Search Results

Search found 11306 results on 453 pages for 'methods'.

Page 54/453 | < Previous Page | 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61  | Next Page >

  • By what methods can I check information about a DVD video disc?

    - by chobok
    I have some DVD video discs that I am intending to sell. I would like to get information such as region, language, subtitles. Some of the discs are in another language which I cannot read, and some are from small publishers and do not have such information on the disc or the boxes. What methods can I use to access this information? Please list command line options, as well as common GUI based tools (eg VLC player).

    Read the article

  • What Java data structure/design pattern best models this object, considering it would perform these methods?

    - by zundarz
    Methods: 1. getDistance(CityA,CityB) // Returns distance between two cities 2. getCitiesInRadius(CityA,integer) // Returns cities within a given distance of another city 3. getCitiesBeyondRadius(CityA,integer) //Returns cities beyond a given distance of another city 4. getRemoteDestinations(integer) // Returns all city pairs greater than x distance of each other 5. getLocalDestinations(integer) //Returns all city pairs within x distance of each other

    Read the article

  • What is the most concise, unambiguous syntax for operator associated methods (for overloading etc.) that doesn't pollute the namespace?

    - by Doug Treadwell
    Python tends to add double underscores before its built-in or overloadable operator methods, like __add(), whereas C++ requires declaring overloaded operators as operator + (Thing& thing) { /* code */ } for example. Personally I like the operator syntax because it seems to be more explicit and keeps these operator overloading methods separated from other methods without introducing weird prefix notation. What are your thoughts? Also, what about the case of built-in methods that are needed for the programming language to work properly? Is name mangling (like adding __ prefix or sys or something) the best solution here? What do you think about having another type of method declaration, like ... "system method" for lack of creativity at the moment. So there would be two kinds of declarations: int method_name() { ... } system int method_name() { ... } ... and the call would need to be different to distinguish between them. obj.method_name(); vs obj:method_name(); perhaps, assuming a language where : can be unambiguously used in this situation. obj.method_name() vs obj.(system method_name)() Sure, the latter is ugly, but the idea is to make the common case simple and system stuff should be kept out of the way. Maybe the Objective-C notation of method calls? [obj method_name]? Are there more alternatives? Please make suggestions.

    Read the article

  • Multiple calls to different page methods in same web page are not running in parallel (JQuery/Ajax/A

    - by Tony_Henrich
    I have several page methods defined in the code behind of an aspx page. I have several JS calls (see example below), one after the other, in the ready() method of JQuery to call these page methods. I noticed the javascript calls run asynchronously but the .NET page methods do not run in parallel. Page method 1 finishes first before page method 2 runs. Is there a way to get all the page methods to run all at the same time? My workaround is to put each method in its own aspx page or use iframes but I am looking for better solutions. $.ajax({ type: "POST", url: (page/methodname), data: "{}", contentType: "application/json; charset=utf-8", dataType: "json", success: function(msg) { .... } } });

    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

  • Can you overload controller methods in ASP.Net MVC?

    - by Eric Brown
    Im curious to see if you can overload controller methods in ASP.Net MVC. Whenever I try, I get the error below. The two methods accept different arguements. Is this something that cannot be done? The current request for action 'MyMethod' on controller type 'MyController' is ambiguous between the following action methods:

    Read the article

  • Is writing comments inside methods not a good practice?

    - by Srini Kandula
    A friend told me that writing comments inside methods is not good. He said that we should have comments only for the method definitions(javadocs) but not inside the method body. It seems he read in a book that having comments inside the code means there is a problem in the code. I don't quite understand his reasoning. I think writing comments inside the method body is good and it helps other developers to understand it better and faster. Please provide your comments.

    Read the article

  • What is the advantage of using static methods in Python?

    - by Curious2learn
    I ran into unbound method error in python with the code class Sample(object): '''This class defines various methods related to the sample''' def drawSample(samplesize,List): sample=random.sample(List,samplesize) return sample Choices=range(100) print Sample.drawSample(5,Choices) After reading many helpful posts here, I figured how I could add @staticmethod above to get the code working. I am python newbie. Can someone please explain why one would want to define static methods? Or, why are not all methods defined as static methods. Thanks in advance.

    Read the article

  • Contract Programming - Deposit % and Payment Methods? Any advice is appreciated

    - by Rick
    I'm pretty new to doing contract work and finally landed a decent paying project. The guy actually offered to put down a deposit and I'm just wondering what percentage I should consider asking for. I was thinking around 25% since its not a terribly large project (only about 20 hours). Also, I can't use PayPal (have had a terrible experience with them freezing funds for no good reason) so I'm wondering if anyone can suggest other methods for the client to send the deposit / payment. I want to make it as easy as possible for them.. thanks for any advice

    Read the article

  • How can I get all the methods in a Protocol?

    - by jdinuncio
    Hello, How can I get a collection of all the (class) methods in a given protocol in smalltalk/squeak/pharo? I'm trying to collect the values returned by a group of methods. I don't want to have to store the methods in an instance or class variable. So I though I could add them to a protocol and in this way to "mark" them. Thanks.

    Read the article

  • Can pydoc/help hide the documentation for inherited class methods and attributes?

    - by EOL
    When declaring a class that inherits from a specific class: class C(dict): added_attribute = 0 the documentation for C lists all the methods of dict (either through help(C) or pydoc). Is there a way to hide the inherited methods from the automatically generated documentation (the documentation string can refer to the base class, for non-overwritten methods)? This would be useful: pydoc lists the functions defined in a module after its classes. Thus, when the classes have a very long documentation, a lot of less than useful information is printed before the new functions provided by the module are presented, which makes the documentation harder to exploit (you have to skip all the documentation for the inherited methods until you reach something specific to the module being documented).

    Read the article

  • Does it make sense to have a model with only static methods?

    - by Jamie Dixon
    Hey everyone, I have an ASP.NET MVC 2 project that I'm working on and I'm wondering where I should place some of my code. I currently have a UsersModel which consists of a bunch of static methods that operate against my data context. These methods include such things as: UserExistsInDatabase, UserIsRegisteredForActivity, GetUserIdFromFacebookId etc etc. Should these methods be inside a UsersModel class or would they be more suited to a user helper class outside of the models context? Cheers for any pointers.

    Read the article

  • How do you know when to split an object method into 2 or more other methods?

    - by blacktie24
    Hi, I know this is a very basic question, but I sometimes find myself struggling to figure out when to split a single object method into multiple methods. For example, I am trying to set up an ACL using Zend_Acl and Zend_Auth, as shown in this tutorial: http://devzone.zend.com/article/1665. However, I am wondering if the My_Plugin_Auth::preDispatch() method should invoke calls to a method called authenticate() and a method called authorize(), instead of having everything lumped in under preDispatch(). I was thinking that this would make the code more readable and encapsulate the logic into its smaller parts, but i'm not sure if this is reason enough.

    Read the article

  • Is there anything wrong with having a few private methods exposing IQueryable<T> and all public meth

    - by Nate Bross
    I'm wondering if there is a better way to approach this problem. The objective is to reuse code. Let’s say that I have a Linq-To-SQL datacontext and I've written a "repository style" class that wraps up a lot of the methods I need and exposes IQueryables. (so far, no problem). Now, I'm building a service layer to sit on top of this repository, many of the service methods will be 1<-1 with repository methods, but some will not. I think a code sample will illustrate this better than words. public class ServiceLayer { MyClassDataContext context; IMyRepository rpo; public ServiceLayer(MyClassDataContext ctx) { context = ctx; rpo = new MyRepository(context); } private IQueryable<MyClass> ReadAllMyClass() { // pretend there is some complex business logic here // and maybe some filtering of the current users access to "all" // that I don't want to repeat in all of the public methods that access // MyClass objects. return rpo.ReadAllMyClass(); } public IEnumerable<MyClass> GetAllMyClass() { // call private IQueryable so we can do attional "in-database" processing return this.ReadAllMyClass(); } public IEnumerable<MyClass> GetActiveMyClass() { // call private IQueryable so we can do attional "in-database" processing // in this case a .Where() clause return this.ReadAllMyClass().Where(mc => mc.IsActive.Equals(true)); } #region "Something my class MAY need to do in the future" private IQueryable<MyOtherTable> ReadAllMyOtherTable() { // there could be additional constrains which define // "all" for the current user return context.MyOtherTable; } public IEnumerable<MyOtherTable> GetAllMyOtherTable() { return this.ReadAllMyOtherTable(); } public IEnumerable<MyOtherTable> GetInactiveOtherTable() { return this.ReadAllMyOtherTable.Where(ot => ot.IsActive.Equals(false)); } #endregion } This particular case is not the best illustration, since I could just call the repository directly in the GetActiveMyClass method, but let’s presume that my private IQueryable does some extra processing and business logic that I don't want to replicate in both of my public methods. Is that a bad way to attack an issue like this? I don't see it being so complex that it really warrants building a third class to sit between the repository and the service class, but I'd like to get your thoughts. For the sake of argument, lets presume two additional things. This service is going to be exposed through WCF and that each of these public IEnumerable methods will be calling a .Select(m => m.ToViewModel()) on each returned collection which will convert it to a POCO for serialization. The service will eventually need to expose some context.SomeOtherTable which wont be wrapped into the repository.

    Read the article

  • What is a good use case for static import of methods?

    - by Miserable Variable
    Just got a review comment that my static import of the method was not a good idea. The static import was of a method from a DA class, which has mostly static methods. So in middle of the business logic I had a da activity that apparently seemed to belong to the current class: import static some.package.DA.*; class BusinessObject { void someMethod() { .... save(this); } } The reviewer was not keen that I change the code and I didn't but I do kind of agree with him. One reason given for not static-importing was it was confusing where the method was defined, it wasn't in the current class and not in any superclass so it too some time to identify its definition (the web based review system does not have clickable links like IDE :-) I don't really think this matters, static-imports are still quite new and soon we will all get used to locating them. But the other reason, the one I agree with, is that an unqualified method call seems to belong to current object and should not jump contexts. But if it really did belong, it would make sense to extend that super class. So, when does it make sense to static import methods? When have you done it? Did/do you like the way the unqualified calls look? EDIT: The popular opinion seems to be that static-import methods if nobody is going to confuse them as methods of the current class. For example methods from java.lang.Math and java.awt.Color. But if abs and getAlpha are not ambiguous I don't see why readEmployee is. As in lot of programming choices, I think this too is a personal preference thing. Thanks for your response guys, I am closing the question.

    Read the article

  • Can pydoc/help() hide the documentation for inherited class methods and attributes?

    - by EOL
    When declaring a class that inherits from a specific class: class C(dict): added_attribute = 0 the documentation for class C lists all the methods of dict (either through help(C) or pydoc). Is there a way to hide the inherited methods from the automatically generated documentation (the documentation string can refer to the base class, for non-overwritten methods)? or is it impossible? This would be useful: pydoc lists the functions defined in a module after its classes. Thus, when the classes have a very long documentation, a lot of less than useful information is printed before the new functions provided by the module are presented, which makes the documentation harder to exploit (you have to skip all the documentation for the inherited methods until you reach something specific to the module being documented).

    Read the article

  • Methods specific only to an instance? What are they called in Ruby?

    - by daremarkovic
    I know there are "instance methods", "class methods" but what are these types of methods called, for eg: s1 = "This is my STRING!" def s1.m1 downcase end p s1 # => "This is my STRING!" p s1.m1 # => "this is my string!" What type of method is the "m1" method called on the s1 "instance" of the "string" class? It's really weird because I didn't know this was possible at all if I try: s2 = "This is ANOTHER string" s2.m1 # => Won't work! Which kind of makes sense, but not sure why defining methods like m1 on instances on a class are useful at all.

    Read the article

  • SQL SERVER – Three Methods to Insert Multiple Rows into Single Table – SQL in Sixty Seconds #024 – Video

    - by pinaldave
    One of the biggest ask I have always received from developers is that if there is any way to insert multiple rows into a single table in a single statement. Currently when developers have to insert any value into the table they have to write multiple insert statements. First of all this is not only boring it is also very much time consuming as well. Additionally, one has to repeat the same syntax so many times that the word boring becomes an understatement. In the following quick video we have demonstrated three different methods to insert multiple values into a single table. -- Insert Multiple Values into SQL Server CREATE TABLE #SQLAuthority (ID INT, Value VARCHAR(100)); Method 1: Traditional Method of INSERT…VALUE -- Method 1 - Traditional Insert INSERT INTO #SQLAuthority (ID, Value) VALUES (1, 'First'); INSERT INTO #SQLAuthority (ID, Value) VALUES (2, 'Second'); INSERT INTO #SQLAuthority (ID, Value) VALUES (3, 'Third'); Clean up -- Clean up TRUNCATE TABLE #SQLAuthority; Method 2: INSERT…SELECT -- Method 2 - Select Union Insert INSERT INTO #SQLAuthority (ID, Value) SELECT 1, 'First' UNION ALL SELECT 2, 'Second' UNION ALL SELECT 3, 'Third'; Clean up -- Clean up TRUNCATE TABLE #SQLAuthority; Method 3: SQL Server 2008+ Row Construction -- Method 3 - SQL Server 2008+ Row Construction INSERT INTO #SQLAuthority (ID, Value) VALUES (1, 'First'), (2, 'Second'), (3, 'Third'); Clean up -- Clean up DROP TABLE #SQLAuthority; Related Tips in SQL in Sixty Seconds: SQL SERVER – Insert Multiple Records Using One Insert Statement – Use of UNION ALL SQL SERVER – 2008 – Insert Multiple Records Using One Insert Statement – Use of Row Constructor I encourage you to submit your ideas for SQL in Sixty Seconds. We will try to accommodate as many as we can. If we like your idea we promise to share with you educational material. Reference: Pinal Dave (http://blog.sqlauthority.com) Filed under: Database, Pinal Dave, PostADay, SQL, SQL Authority, SQL in Sixty Seconds, SQL Query, SQL Scripts, SQL Server, SQL Server Management Studio, SQL Tips and Tricks, T SQL, Technology, Video

    Read the article

  • Is it useful to unit test methods where the only logic is guards?

    - by Vaccano
    Say I have a method like this: public void OrderNewWidget(Widget widget) { if ((widget.PartNumber > 0) && (widget.PartAvailable)) { WigdetOrderingService.OrderNewWidgetAsync(widget.PartNumber); } } I have several such methods in my code (the front half to an async Web Service call). I am debating if it is useful to get them covered with unit tests. Yes there is logic here, but it is only guard logic. (Meaning I make sure I have the stuff I need before I allow the web service call to happen.) Part of me says "sure you can unit test them, but it is not worth the time" (I am on a project that is already behind schedule). But the other side of me says, if you don't unit test them, and someone changes the Guards, then there could be problems. But the first part of me says back, if someone changes the guards, then you are just making more work for them (because now they have to change the guards and the unit tests for the guards). For example, if my service assumes responsibility to check for Widget availability then I may not want that guard any more. If it is under unit test, I have to change two places now. I see pros and cons in both ways. So I thought I would ask what others have done.

    Read the article

  • What do you do if you reach a design dead-end in evolutionary methods like Agile or XP?

    - by Dipan Mehta
    As I was reading Martin Fowler's famous blog post Is Design Dead?, one of the striking impressions I got is that given the fact that in Agile Methodology and Extreme Programming, the design as well as programming is evolutionary, there are always points where things need to get refactored. It may be possible that when a programmer's level is good, and they understand design implications and don't make critical mistakes, the code continues to evolve. However, in a normal context, what is the ground reality in this context? In a normal day given some significant development goes into product, and when critical change occurs in requirement isn't it a constraint that how much ever we wish, fundamental design aspects cannot be modified? (without throwing away major part of the code). Is it not quite likely that one reaches dead-end on any further possible improvement on design and requirements? I am not advocating any non-Agile practice here, but I want to know from people who practice agile or iterative or evolutionary development methods, as for their real experiences. Have you ever reached such dead-ends? How have you managed to avoid it or escaped it? Or are there measures to ensure that design remains clean and flexible as it evolves?

    Read the article

  • Should I use an interface when methods are only similar?

    - by Joshua Harris
    I was posed with the idea of creating an object that checks if a point will collide with a line: public class PointAndLineSegmentCollisionDetector { public void Collides(Point p, LineSegment s) { // ... } } This made me think that if I decided to create a Box object, then I would need a PointAndBoxCollisionDetector and a LineSegmentAndBoxCollisionDetector. I might even realize that I should have a BoxAndBoxCollisionDetector and a LineSegmentAndLineSegmentCollisionDetector. And, when I add new objects that can collide I would need to add even more of these. But, they all have a Collides method, so everything I learned about abstraction is telling me, "Make an interface." public interface CollisionDetector { public void Collides(Spatial s1, Spatial s2); } But now I have a function that only detects some abstract class or interface that is used by Point, LineSegment, Box, etc.. So if I did this then each implementation would have to to a type check to make sure that the types are the appropriate type because the collision algorithm is different for each different type match up. Another solution could be this: public class CollisionDetector { public void Collides(Point p, LineSegment s) { ... } public void Collides(LineSegment s, Box b) { ... } public void Collides(Point p, Box b) { ... } // ... } But, this could end up being a huge class that seems unwieldy, although it would have simplicity in that it is only a bunch of Collide methods. This is similar to C#'s Convert class. Which is nice because it is large, but it is simple to understand how it works. This seems to be the better solution, but I thought I should open it for discussion as a wiki to get other opinions.

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61  | Next Page >