlRootElement with @XmlAccessorType(XmlAccessType.NONE). The problem that I am having is that the superclass's methods are being bound, when I do not want them to be bound, and cannot update the class. I am hoping there is an annotation that I can put on the root element class to prevent this from happening. Example: @XmlRootElement @XmlAccessorType(XmlAccessType.NONE) public class Person extends NamedObject { @XmlElement public String getId() { ... } } I would expect that only the methods annotated @XmlElement on Person would be bound and marshalled, but the superclass's methods are all being bound, as well. The resulting XML then has too much information. How do I prevent the superclass's methods from being bound without having to annotate the superclass, itself?

    Read the article

  • Two models, one STI and a Validation

    - by keruilin
    Let's say I have two tables -- Products and Orders. For the sake of simplicity assume that only one product can be purchased at a time so there is no join table like order_items. So the relationship is that Product has many orders, and Order belongs to product. Therefore, product_id is a fk in the Order table. The product table is STI -- with the subclasses being A, B, C. When the user orders subclass Product C, two special validations must be checked on the Order model fields order_details and order_status. These two fields can be nil for all other Product subclasses (ie A and B). In other words, no validation needs to run for these two fields when a user purchases A and B. My question is: How do I write validations (perhaps custom?) in the Order model so that the Order model knows to only run the validations for the two fields -- order_details and order_status -- when Product subclass C is being saved to the orders table?

    Read the article

  • Javascript static method intheritance

    - by Matteo Pagliazzi
    I want to create a javascript class/object that allow me to have various method: Model class Model.all() » static method Model.find() » static method Model delete() » instance method Model save() » instance method Model.create() » static that returns a new Model instance For static method I can define them using: Model.staticMethod(){ method } while for instance method is better to use: function Model(){ this.instanceMethod = function(){} } and then create a new instance or using prototype? var m = function Model(){ } m.prototype.method() = function(){ } Now let's say that I want to create a new class based on Model, how to inherit not only its prototypes but also its static methods?

    Read the article

  • Virgin STI Help

    - by Mutuelinvestor
    I am working on a horse racing application and I'm trying to utilize STI to model a horse's connections. A horse's connections is comprised of his owner, trainer and jockey. Over time, connections can change for a variety of reasons: The horse is sold to another owner The owner switches trainers or jockey The horse is claimed by a new owner As it stands now, I have model this with the following tables: horses connections (join table) stakeholders (stakeholder has three sub classes: jockey, trainer & owner) Here are my clases and associations: class Horse < ActiveRecord::Base has_one :connection has_one :owner_stakeholder, :through => :connection has_one :jockey_stakeholder, :through => :connection has_one :trainer_stakeholder, :through => :connection end class Connection < ActiveRecord::Base belongs_to :horse belongs_to :owner_stakeholder belongs_to :jockey_stakeholder belongs_to :trainer_stakeholder end class Stakeholder < ActiveRecord::Base has_many :connections has_many :horses, :through => :connections end class Owner < Stakeholder # Owner specific code goes here. end class Jockey < Stakeholder # Jockey specific code goes here. end class Trainer < Stakeholder # Trainer specific code goes here. end One the database end, I have inserted a Type column in the connections table. Have I modeled this correctly. Is there a better/more elegant approach. Thanks in advance for you feedback. Jim

    Read the article

  • spring - constructor injection and overriding parent definition of nested bean

    - by mdma
    I've read the Spring 3 reference on inheriting bean definitions, but I'm confused about what is possible and not possible. For example, a bean that takes a collaborator bean, configured with the value 12 <bean name="beanService12" class="SomeSevice"> <constructor-arg index="0"> <bean name="beanBaseNested" class="SomeCollaborator"> <constructor-arg index="0" value="12"/> </bean> </constructor-arg> </bean> I'd then like to be able to create similar beans, with slightly different configured collaborators. Can I do something like <bean name="beanService13" parent="beanService12"> <constructor-arg index="0"> <bean> <constructor-arg index="0" value="13"/> </bean> </constructor> </bean> I'm not sure this is possible and, if it were, it feels a bit clunky. Is there a nicer way to override small parts of a large nested bean definition? It seems the child bean has to know quite a lot about the parent, e.g. constructor index. I'd prefer not to change the structure - the parent beans use collaborators to perform their function, but I can add properties and use property injection if that helps. This is a repeated pattern, would creating a custom schema help? Thanks for any advice!

    Read the article

  • How to inherit constructors with arguments in .NET?

    - by Soumya92
    I have a "MustInherit" .NET class which declares a constructor with an integer parameter. However, Visual Studio gives me an error when I create any derived class stating that there is no constructor that can be called without any arguments. Is it possible to inherit the constructor with arguments? Right now, I have to use Public Sub New(ByVal A As Integer) MyBase.New(A) End Sub in the derived classes. Is there any way to avoid this?

    Read the article

  • Is it possible to add JPA annotation to superclass instance variables?

    - by Kristofer Borgstrom
    Hi, I am creating entities that are the same for two different tables. In order do table mappings etc. different for the two entities but only have the rest of the code in one place - an abstract superclass. The best thing would be to be able to annotate generic stuff such as column names (since the will be identical) in the super class but that does not work because JPA annotations are not inherited by child classes. Here is an example: public abstract class MyAbstractEntity { @Column(name="PROPERTY") //This will not be inherited and is therefore useless here protected String property; public String getProperty() { return this.property; } //setters, hashCode, equals etc. methods } Which I would like to inherit and only specify the child-specific stuff, like annotations: @Entity @Table(name="MY_ENTITY_TABLE") public class MyEntity extends MyAbstractEntity { //This will not work since this field does not override the super class field, thus the setters and getters break. @Column(name="PROPERTY") protected String property; } Any ideas or will I have to create fields, getters and setters in the child classes? Thanks, Kris

    Read the article

  • C# BinarySearch breaks when inheriting from something that implements IComparable<T>?

    - by Ender
    In .NET the BinarySearch algorithm (in Lists, Arrays, etc.) appears to fail if the items you are trying to search inherit from an IComparable instead of implementing it directly: List<B> foo = new List<B>(); // B inherits from A, which implements IComparable<A> foo.Add(new B()); foo.BinarySearch(new B()); // InvalidOperationException, "Failed to compare two elements in the array." Where: public abstract class A : IComparable<A> { public int x; public int CompareTo(A other) { return x.CompareTo(other.x); } } public class B : A {} Is there a way around this? Implementing CompareTo(B other) in class B doesn't seem to work.

    Read the article

  • .NET C# Explicit implementation of grandparent's interface method in the parent interface

    - by Cristi Diaconescu
    That title's a mouthful, isn't it?... Here's what I'm trying to do: public interface IBar { void Bar(); } public interface IFoo: IBar { void Foo(); } public class FooImpl: IFoo { void IFoo.Foo() { /*works as expected*/ } //void IFoo.Bar() { /*i'd like to do this, but it doesn't compile*/ } void IBar.Bar() { /*works as expected*/ } } So... Is there a way to declare IFoo.Bar(){...} in my class, other than basically merging the two interfaces into one? And, if not, why?

    Read the article

  • Super class variables not printing through sub class

    - by Abhishek Singh
    Can u tell me why this code is not displaying any result on the console. class employee { protected String name; protected double salary; protected String dob; public employee(String name, double salary, String dob) { this.name = name; this.salary = salary; this.dob = dob; } public employee(String name, double salary) { this.name = name; this.salary = salary; } } public class Manage extends employee { String dept1; public Manage(String name, double salary, String dob, String dept1) { super(name, salary, dob); this.dept1 = dept1; } public Manage(String name, double salary, String dept1) { super(name, salary); this.dept1 = dept1; } public static void main(String args[]) { employee e = new employee("Vikas", 122345); employee e2 = new employee("Vikas", 122345, "12-2-1991"); Manage m = (Manage) new Manage("Vikas", 122345, "Sales"); Manage m2 = new Manage("Vikas", 122345, "12-2-1991", "sales"); m.display(); m2.display(); } public void display() { System.out.println("Name " + name); System.out.println("Salary " + salary); System.out.println("Birth " + dob); System.out.println("Department " + dept1); } }

    Read the article

  • Forward declaration of derived inner class

    - by Loom
    I ran into problem implementing some variations of factory method. // from IFoo.h struct IFoo { struct IBar { virtual ~IBar() = 0; virtual void someMethod() = 0; }; virtual IBar *createBar() = 0; }; // from Foo.h struct Foo : IFoo { // implementation of Foo, Bar in Foo.cpp struct Bar : IBar { virtual ~Bar(); virtual void someMethod(); }; virtual Bar *createBar(); // implemented in Foo.cpp }; I'd like to place declaration of Foo::Bar in Foo.cpp. For now I cannot succeed: struct Foo : IFoo { //struct Bar; //1. error: invalid covariant return type // for ‘virtual Foo::Bar* //struct Bar : IBar; //2. error: expected ‘{’ before ‘;’ token virtual Bar *createBar(); // virtual IBar *createBar(); // Is not acceptable by-design }; Is there a trick to have just forward declaration of Boo in Foo.hpp and to have full declaration in Foo.cpp?

    Read the article

  • Unresolved symbol when inheriting interface

    - by LeopardSkinPillBoxHat
    It's late at night here and I'm going crazy trying to solve a linker error. If I have the following abstract interface: class IArpPacketBuilder { public: IArpPacketBuilder(const DslPortId& aPortId); virtual ~IArpPacketBuilder(); // Other abstract (pure virtual methods) here... }; and I instantiate it like this: class DummyArpPacketBuilder : public IArpPacketBuilder { public: DummyArpPacketBuilder(const DslPortId& aPortId) : IArpPacketBuilder(aPortId) {} ~DummyArpPacketBuilder() {} }; why am I getting the following error when linking? Unresolved symbol references: IArpPacketBuilder::IArpPacketBuilder(DslPortId const&): ppc603_vxworks/_arpPacketQueue.o IArpPacketBuilder::~IArpPacketBuilder(): ppc603_vxworks/_arpPacketQueue.o typeinfo for IArpPacketBuilder: ppc603_vxworks/_arpPacketQueue.o *** Error code 1 IArpPacketBuilder is an abstract interface, so as long as I define the constructors and destructions in the concrete (derived) interface, I should be fine, no? Well it appears not.

    Read the article

  • How to prevent Visual Studio setting my default font sizes in an inherited control

    - by Colin
    I have a base class for all my textboxes and I want to set the default font in that class. So I started with this: public partial class MyTextBox : TextBox { public WmlTextBox() { InitializeComponent(); //Font for the whole application can be altered in the Appearance class Font = new Appearance().TextBoxFont; } } I then stripped out all the code in the form that was setting the font of the textboxes. Of course this worked fine until I altered an item on the page. Visual Studio picked up the default font for the application (set in the Appearance class), and generated code in the designer for all TextBoxes to set it to that specific font. How can I stop visual studio from generating code from my default font? I want to allow the developers to change the property, but I want to set the default font centrally.

    Read the article

  • Base class pointer vs inherited class pointer?

    - by Goose Bumper
    Suppose I have a class Dog that inherits from a class Animal. What is the difference between these two lines of code? Animal *a = new Dog(); Dog *d = new Dog(); In one, the pointer is for the base class, and in the other, the pointer is for the derived class. But when would this distinction become important? For polymorphism, either one would work exactly the same, right?

    Read the article

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