Search Results

Search found 23845 results on 954 pages for 'instance methods'.

Page 5/954 | < Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >

  • -[NSConcreteMutableData release]: message sent to deallocated instance

    - by kamibutt
    Dear members, I am facing a problem of -[NSConcreteMutableData release]: message sent to deallocated instance, i have attached my sample code as well. - (IBAction)uploadImage { NSString *urlString = @"http://192.168.1.108/iphoneimages/uploadfile.php?userid=1&charid=23&msgid=3"; //if(FALSE) for (int i=0; i<[imgArray count]; i++) { // setting up the request object now NSMutableURLRequest *request = [[NSMutableURLRequest alloc] init]; [request setURL:[NSURL URLWithString:urlString]]; [request setHTTPMethod:@"POST"]; /* add some header info now we always need a boundary when we post a file also we need to set the content type You might want to generate a random boundary.. this is just the same as my output from wireshark on a valid html post */ NSString *boundary = [NSString stringWithString:@"---------------------------14737809831466499882746641449"]; NSString *contentType = [NSString stringWithFormat:@"multipart/form-data; boundary=%@",boundary]; [request addValue:contentType forHTTPHeaderField: @"Content-Type"]; /* now lets create the body of the post */ NSMutableData *body = [[NSMutableData data] autorelease]; NSString *str = [NSString stringWithFormat:@"Content-Disposition: form-data; name=\"userfile\"; filename=\"ipodfile%d.jpg\"\r\n",i]; [body appendData:[[NSString stringWithFormat:@"\r\n--%@\r\n",boundary] dataUsingEncoding:NSUTF8StringEncoding]]; [body appendData:[[NSString stringWithString:str] dataUsingEncoding:NSUTF8StringEncoding]]; [body appendData:[[NSString stringWithString:@"Content-Type: application/octet-stream\r\n\r\n"] dataUsingEncoding:NSUTF8StringEncoding]]; NSData *imageData = UIImageJPEGRepresentation([imgArray objectAtIndex:i], 90); [body appendData:[NSData dataWithData:imageData]]; [body appendData:[[NSString stringWithFormat:@"\r\n--%@--\r\n",boundary] dataUsingEncoding:NSUTF8StringEncoding]]; // setting the body of the post to the reqeust [request setHTTPBody:body]; // now lets make the connection to the web [NSURLConnection sendSynchronousRequest:request returningResponse:nil error:nil]; //NSString *returnString = [[NSString alloc] initWithData:returnData encoding:NSUTF8StringEncoding]; //NSLog(@"%@",returnString); [imageData release]; [request release]; //[body release]; } } It successfully upload the images to the folder and there is no any error in the execution but when it complete it process and try to go back it give error -[NSConcreteMutableData release]: message sent to deallocated instance Please help me out. Thanks

    Read the article

  • printing the instance in Python

    - by kame
    Hello! With this code: class Complex: def __init__(self, realpart, imagpart): self.real = realpart self.imag = imagpart print self.real, self.imag class Circle: def __init__(self, radius): print "A circle wiht the radius", radius, "has the properties:" print "circumference =", 3.14*radius print "area =", 3.14*radius**2 I get this output: >>> Complex(3,2) 3 2 <__main__.Complex instance at 0x01412210> But why does he print the last line?

    Read the article

  • Overriding LINQ extension methods

    - by Ruben Vermeersch
    Is there a way to override extension methods (provide a better implementation), without explicitly having to cast to them? I'm implementing a data type that is able to handle certain operations more efficiently than the default extension methods, but I'd like to keep the generality of IEnumerable. That way any IEnumerable can be passed, but when my class is passed in, it should be more efficient. As a toy example, consider the following: // Compile: dmcs -out:test.exe test.cs using System; namespace Test { public interface IBoat { void Float (); } public class NiceBoat : IBoat { public void Float () { Console.WriteLine ("NiceBoat floating!"); } } public class NicerBoat : IBoat { public void Float () { Console.WriteLine ("NicerBoat floating!"); } public void BlowHorn () { Console.WriteLine ("NicerBoat: TOOOOOT!"); } } public static class BoatExtensions { public static void BlowHorn (this IBoat boat) { Console.WriteLine ("Patched on horn for {0}: TWEET", boat.GetType().Name); } } public class TestApp { static void Main (string [] args) { IBoat niceboat = new NiceBoat (); IBoat nicerboat = new NicerBoat (); Console.WriteLine ("## Both should float:"); niceboat.Float (); nicerboat.Float (); // Output: // NiceBoat floating! // NicerBoat floating! Console.WriteLine (); Console.WriteLine ("## One has an awesome horn:"); niceboat.BlowHorn (); nicerboat.BlowHorn (); // Output: // Patched on horn for NiceBoat: TWEET // Patched on horn for NicerBoat: TWEET Console.WriteLine (); Console.WriteLine ("## That didn't work, but it does when we cast:"); (niceboat as NiceBoat).BlowHorn (); (nicerboat as NicerBoat).BlowHorn (); // Output: // Patched on horn for NiceBoat: TWEET // NicerBoat: TOOOOOT! Console.WriteLine (); Console.WriteLine ("## Problem is: I don't always know the type of the objects."); Console.WriteLine ("## How can I make it use the class objects when the are"); Console.WriteLine ("## implemented and extension methods when they are not,"); Console.WriteLine ("## without having to explicitely cast?"); } } } Is there a way to get the behavior from the second case, without explict casting? Can this problem be avoided?

    Read the article

  • Ruby Methods: how to return an usage string when insufficient arguments are given

    - by Shyam
    Hi, After I have created a serious bunch of classes (with initialize methods), I am loading these into IRb to test each of them. I do so by creating simple instances and calling their methods to learn their behavior. However sometimes I don't remember exactly what order I was supposed to give the arguments when I call the .new method on the class. It requires me to look back at the code. However, I think it should be easy enough to return a usage message, instead of seeing: ArgumentError: wrong number of arguments (0 for 9) So I prefer to return a string with the human readable arguments, by example using "puts" or just a return of a string. Now I have seen the rescue keyword inside begin-end code, but I wonder how I could catch the ArgumentError when the initialize method is called. Thank you for your answers, feedback and comments!

    Read the article

  • Ruby class instance variables and inheritance

    - by rlandster
    I have a Ruby class called LibraryItem. I want to associate with every instance of this class an array of attributes. This array is long and looks something like ['title', 'authors', 'location', ...] Note that these attributes are not really supposed to be methods, just a list of attributes that a LibraryItem has. Next, I want to make a subclass of LibraryItem called LibraryBook that has an array of attributes that includes all the attributes of LibraryItem but will also include many more. Eventually I will want several subclasses of LibraryItem each with their own version of the array @attributes but each adding on to LibraryItem's @attributes (e.g., LibraryBook, LibraryDVD, LibraryMap, etc.). So, here is my attempt: class LibraryItem < Object class << self; attr_accessor :attributes; end @attributes = ['title', 'authors', 'location',] end class LibraryBook < LibraryItem @attributes.push('ISBN', 'pages'] end This does not work. I get the error undefined method `push' for nil:NilClass

    Read the article

  • PHP: OOP and methods

    - by Pirkka
    Hello I`ve been wondering how to implement methods in a class. Could someone explain me what means if one does OOP in procedural style? Here is an example: class Fld extends Model { private $file; private $properties = array(); public function init($file) { $this->file = $file; $this->parseFile(); } private function parseFile() { // parses the file foreach($this->file as $line)...... .................. $this->properties = $result; } } I mean is it a good thing to have methods like these that do operations for the class properties like that. Or should I pass the class property as method parameter... I mean this would cause error if the file property wouldnt be declared.

    Read the article

  • Operator Overloading with C# Extension Methods

    - by Blinky
    I'm attempting to use extension methods to add an operater overload to the C# StringBuilder class. Specifically, given StringBuilder sb, I'd like sb += "text" to become equivalent to sb.Append("text"); Here's the syntax for creating an extension method for StringBuilder: public static class sbExtensions { public static StringBuilder blah(this StringBuilder sb) { return sb; } } It successfully adds the "blah" extension method to the StringBuilder. Unfortunately, operator overloading does not seem to work: public static class sbExtensions { public static StringBuilder operator +(this StringBuilder sb, string s) { return sb.Append(s); } } Among other issues, the keyword 'this' is not allowed in this context. Are adding operator overloads via extension methods possible? If so, what's the proper way to go about it?

    Read the article

  • Homework - C# - Creating an object instance with a button click

    - by Erica
    I'm new to learning Windows Programming with C#. My current assignment is to create a very simple bank account program: The user enters the accountholder name, account number and beginning balance, then presses a "Continue" button to work with that account by making deposits and withdrawals. I wrote a separate "BankAccount" class with the required data members and methods. I've put the code for the creation of the BankAccount object in the Continue button click event BankAccount currentAccount = new BankAccount(acctName, acctNum, beginningBalance); But that seems to make it local to that method only, and currentAccount is not recognized when I'm programming the click event for the "Record Transactions" (deposits and withdrawals) button. How and where should the creation of the BankAccount object be coded in order for it to be created when the "Continue" button is clicked and also recognized in the "Record Transactions" button click event? Please let me know if any clarification is needed, or if you need to see part or all of my code.

    Read the article

  • Automatic conversion between methods and functions in Scala

    - by fikovnik
    I would like to understand the rules when can Scala automatically convert methods into functions. For example, if I have following two methods: def d1(a: Int, b: Int) {} def r[A, B](delegate: (A, B) ? Unit) {} I can do this: r(d1) But, when overloading r it will no longer work: def r[A, B, C](delegate: (A, B, C) ? Unit) {} r(d1) // no longer compiles and I have to explicitly convert method into partially applied function: r(d1 _) Is there any way to accomplish following with the explicit conversion? def r[A, B](delegate: (A, B) ? Unit) {} def r[A, B, C](delegate: (A, B, C) ? Unit) {} def d1(a: Int, b: Int) {} def d2(a: Int, b: Int, c: Int) {} r(d1) // only compiles with r(d1 _) r(d2) // only compiles with r(d2 _) There is somewhat similar question, but it is not fully explained.

    Read the article

  • EJB3 Caching Instance Variables

    - by Justin
    Hi, I've noticed some strange code on a project I am working on - its a SLSB EJB3, and it uses a private instance variable to maintain a cache of data (it even calls it dataCache or something), with a getter/setter. For EJB2 and bellow, this was a typical EJB antipattern - SLSBs are not meant to retain state in between invocations, theres no guarantee you'll see the same data on a subsequent invocation. One of my colleagues said maybe its ok in EJB3 (we don't have much EJB3 experience), but still, its a Stateless Session Bean - why is it trying to maintain state, this doesn't make sense. Can anyone confirm if this is still a bad idea in EJB3 land, or if somehow it is ok? Thanks if you can help, Justin

    Read the article

  • Expand a class instance within a class instance in PropertryGrid

    - by Dmi
    In C#, I have a class set up like so: class Page { public class Element { private string test; public string Test { get { return test; } set { test = value; } } } private Element element; public Element PrimaryElement { get { return element; } set { element = value; } } } If I have a PropertyGrid where the select object is an instance of Page, how can I modify Test in its member PrimaryElement from the PropertyGrid? It shows up in grey and is not expandable nor editable.

    Read the article

  • PHP Classes: Call method in instance of a class by instance's name

    - by Ursus Russus
    Hi, i have a class of this kind Class Car { private $color; public function __construct($color){ $this->color=$color; } public function get_color(){ return $this->$color; } } Then i create some instances of it: $blue_car = new car('blue'); $green_car = new car('green'); etc. Now i need to call method get_color() on the fly, according to instance's name $instance_name='green_car'; Is there any way to do it?

    Read the article

  • Accessing typedef from the instance

    - by piotr
    As in stl containers, why can't we access a typedef inside the class from the class instance? Is there a particular insight into this? When value_type was a template parameter it could help making more general code if there wasn't the need to specify the template parameters as in vector::value_type Example: class T { public: typedef int value_type; value_type i; }; T t; T::value_type i; // ok t.value_type i; // won't work

    Read the article

  • Flash AS3: automate property assignment to new instance from arguments in constructor

    - by matt lohkamp
    I like finding out about tricky new ways to do things. Let's say you've got a class with a property that gets set to the value of an argument in the constructor, like so: package{ public class SomeClass{ private var someProperty:*; public function SomeClass(_someProperty:*):void{ someProperty = _someProperty; } } } That's not exactly a hassle. But imagine you've got... I don't know, five properties. Ten properties, maybe. Rather then writing out each individual assignment, line by line, isn't there a way to loop through the constructor's arguments and set the value of each corresponding property on the new instance accordingly? I don't think that the ...rest or arguments objects will work, since they only keep an enumerated list of the arguments, not the argument names - I'm thinking something like this would be better: for(var propertyName:String in argsAsAssocArray){this[propertyName] = argsAsAssocArray[propertyName];} ... does something like this exist?

    Read the article

  • As2 loading swf instance

    - by user1748474
    I have a .swf which loads an external .swf: this.createEmptyMovieClip("container_mc", this.getNextHighestDepth()); var my_listener:Object = new Object(); my_listener.onLoadComplete = function(target_mc:MovieClip) { target_mc._x = 50; target_mc._y = 50; addChild(my_loader); var blocker = my_loader.content.test blocker._visible = false; } my_listener.onLoadProgress = function(target_mc:MovieClip) { trace(target_mc.getBytesLoaded() + " out of " + target_mc.getBytesTotal()); } var my_loader:MovieClipLoader = new MovieClipLoader(); my_loader.addListener(my_listener); my_loader.loadClip("child_as2.swf", container_mc); I want to acces the external swf and make the movieclip with instance name test visible = false; but it won't work. I have tried a lot of codes and right now it throws me this error: Scene=Escena 1, layer=Capa 1, frame=1, Line 9 There is no property with the name 'content'. Any idea? If you have a better code i will thank you so much.

    Read the article

  • Class Method not working in objective c

    - by byteSlayer
    In my code I have a class called 'ProfileShareViewController', In which I have imported another class I have created called 'OwnProfileData', And I have also created an Instance of that class (class = OwnProfileData) as a property Of 'ProfileShareViewController' and synthesized it (instance called 'OwnProfile'). In another class I have called 'EditProfileViewController', I have imported the 'ProfileShareViewController', and now I am trying to change a property of the OwnProfile object from the ProfileShareViewController within the EditProfileViewController class. For some reason that doesn't work. I have Tried typing: [[ProfileShareViewController ownProfile] setName:@"Ido"]; (The property I am trying to set is Name, and as it is synthesized in OwnProfileData, I am using 'setName'). This doesn't work and I get the warning: "No known class method for selector 'ownMethod'. Any Idea as for why that might happen and how I can fix this? Thanks for your comments! Any support is highly appreciated!

    Read the article

  • Creating a dynamic, extensible C# Expando Object

    - by Rick Strahl
    I love dynamic functionality in a strongly typed language because it offers us the best of both worlds. In C# (or any of the main .NET languages) we now have the dynamic type that provides a host of dynamic features for the static C# language. One place where I've found dynamic to be incredibly useful is in building extensible types or types that expose traditionally non-object data (like dictionaries) in easier to use and more readable syntax. I wrote about a couple of these for accessing old school ADO.NET DataRows and DataReaders more easily for example. These classes are dynamic wrappers that provide easier syntax and auto-type conversions which greatly simplifies code clutter and increases clarity in existing code. ExpandoObject in .NET 4.0 Another great use case for dynamic objects is the ability to create extensible objects - objects that start out with a set of static members and then can add additional properties and even methods dynamically. The .NET 4.0 framework actually includes an ExpandoObject class which provides a very dynamic object that allows you to add properties and methods on the fly and then access them again. For example with ExpandoObject you can do stuff like this:dynamic expand = new ExpandoObject(); expand.Name = "Rick"; expand.HelloWorld = (Func<string, string>) ((string name) => { return "Hello " + name; }); Console.WriteLine(expand.Name); Console.WriteLine(expand.HelloWorld("Dufus")); Internally ExpandoObject uses a Dictionary like structure and interface to store properties and methods and then allows you to add and access properties and methods easily. As cool as ExpandoObject is it has a few shortcomings too: It's a sealed type so you can't use it as a base class It only works off 'properties' in the internal Dictionary - you can't expose existing type data It doesn't serialize to XML or with DataContractSerializer/DataContractJsonSerializer Expando - A truly extensible Object ExpandoObject is nice if you just need a dynamic container for a dictionary like structure. However, if you want to build an extensible object that starts out with a set of strongly typed properties and then allows you to extend it, ExpandoObject does not work because it's a sealed class that can't be inherited. I started thinking about this very scenario for one of my applications I'm building for a customer. In this system we are connecting to various different user stores. Each user store has the same basic requirements for username, password, name etc. But then each store also has a number of extended properties that is available to each application. In the real world scenario the data is loaded from the database in a data reader and the known properties are assigned from the known fields in the database. All unknown fields are then 'added' to the expando object dynamically. In the past I've done this very thing with a separate property - Properties - just like I do for this class. But the property and dictionary syntax is not ideal and tedious to work with. I started thinking about how to represent these extra property structures. One way certainly would be to add a Dictionary, or an ExpandoObject to hold all those extra properties. But wouldn't it be nice if the application could actually extend an existing object that looks something like this as you can with the Expando object:public class User : Westwind.Utilities.Dynamic.Expando { public string Email { get; set; } public string Password { get; set; } public string Name { get; set; } public bool Active { get; set; } public DateTime? ExpiresOn { get; set; } } and then simply start extending the properties of this object dynamically? Using the Expando object I describe later you can now do the following:[TestMethod] public void UserExampleTest() { var user = new User(); // Set strongly typed properties user.Email = "[email protected]"; user.Password = "nonya123"; user.Name = "Rickochet"; user.Active = true; // Now add dynamic properties dynamic duser = user; duser.Entered = DateTime.Now; duser.Accesses = 1; // you can also add dynamic props via indexer user["NickName"] = "AntiSocialX"; duser["WebSite"] = "http://www.west-wind.com/weblog"; // Access strong type through dynamic ref Assert.AreEqual(user.Name,duser.Name); // Access strong type through indexer Assert.AreEqual(user.Password,user["Password"]); // access dyanmically added value through indexer Assert.AreEqual(duser.Entered,user["Entered"]); // access index added value through dynamic Assert.AreEqual(user["NickName"],duser.NickName); // loop through all properties dynamic AND strong type properties (true) foreach (var prop in user.GetProperties(true)) { object val = prop.Value; if (val == null) val = "null"; Console.WriteLine(prop.Key + ": " + val.ToString()); } } As you can see this code somewhat blurs the line between a static and dynamic type. You start with a strongly typed object that has a fixed set of properties. You can then cast the object to dynamic (as I discussed in my last post) and add additional properties to the object. You can also use an indexer to add dynamic properties to the object. To access the strongly typed properties you can use either the strongly typed instance, the indexer or the dynamic cast of the object. Personally I think it's kinda cool to have an easy way to access strongly typed properties by string which can make some data scenarios much easier. To access the 'dynamically added' properties you can use either the indexer on the strongly typed object, or property syntax on the dynamic cast. Using the dynamic type allows all three modes to work on both strongly typed and dynamic properties. Finally you can iterate over all properties, both dynamic and strongly typed if you chose. Lots of flexibility. Note also that by default the Expando object works against the (this) instance meaning it extends the current object. You can also pass in a separate instance to the constructor in which case that object will be used to iterate over to find properties rather than this. Using this approach provides some really interesting functionality when use the dynamic type. To use this we have to add an explicit constructor to the Expando subclass:public class User : Westwind.Utilities.Dynamic.Expando { public string Email { get; set; } public string Password { get; set; } public string Name { get; set; } public bool Active { get; set; } public DateTime? ExpiresOn { get; set; } public User() : base() { } // only required if you want to mix in seperate instance public User(object instance) : base(instance) { } } to allow the instance to be passed. When you do you can now do:[TestMethod] public void ExpandoMixinTest() { // have Expando work on Addresses var user = new User( new Address() ); // cast to dynamicAccessToPropertyTest dynamic duser = user; // Set strongly typed properties duser.Email = "[email protected]"; user.Password = "nonya123"; // Set properties on address object duser.Address = "32 Kaiea"; //duser.Phone = "808-123-2131"; // set dynamic properties duser.NonExistantProperty = "This works too"; // shows default value Address.Phone value Console.WriteLine(duser.Phone); } Using the dynamic cast in this case allows you to access *three* different 'objects': The strong type properties, the dynamically added properties in the dictionary and the properties of the instance passed in! Effectively this gives you a way to simulate multiple inheritance (which is scary - so be very careful with this, but you can do it). How Expando works Behind the scenes Expando is a DynamicObject subclass as I discussed in my last post. By implementing a few of DynamicObject's methods you can basically create a type that can trap 'property missing' and 'method missing' operations. When you access a non-existant property a known method is fired that our code can intercept and provide a value for. Internally Expando uses a custom dictionary implementation to hold the dynamic properties you might add to your expandable object. Let's look at code first. The code for the Expando type is straight forward and given what it provides relatively short. Here it is.using System; using System.Collections.Generic; using System.Linq; using System.Dynamic; using System.Reflection; namespace Westwind.Utilities.Dynamic { /// <summary> /// Class that provides extensible properties and methods. This /// dynamic object stores 'extra' properties in a dictionary or /// checks the actual properties of the instance. /// /// This means you can subclass this expando and retrieve either /// native properties or properties from values in the dictionary. /// /// This type allows you three ways to access its properties: /// /// Directly: any explicitly declared properties are accessible /// Dynamic: dynamic cast allows access to dictionary and native properties/methods /// Dictionary: Any of the extended properties are accessible via IDictionary interface /// </summary> [Serializable] public class Expando : DynamicObject, IDynamicMetaObjectProvider { /// <summary> /// Instance of object passed in /// </summary> object Instance; /// <summary> /// Cached type of the instance /// </summary> Type InstanceType; PropertyInfo[] InstancePropertyInfo { get { if (_InstancePropertyInfo == null && Instance != null) _InstancePropertyInfo = Instance.GetType().GetProperties(BindingFlags.Instance | BindingFlags.Public | BindingFlags.DeclaredOnly); return _InstancePropertyInfo; } } PropertyInfo[] _InstancePropertyInfo; /// <summary> /// String Dictionary that contains the extra dynamic values /// stored on this object/instance /// </summary> /// <remarks>Using PropertyBag to support XML Serialization of the dictionary</remarks> public PropertyBag Properties = new PropertyBag(); //public Dictionary<string,object> Properties = new Dictionary<string, object>(); /// <summary> /// This constructor just works off the internal dictionary and any /// public properties of this object. /// /// Note you can subclass Expando. /// </summary> public Expando() { Initialize(this); } /// <summary> /// Allows passing in an existing instance variable to 'extend'. /// </summary> /// <remarks> /// You can pass in null here if you don't want to /// check native properties and only check the Dictionary! /// </remarks> /// <param name="instance"></param> public Expando(object instance) { Initialize(instance); } protected virtual void Initialize(object instance) { Instance = instance; if (instance != null) InstanceType = instance.GetType(); } /// <summary> /// Try to retrieve a member by name first from instance properties /// followed by the collection entries. /// </summary> /// <param name="binder"></param> /// <param name="result"></param> /// <returns></returns> public override bool TryGetMember(GetMemberBinder binder, out object result) { result = null; // first check the Properties collection for member if (Properties.Keys.Contains(binder.Name)) { result = Properties[binder.Name]; return true; } // Next check for Public properties via Reflection if (Instance != null) { try { return GetProperty(Instance, binder.Name, out result); } catch { } } // failed to retrieve a property result = null; return false; } /// <summary> /// Property setter implementation tries to retrieve value from instance /// first then into this object /// </summary> /// <param name="binder"></param> /// <param name="value"></param> /// <returns></returns> public override bool TrySetMember(SetMemberBinder binder, object value) { // first check to see if there's a native property to set if (Instance != null) { try { bool result = SetProperty(Instance, binder.Name, value); if (result) return true; } catch { } } // no match - set or add to dictionary Properties[binder.Name] = value; return true; } /// <summary> /// Dynamic invocation method. Currently allows only for Reflection based /// operation (no ability to add methods dynamically). /// </summary> /// <param name="binder"></param> /// <param name="args"></param> /// <param name="result"></param> /// <returns></returns> public override bool TryInvokeMember(InvokeMemberBinder binder, object[] args, out object result) { if (Instance != null) { try { // check instance passed in for methods to invoke if (InvokeMethod(Instance, binder.Name, args, out result)) return true; } catch { } } result = null; return false; } /// <summary> /// Reflection Helper method to retrieve a property /// </summary> /// <param name="instance"></param> /// <param name="name"></param> /// <param name="result"></param> /// <returns></returns> protected bool GetProperty(object instance, string name, out object result) { if (instance == null) instance = this; var miArray = InstanceType.GetMember(name, BindingFlags.Public | BindingFlags.GetProperty | BindingFlags.Instance); if (miArray != null && miArray.Length > 0) { var mi = miArray[0]; if (mi.MemberType == MemberTypes.Property) { result = ((PropertyInfo)mi).GetValue(instance,null); return true; } } result = null; return false; } /// <summary> /// Reflection helper method to set a property value /// </summary> /// <param name="instance"></param> /// <param name="name"></param> /// <param name="value"></param> /// <returns></returns> protected bool SetProperty(object instance, string name, object value) { if (instance == null) instance = this; var miArray = InstanceType.GetMember(name, BindingFlags.Public | BindingFlags.SetProperty | BindingFlags.Instance); if (miArray != null && miArray.Length > 0) { var mi = miArray[0]; if (mi.MemberType == MemberTypes.Property) { ((PropertyInfo)mi).SetValue(Instance, value, null); return true; } } return false; } /// <summary> /// Reflection helper method to invoke a method /// </summary> /// <param name="instance"></param> /// <param name="name"></param> /// <param name="args"></param> /// <param name="result"></param> /// <returns></returns> protected bool InvokeMethod(object instance, string name, object[] args, out object result) { if (instance == null) instance = this; // Look at the instanceType var miArray = InstanceType.GetMember(name, BindingFlags.InvokeMethod | BindingFlags.Public | BindingFlags.Instance); if (miArray != null && miArray.Length > 0) { var mi = miArray[0] as MethodInfo; result = mi.Invoke(Instance, args); return true; } result = null; return false; } /// <summary> /// Convenience method that provides a string Indexer /// to the Properties collection AND the strongly typed /// properties of the object by name. /// /// // dynamic /// exp["Address"] = "112 nowhere lane"; /// // strong /// var name = exp["StronglyTypedProperty"] as string; /// </summary> /// <remarks> /// The getter checks the Properties dictionary first /// then looks in PropertyInfo for properties. /// The setter checks the instance properties before /// checking the Properties dictionary. /// </remarks> /// <param name="key"></param> /// /// <returns></returns> public object this[string key] { get { try { // try to get from properties collection first return Properties[key]; } catch (KeyNotFoundException ex) { // try reflection on instanceType object result = null; if (GetProperty(Instance, key, out result)) return result; // nope doesn't exist throw; } } set { if (Properties.ContainsKey(key)) { Properties[key] = value; return; } // check instance for existance of type first var miArray = InstanceType.GetMember(key, BindingFlags.Public | BindingFlags.GetProperty); if (miArray != null && miArray.Length > 0) SetProperty(Instance, key, value); else Properties[key] = value; } } /// <summary> /// Returns and the properties of /// </summary> /// <param name="includeProperties"></param> /// <returns></returns> public IEnumerable<KeyValuePair<string,object>> GetProperties(bool includeInstanceProperties = false) { if (includeInstanceProperties && Instance != null) { foreach (var prop in this.InstancePropertyInfo) yield return new KeyValuePair<string, object>(prop.Name, prop.GetValue(Instance, null)); } foreach (var key in this.Properties.Keys) yield return new KeyValuePair<string, object>(key, this.Properties[key]); } /// <summary> /// Checks whether a property exists in the Property collection /// or as a property on the instance /// </summary> /// <param name="item"></param> /// <returns></returns> public bool Contains(KeyValuePair<string, object> item, bool includeInstanceProperties = false) { bool res = Properties.ContainsKey(item.Key); if (res) return true; if (includeInstanceProperties && Instance != null) { foreach (var prop in this.InstancePropertyInfo) { if (prop.Name == item.Key) return true; } } return false; } } } Although the Expando class supports an indexer, it doesn't actually implement IDictionary or even IEnumerable. It only provides the indexer and Contains() and GetProperties() methods, that work against the Properties dictionary AND the internal instance. The reason for not implementing IDictionary is that a) it doesn't add much value since you can access the Properties dictionary directly and that b) I wanted to keep the interface to class very lean so that it can serve as an entity type if desired. Implementing these IDictionary (or even IEnumerable) causes LINQ extension methods to pop up on the type which obscures the property interface and would only confuse the purpose of the type. IDictionary and IEnumerable are also problematic for XML and JSON Serialization - the XML Serializer doesn't serialize IDictionary<string,object>, nor does the DataContractSerializer. The JavaScriptSerializer does serialize, but it treats the entire object like a dictionary and doesn't serialize the strongly typed properties of the type, only the dictionary values which is also not desirable. Hence the decision to stick with only implementing the indexer to support the user["CustomProperty"] functionality and leaving iteration functions to the publicly exposed Properties dictionary. Note that the Dictionary used here is a custom PropertyBag class I created to allow for serialization to work. One important aspect for my apps is that whatever custom properties get added they have to be accessible to AJAX clients since the particular app I'm working on is a SIngle Page Web app where most of the Web access is through JSON AJAX calls. PropertyBag can serialize to XML and one way serialize to JSON using the JavaScript serializer (not the DCS serializers though). The key components that make Expando work in this code are the Properties Dictionary and the TryGetMember() and TrySetMember() methods. The Properties collection is public so if you choose you can explicitly access the collection to get better performance or to manipulate the members in internal code (like loading up dynamic values form a database). Notice that TryGetMember() and TrySetMember() both work against the dictionary AND the internal instance to retrieve and set properties. This means that user["Name"] works against native properties of the object as does user["Name"] = "RogaDugDog". What's your Use Case? This is still an early prototype but I've plugged it into one of my customer's applications and so far it's working very well. The key features for me were the ability to easily extend the type with values coming from a database and exposing those values in a nice and easy to use manner. I'm also finding that using this type of object for ViewModels works very well to add custom properties to view models. I suspect there will be lots of uses for this - I've been using the extra dictionary approach to extensibility for years - using a dynamic type to make the syntax cleaner is just a bonus here. What can you think of to use this for? Resources Source Code and Tests (GitHub) Also integrated in Westwind.Utilities of the West Wind Web Toolkit West Wind Utilities NuGet© Rick Strahl, West Wind Technologies, 2005-2012Posted in CSharp  .NET  Dynamic Types   Tweet !function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js";fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document,"script","twitter-wjs"); (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

  • Magic Methods in Python

    - by dArignac
    Howdy, I'm kind of new to Python and I wonder if there is a way to create something like the magic methods in PHP (http://www.php.net/manual/en/language.oop5.overloading.php#language.oop5.overloading.methods) My aim is to ease the access of child classes in my model. I basically have a parent class that has n child classes. These classes have three values, a language key, a translation key and a translation value. The are describing a kind of generic translation handling. The parent class can have translations for different translation key each in different languages. E.g. the key "title" can be translated into german and english and the key "description" too (and so far and so on) I don't want to get the child classes and filter by the set values (at least I want but not explicitly, the concrete implementation behind the magic method would do this). I want to call parent_class.title['de'] # or also possible maybe parent_class.title('de') for getting the translation of title in german (de). So there has to be a magic method that takes the name of the called method and their params (as in PHP). As far as I dug into Python this is only possible with simple attributes (_getattr_, _setattr_) or with setting/getting directly within the class (_getitem_, _setitem_) which both do not fit my needs. Maybe there is a solution for this? Please help! Thanks in advance!

    Read the article

  • Threading.Timer invokes asynchronously many methods

    - by Dimitar
    Hi guys! Please help! I call a threading.timer from global.asax which invokes many methods each of which gets data from different services and writes it to files. My question is how do i make the methods to be invoked on a regular basis let's say 5 mins? What i do is: in Global.asax I declare a timer protected void Application_Start() { TimerCallback timerDelegate = new TimerCallback(myMainMethod); Timer mytimer = new Timer(timerDelegate, null, 0, 300000); Application.Add("timer", mytimer); } the declaration of myMainMethod looks like this: public static void myMainMethod(object obj) { MyDelegateType d1 = new MyDelegateType(getandwriteServiceData1); d1.BeginInvoke(null, null); MyDelegateType d2 = new MyDelegateType(getandwriteServiceData2); d2.BeginInvoke(null, null); } this approach works fine but it invokes myMainMethod every 5 mins. What I need is the method to be invoked 5 mins after all the data is retreaved and written to files on the server. How do I do that?

    Read the article

  • Generics in return types of static methods and inheritance

    - by Axel
    Generics in return types of static methods do not seem to get along well with inheritance. Please take a look at the following code: class ClassInfo<C> { public ClassInfo(Class<C> clazz) { this(clazz,null); } public ClassInfo(Class<C> clazz, ClassInfo<? super C> superClassInfo) { } } class A { public static ClassInfo<A> getClassInfo() { return new ClassInfo<A>(A.class); } } class B extends A { // Error: The return type is incompatible with A.getClassInfo() public static ClassInfo<B> getClassInfo() { return new ClassInfo<B>(B.class, A.getClassInfo()); } } I tried to circumvent this by changing the return type for A.getClassInfo(), and now the error pops up at another location: class ClassInfo<C> { public ClassInfo(Class<C> clazz) { this(clazz,null); } public ClassInfo(Class<C> clazz, ClassInfo<? super C> superClassInfo) { } } class A { public static ClassInfo<? extends A> getClassInfo() { return new ClassInfo<A>(A.class); } } class B extends A { public static ClassInfo<? extends B> getClassInfo() { // Error: The constructor ClassInfo<B>(Class<B>, ClassInfo<capture#1-of ? extends A>) is undefined return new ClassInfo<B>(B.class, A.getClassInfo()); } } What is the reason for this strict checking on static methods? And how can I get along? Changing the method name seems awkward.

    Read the article

  • Extensions methods and forward compatibilty of source code.

    - by TcKs
    Hi, I would like solve the problem (now hypothetical but propably real in future) of using extension methods and maginification of class interface in future development. Example: /* the code written in 17. March 2010 */ public class MySpecialList : IList<MySpecialClass> { // ... implementation } // ... somewhere elsewhere ... MySpecialList list = GetMySpecialList(); // returns list of special classes var reversedList = list.Reverse().ToList(); // .Reverse() is extension method /* now the "list" is unchanged and "reveresedList" has same items in reversed order */ /* --- in future the interface of MySpecialList will be changed because of reason XYZ*/ /* the code written in some future */ public class MySpecialList : IList<MySpecialClass> { // ... implementation public MySpecialList Reverse() { // reverse order of items in this collection return this; } } // ... somewhere elsewhere ... MySpecialList list = GetMySpecialList(); // returns list of special classes var reversedList = list.Reverse().ToList(); // .Reverse() was extension method but now is instance method and do something else ! /* now the "list" is reversed order of items and "reveresedList" has same items lake in "list" */ My question is: Is there some way how to prevent this case (I didn't find them)? If is now way how to prevent it, is there some way how to find possible issues like this? If is now way how to find possible issues, should I forbid usage of extension methods? Thanks.

    Read the article

  • Go - Methods of an interface

    - by nevalu
    Would be correct the next way to implement the methods attached to an interface? (getKey, getData) type reader interface { getKey(ver uint) string getData() string } type location struct { reader fileLocation string err os.Error } func (self *location) getKey(ver uint) string {...} func (self *location) getData() string {...} func NewReader(fileLocation string) *location { _location := new(location) _location.fileLocation = fileLocation return _location }

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >