Search Results

Search found 1555 results on 63 pages for 'mutiple inheritance'.

facebook twitter digg google delicious technorati stumbleupon myspace wordpress linkedin gmail igoogle windows live tumblr viadeo yahoo buzz yahoo mail yahoo bookmarks favorites email print

Page 58/63 | < Previous Page | 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63  | Next Page >

  • JAXB code generation: how to remove a zero occurrence field?

    - by reef
    Hi all, I use JAXB 2.1 to generate Java classes from several XSD files, and I have a problem related to complex type restriction. On of the restrictions modifies the occurence configuration from minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="unbounded" to minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="0". Thus this field is not needed anymore in the restricted type. But actually JAXB generates the restricted class with a [0..1] cardinality instead of 0. By the way the generation is tuned with <xjc:treatRestrictionLikeNewType / so that a XSD restriction is not mapped to a Java class inheritance. Here is an example: Here is the way a field is defined in a complex type A: <element name="qualifier" type="CR" maxOccurs="unbounded" minOccurs="0"/ Here is the way the same field is restricted in another complex type B that restricts A: <element name="qualifier" type="CR" minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="0"/ In the A generated class I have: @XmlElement(name = "qualifier") protected List<CR qualifiers; And in the B generated class I have: protected CR qualifiers; With my poor understanding of JAXB the absence of the XmlElement annotation tells JAXB not to marshall/unmarshall this field. Am I wrong? If I am right is there a way to tell JAXB not to generate the qualifiers field at all? This would be in my opinion a much better generation as it respects the constraints. Any idea, thougths on the topic? Thanks!!

    Read the article

  • CreateProcess() fails with an access violation

    - by John Doe
    My aim is to execute an external executable in my program. First, I used system() function, but I don't want the console to be seen to the user. So, I searched a bit, and found CreateProcess() function. However, when I try to pass a parameter to it, I don't know why, it fails. I took this code from MSDN, and changed a bit: #include <windows.h> #include <stdio.h> #include <tchar.h> void _tmain( int argc, TCHAR *argv[] ) { STARTUPINFO si; PROCESS_INFORMATION pi; ZeroMemory( &si, sizeof(si) ); si.cb = sizeof(si); ZeroMemory( &pi, sizeof(pi) ); /* if( argc != 2 ) { printf("Usage: %s [cmdline]\n", argv[0]); return; } */ // Start the child process. if( !CreateProcess( NULL, // No module name (use command line) L"c:\\users\\e\\desktop\\mspaint.exe", // Command line NULL, // Process handle not inheritable NULL, // Thread handle not inheritable FALSE, // Set handle inheritance to FALSE 0, // No creation flags NULL, // Use parent's environment block NULL, // Use parent's starting directory &si, // Pointer to STARTUPINFO structure &pi ) // Pointer to PROCESS_INFORMATION structure ) { printf( "CreateProcess failed (%d).\n", GetLastError() ); return; } // Wait until child process exits. WaitForSingleObject( pi.hProcess, INFINITE ); // Close process and thread handles. CloseHandle( pi.hProcess ); CloseHandle( pi.hThread ); } However, this code crated access violation somehow. Can I execute mspaint without showing user the console? Thank you very much.

    Read the article

  • How to "wrap" implementation in C#

    - by igor
    Hello, I have these classes in C# (.NET Framework 3.5) described below: public class Base { public int State {get; set;} public virtual int Method1(){} public virtual string Method2(){} ... public virtual void Method10(){} } public class B: Base { // some implementation } public class Proxy: Base { private B _b; public class Proxy(B b) { _b = b; } public override int Method1() { if (State == Running) return _b.Method1(); else return base.Method1(); } public override string Method2() { if (State == Running) return _b.Method2(); else return base.Method2(); } public override void Method10() { if (State == Running) _b.Method10(); else base.Method10(); } } I want to get something this: public Base GetStateDependentImplementation() { if (State == Running) // may be some other rule return _b; else return base; // compile error } and my Proxy's implementation will be: public class Proxy: Base { ... public override int Method1() { return GetStateDependentImplementation().Method1(); } public override string Method2() { return GetStateDependentImplementation().Method2(); } ... } Of course, I can do this (aggregation of base implementation): public RepeaterOfBase: Base // no any overrides, just inheritance { } public class Proxy: Base { private B _b; private RepeaterOfBase _Base; public class Proxy(B b, RepeaterOfBase aBase) { _b = b; _base = aBase; } } ... public Base GetStateDependentImplementation() { if (State == Running) return _b; else return _Base; } ... But instance of Base class is very huge and I have to avoid to have other additional copy in memory. So I have to simplify my code have to "wrap" implementation have to avoid a code duplication have to avoid aggregation of any additional instance of Base class (duplication) Is it possible to reach these goals?

    Read the article

  • 3 websites 1 Project

    - by godz-gift05
    Hey Guys, OK. we are currently on a plan to develop a website for 3 same company. The main difference would be just the look and maybe a couple of extra question for one or two company. Currently each company have their own website and when they required a new function we have to re-code all three website or when one wants a new function just one website update. What we wanna accomplish is to create ONE website that could house all these 3 website. Most of these website function are the same like 90% function is the same I figure out the different look which can be done changing the website style-theme.. But we have problem tackling the functionality of if one company wanted to add something. So if we wanted to update a function we just wanna do a change in one function and that should apply for all.. And if one function is required for one company then just add the new fucntion and assign it to 1 company... How do u structure something like this.. We wanna be able to control what being displayed based on the company and also the fucntions available. THANK YOU. I just need some direction on how to do this, Right now Inheritance is on my head to solve all this problem.

    Read the article

  • Database choices

    - by flobadob
    I have a prickly design issue regarding the choice of database technologies to use for a group of new applications. The final suite of applications would have the following database requirements... Central databases (more than one database) using mysql (myst be mysql due to justhost.com). An application to be written which accesses the multiple mysql databases on the web host. This application will also write to local serverless database (sqlite/firebird/vistadb/whatever). Different flavors of this application will be created for windows (.NET), windows mobile, android if possible, iphone if possible. So, the design task is to minimise the quantity of code to achieve this. This is going to be tricky since the languages used are already c# / java (android) and objc (iphone). Not too worried about that, but can the work required to implement the various database access layers be minimised? The serverless database will hold similar data to the mysql server, so some kind of inheritance in the DAL would be useful. Looking at hibernate/nhibernate and there is linq to whatever. So many choices!

    Read the article

  • Is is possible to do an end-run around generics covariance in C# < 4 in this hypothetical situation?

    - by John Feminella
    Suppose I have a small inheritance hierarchy of Animals: public interface IAnimal { string Speak(); } public class Animal : IAnimal { public Animal() {} public string Speak() { return "[Animal] Growl!"; } } public class Ape : IAnimal { public string Speak() { return "[Ape] Rawrrrrrrr!"; } } public class Bat : IAnimal { public string Speak() { return "[Bat] Screeeeeee!"; } } Next, here's an interface offering a way to turn strings into IAnimals. public interface ITransmogrifier<T> where T : IAnimal { T Transmogrify(string s); } And finally, here's one strategy for doing that: public class Transmogrifier<T> : ITransmogrifier<T> where T : IAnimal, new() { public T Transmogrify(string s) { T t = default(T); if (typeof(T).Name == s) t = new T(); return t; } } Now, the question. Is it possible to replace the sections marked [1], [2], and [3] such that this program will compile and run correctly? If you can't do it without touching parts other than [1], [2], and [3], can you still get an IAnimal out of each instance of a Transmogrifier in a collection containing arbitrary implementations of an IAnimal? Can you even form such a collection to begin with? static void Main(string[] args) { var t = new Transmogrifier<Ape>(); Ape a = t.Transmogrify("Ape"); Console.WriteLine(a.Speak()); // Works! // But can we make an arbitrary collection of such animals? var list = new List<Transmogrifier< [1] >>() { // [2] }; // And how about we call Transmogrify() on each one? foreach (/* [3] */ transmogrifier in list) { IAnimal ia = transmogrifier.Transmogrify("Bat"); } } }

    Read the article

  • JPA: persisting object, parent is ok but child not updated

    - by James.Elsey
    Hello, I have my domain object, Client, I've got a form on my JSP that is pre-populated with its data, I can take in amended values, and persist the object. Client has an abstract entity called MarketResearch, which is then extended by one of three more concrete sub-classes. I have a form to pre-populate some MarketResearch data, but when I make changes and try to persist the Client, it doesn't get saved, can someone give me some pointers on where I've gone wrong? My 3 domain classes are as follows (removed accessors etc) public class Client extends NamedEntity { @OneToOne @JoinColumn(name = "MARKET_RESEARCH_ID") private MarketResearch marketResearch; ... } @Inheritance(strategy = InheritanceType.JOINED) public abstract class MarketResearch extends AbstractEntity { ... } @Entity(name="MARKETRESEARCHLG") public class MarketResearchLocalGovernment extends MarketResearch { @Column(name = "CURRENT_HR_SYSTEM") private String currentHRSystem; ... } This is how I'm persisting public void persistClient(Client client) { if (client.getId() != null) { getJpaTemplate().merge(client); getJpaTemplate().flush(); } else { getJpaTemplate().persist(client); } } To summarize, if I change something on the parent object, it persists, but if I change something on the child object it doesn't. Have I missed something blatantly obvious? Thanks

    Read the article

  • Cant we use a Set or collection as a return type in GAE?

    - by user273422
    In my code i have used Set<Employees> as a return type to my function addEmp(). So, i m gettin an Compilation error. The Error is: Compiling module com.employeedepartmentgae.Employeedepartmentgae Refreshing module from source Validating newly compiled units Removing units with errors [ERROR] Errors in 'file:/home/wissen18/employeedepartmentgae/src/com/employeedepartmentgae/client/GreetingServiceAsync.java' [ERROR] Line 6: The import com.employeedepartmentgae.server.domainobject.Employee cannot be resolved [ERROR] Line 18: Employee cannot be resolved to a type [ERROR] Errors in 'file:/home/wissen18/employeedepartmentgae/src/com/employeedepartmentgae/client/GreetingService.java' [ERROR] Line 6: The import com.employeedepartmentgae.server.domainobject.Employee cannot be resolved [ERROR] Line 20: Employee cannot be resolved to a type [ERROR] Errors in 'file:/home/wissen18/employeedepartmentgae/src/com/employeedepartmentgae/client/EmployeeWidget.java' [ERROR] Line 12: The import com.employeedepartmentgae.server.domainobject.Employee cannot be resolved [ERROR] Line 75: The method addEmp(String, String, String, AsyncCallback) from the type GreetingServiceAsync refers to the missing type Employee [ERROR] Line 75: The type new AsyncCallback(){} must implement the inherited abstract method AsyncCallback.onSuccess(Set) [ERROR] Line 75: Employee cannot be resolved to a type [ERROR] Line 94: The method onSuccess(Set) of type new AsyncCallback(){} must override or implement a supertype method [ERROR] Line 94: Employee cannot be resolved to a type [ERROR] Line 96: Employee cannot be resolved to a type [ERROR] Line 96: Employee cannot be resolved to a type [ERROR] Line 98: Employee cannot be resolved to a type Removing invalidated units [WARN] Compilation unit 'file:/home/wissen18/employeedepartmentgae/src/com/employeedepartmentgae/client/Employeedepartmentgae.java' is removed due to invalid reference(s): [WARN] file:/home/wissen18/employeedepartmentgae/src/com/employeedepartmentgae/client/EmployeeWidget.java [WARN] Compilation unit 'file:/home/wissen18/employeedepartmentgae/src/com/employeedepartmentgae/client/DepartmentWidget.java' is removed due to invalid reference(s): [WARN] file:/home/wissen18/employeedepartmentgae/src/com/employeedepartmentgae/client/GreetingService.java [WARN] file:/home/wissen18/employeedepartmentgae/src/com/employeedepartmentgae/client/GreetingServiceAsync.java Computing all possible rebind results for 'com.employeedepartmentgae.client.Employeedepartmentgae' Rebinding com.employeedepartmentgae.client.Employeedepartmentgae Checking rule [ERROR] Unable to find type 'com.employeedepartmentgae.client.Employeedepartmentgae' [ERROR] Hint: Previous compiler errors may have made this type unavailable [ERROR] Hint: Check the inheritance chain from your module; it may not be inheriting a required module or a module may not be adding its source path entries properly So please help me.....

    Read the article

  • Why do I have to specify pure virtual functions in the declaration of a derived class in Visual C++?

    - by neuviemeporte
    Given the base class A and the derived class B: class A { public: virtual void f() = 0; }; class B : public A { public: void g(); }; void B::g() { cout << "Yay!"; } void B::f() { cout << "Argh!"; } I get errors saying that f() is not declared in B while trying do define void B::f(). Do I have to declare f() explicitly in B? I think that if the interface changes I shouldn't have to correct the declarations in every single class deriving from it. Is there no way for B to get all the virtual functions' declarations from A automatically? EDIT: I found an article that says the inheritance of pure virtual functions is dependent on the compiler: http://www.objectmentor.com/resources/articles/abcpvf.pdf I'm using VC++2008, wonder if there's an option for this.

    Read the article

  • Can I write a .NETCF Partial Class to extend System.Windows.Forms.UserControl?

    - by eidylon
    Okay... I'm writing a .NET CF (VBNET 2008 3.5 SP1) application, which has one master form, and it dynamically loads specific UserControls based on menu click, in a sort of framework idea. There are certain methods and properties these controls all need to work within the app. Right now I am doing this as an Interface, but this is aggravating as all get up, because some of the methods are optional, and yet I MUST implement them by the nature of interfaces. I would prefer to use inheritance, so that I can have certain code be inherited with overridability, but if I write a class which inherits System.Windows.Forms.UserControl and then inherit my control from that, it squiggles, and tells me that UserControls MUST inherit directly from System.Windows.Forms.UserControl. (Talk about a design flaw!) So next I thought, well, let me use a partial class to extend System.Windows.Forms.UserControl, but when I do that, even though it all seems to compile fine, none of my new properties/methods show up on my controls. Is there any way I can use partial classes to 'extend' System.Windows.Forms.UserControl? For example, can anyone give me a code sample of a partial class which simply adds a MyCount As Integer readonly property to the System.Windows.Forms.UserControl class? If I can just see how to get this going, I can take it from there and add the rest of my functionality. Thanks in advance! I've been searching google, but can't find anything that seems to work for UserControl extension on .NET CF. And the Interface method is driving me crazy as even a small change means updating ALL the controls whether they need to 'override' the method or not.

    Read the article

  • How to pass data to a C++0x lambda function that will run in a different thread?

    - by Dimitri C.
    In our company we've written a library function to call a function asynchronously in a separate thread. It works using a combination of inheritance and template magic. The client code looks as follows: DemoThread thread; std::string stringToPassByValue = "The string to pass by value"; AsyncCall(thread, &DemoThread::SomeFunction, stringToPassByValue); Since the introduction of lambda functions I'd like to use it in combination with lambda functions. I'd like to write the following client code: DemoThread thread; std::string stringToPassByValue = "The string to pass by value"; AsyncCall(thread, [=]() { const std::string someCopy = stringToPassByValue; }); Now, with the Visual C++ 2010 this code doesn't work. What happens is that the stringToPassByValue is not copied. Instead the "capture by value" feature passes the data by reference. The result is that if the function is executed after stringToPassByValue has gone out of scope, the application crashes as its destructor is called already. So I wonder: is it possible to pass data to a lambda function as a copy? Note: One possible solution would be to modify our framework to pass the data in the lambda parameter declaration list, as follows: DemoThread thread; std::string stringToPassByValue = "The string to pass by value"; AsyncCall(thread, [=](const std::string stringPassedByValue) { const std::string someCopy = stringPassedByValue; } , stringToPassByValue); However, this solution is so verbose that our original function pointer solution is both shorter and easier to read. Update: The full implementation of AsyncCall is too big to post here. In short, what happens is that the AsyncCall template function instantiates a template class holding the lambda function. This class is derived from a base class that contains a virtual Execute() function, and upon an AsyncCall() call, the function call class is put on a call queue. A different thread then executes the queued calls by calling the virtual Execute() function, which is polymorphically dispatched to the template class which then executes the lambda function.

    Read the article

  • The same property and procedure in different Classes. How they can be accessed ?

    - by lyborko
    Hi, I created several new objects TMyMemo = class (TMemo) private FYahoo = Integer; procedure SetYahoo(Value:integer) public procedure Google(A,B:integer; S:string); published property Yahoo:integer read FYahoo write SetYahoo; end; TMyPaintbox = class (TPaintbox) private FYahoo = Integer; procedure SetYahoo(Value:integer) public procedure Google(A,B:integer; S:string); published property Yahoo:integer read FYahoo write SetYahoo; end; TMyButton = class (TButton) private FYahoo = Integer; procedure SetYahoo(Value:integer) public procedure Google(A,B:integer; S:string); published property Yahoo:integer read FYahoo write SetYahoo; end; . . . These Controls are placed on Form1. Is there a way, how can I change the same property (Yahoo) and run the procedure (Google), which is declared in different objects (inheritance is not possible) ? procedure Form1.Button1Click(Sender:TObject); var i:integer; begin for i:=0 to Form1.ControlCount-1 do begin Controls[i].Google(4,5, 'Web'); // this should be changed somehow Controls[i].Yahoo:=6; // this should be changed somehow end; end; end; Thanks

    Read the article

  • interface variables are final and static by default and methods are public and abstract

    - by sap
    The question is why it's been decided to have variable as final and static and methods as public and abstract by default. Is there any particular reason for making them implicit,variable as final and static and methods as public and abstract. Why they are not allowing static method but allowing static variable? We have interface to have feature of multiple inheritance in Java and to avoid diamond problem. But how it solves diamond problem,since it does not allow static methods. In the following program, both interfaces have method with the same name..but while implementing only one we implement...is this how diamond problem is solved? interface testInt{ int m = 0; void testMethod(); } interface testInt1{ int m = 10; void testMethod(); } public class interfaceCheck implements testInt, testInt1{ public void testMethod(){ System . out . println ( "m is"+ testInt.m ); System . out . println ( "Hi World!" ); } }

    Read the article

  • avoiding code duplication in Rails 3 models

    - by Dustin Frazier
    I'm working on a Rails 3.1 application where there are a number of different enum-like models that are stored in the database. There is a lot of identical code in these models, as well as in the associated controllers and views. I've solved the code duplication for the controllers and views via a shared parent controller class and the new view/layout inheritance that's part of Rails 3. Now I'm trying to solve the code duplication in the models, and I'm stuck. An example of one of my enum models is as follows: class Format < ActiveRecord::Base has_and_belongs_to_many :videos attr_accessible :name validates :name, presence: true, length: { maximum: 20 } before_destroy :verify_no_linked_videos def verify_no_linked_videos unless self.videos.empty? self.errors[:base] << "Couldn't delete format with associated videos." raise ActiveRecord::RecordInvalid.new self end end end I have four or five other classes with nearly identical code (the association declaration being the only difference). I've tried creating a module with the shared code that they all include (which seems like the Ruby Way), but much of the duplicate code relies on ActiveRecord, so the methods I'm trying to use in the module (validate, attr_accessible, etc.) aren't available. I know about ActiveModel, but that doesn't get me all the way there. I've also tried creating a common, non-persistent parent class that subclasses ActiveRecord::Base, but all of the code I've seen to accomplish this assumes that you won't have subclasses of your non-persistent class that do persist. Any suggestions for how best to avoid duplicating these identical lines of code across many different enum models?

    Read the article

  • Is there a design pattern to cut down on code duplication when subclassing Activities in Android?

    - by Daniel Lew
    I've got a common task that I do with some Activities - downloading data then displaying it. I've got the downloading part down pat; it is, of course, a little tricky due to the possibility of the user changing the orientation or cancelling the Activity before the download is complete, but the code is there. There is enough code handling these cases such that I don't want to have to copy/paste it to each Activity I have, so I thought to create an abstract subclass Activity itself such that it handles a single background download which then launches a method which fills the page with data. This all works. The issue is that, due to single inheritance, I am forced to recreate the exact same class for any other type of Activity - for example, I use Activity, ListActivity and MapActivity. To use the same technique for all three requires three duplicate classes, except each extends a different Activity. Is there a design pattern that can cut down on the code duplication? As it stands, I have saved much duplication already, but it pains me to see the exact same code in three classes just so that they each subclass a different type of Activity.

    Read the article

  • How to use interfaces in exception handling

    - by vikp
    Hi, I'm working on the exception handling layer for my application. I have read few articles on interfaces and generics. I have used inheritance before quite a lot and I'm comfortable with in that area. I have a very brief design that I'm going to implement: public interface IMyExceptionLogger { public void LogException(); // Helper methods for writing into files,db, xml } I'm slightly confused what I should be doing next. public class FooClass: IMyExceptionLogger { // Fields // Constructors } Should I implement LogException() method within FooClass? If yes, than I'm struggling to see how I'm better of using an interface instead of the concrete class... I have a variety of classes that will make a use of that interface, but I don't want to write an implementation of that interface within each class. In the same time If I implement an interface in one class, and then use that class in different layers of the application I will be still using concrete classes instead of interfaces, which is a bad OO design... I hope this makes sense. Any feedback and suggestions are welcome. Please notice that I'm not interested in using net4log or its competitors because I'm doing this to learn. Thank you Edit: Wrote some more code. So I will implement variety of loggers with this interface, i.e. DBExceptionLogger, CSVExceptionLogger, XMLExceptionLogger etc. Than I will still end up with concrete classes that I will have to use in different layers of my application.

    Read the article

  • multiple models in Rails with a shared interface

    - by dfondente
    I'm not sure of the best structure for a particular situation in Rails. We have several types of workshops. The administration of the workshops is the same regardless of workshop type, so the data for the workshops is in a single model. We collect feedback from participants about the workshops, and the questionnaire is different for each type of workshop. I want to access the feedback about the workshop from the workshop model, but the class of the associated model will depend on the type of workshop. If I was doing this in something other than Rails, I would set up an abstract class for WorkshopFeedback, and then have subclasses for each type of workshop: WorkshopFeedbackOne, WorkshopFeedbackTwo, WorkshopFeedbackThree. I'm unsure how to best handle this with Rails. I currently have: class Workshop < ActiveRecord::Base has_many :workshop_feedbacks end class Feedback < ActiveRecord::Base belongs_to :workshop has_many :feedback_ones has_many :feedback_twos has_many :feedback_threes end class FeedbackOne < ActiveRecord::Base belongs_to :feedback end class FeedbackTwo < ActiveRecord::Base belongs_to :feedback end class FeedbackThree < ActiveRecord::Base belongs_to :feedback end This doesn't seem like to the cleanest way to access the feedback from the workshop model, as accessing the correct feedback will require logic investigating the Workshop type and then choosing, for instance, @workshop.feedback.feedback_one. Is there a better way to handle this situation? Would it be better to use a polymorphic association for feedback? Or maybe using a Module or Mixin for the shared Feedback interface? Note: I am avoiding using Single Table Inheritance here because the FeedbackOne, FeedbackTwo, FeedbackThree models do not share much common data, so I would end up with a large sparsely populated table with STI.

    Read the article

  • Why Is the sender type null when dealing with events

    - by ChloeRadshaw
    From C# Via CLR: Note A lot of people wonder why the event pattern requires the sender parameter to always be of type Object After all, since the MailManager will be the only type raising an event with a NewMail EventArgs object, it makes more sense for the callback method to be prototyped like this: void MethodName(Mai l Manager sender, NewMail EventArgs e); The pattern requires the sender parameter to be of type Object mostly because of inheritance What if Mai lManager were used as a base class for SmtpMailManager? In this case, the callback method should have the sender parameter prototyped as SmtpMailManager instead of Mail Manager, but this can’t happen because SmtpMai lManager just inherited the NewMai l event So the code that was expecting SmtpMail Manager to raise the event must still have to cast the sender argument to SmtpMailManager In other words, the cast is still required, so the sender parameter might as well be typed as Obj ect The next reason for typing the sender parameter as Obj ect is just fexibility It allows the delegate to be used by multiple types that offer an event that passes a NewMail EventArgs object For example, a PopMai lManager class could use the delegate even if this class were not derived from Mail Manager I just simply cannot understand why the sender is an object - Why can it not be generified? so most of the time we do not need to do generic casts

    Read the article

  • Unit Testing Interfaces in Python

    - by Nicholas Mancuso
    I am currently learning python in preperation for a class over the summer and have gotten started by implementing different types of heaps and priority based data structures. I began to write a unit test suite for the project but ran into difficulties into creating a generic unit test that only tests the interface and is oblivious of the actual implementation. I am wondering if it is possible to do something like this.. suite = HeapTestSuite(BinaryHeap()) suite.run() suite = HeapTestSuite(BinomialHeap()) suite.run() What I am currently doing just feels... wrong (multiple inheritance? ACK!).. class TestHeap: def reset_heap(self): self.heap = None def test_insert(self): self.reset_heap() #test that insert doesnt throw an exception... for x in self.inseq: self.heap.insert(x) def test_delete(self): #assert we get the first value we put in self.reset_heap() self.heap.insert(5) self.assertEquals(5, self.heap.delete_min()) #harder test. put in sequence in and check that it comes out right self.reset_heap() for x in self.inseq: self.heap.insert(x) for x in xrange(len(self.inseq)): val = self.heap.delete_min() self.assertEquals(val, x) class BinaryHeapTest(TestHeap, unittest.TestCase): def setUp(self): self.inseq = range(99, -1, -1) self.heap = BinaryHeap() def reset_heap(self): self.heap = BinaryHeap() class BinomialHeapTest(TestHeap, unittest.TestCase): def setUp(self): self.inseq = range(99, -1, -1) self.heap = BinomialHeap() def reset_heap(self): self.heap = BinomialHeap() if __name__ == '__main__': unittest.main()

    Read the article

  • C# WCF and Object Inheritence

    - by Michael Edwards
    I have the following setup of two classes: [SerializableAttribute] public class ParentData{ [DataMember] public string Title{get;set;} } [DataContract] public class ChildData : ParentData{ [DataMember] public string Abstract{get;set;} } These two classes are served through a WCF service. However I only want the service to expose the ChildData class to the end user but pull the marked up DataMember properties from the parent. E.g. The consuming client would have a stub class that looked like: public class ChildData{ public string Title{get;set;} public string Abstract{get;set;} } If I uses the parent and child classes as above the stub class only contains the Abstract property. I have looked at using the KnownType attribute on the ChildData class like so: [DataContract] [KnownType(typeOf(ParentData)] public class ChildData : ParentData{ [DataMember] public string Abstract{get;set;} } However this didn't work. I then applied the DataContract attribute to the ParentData class, however this then creates two stub classes in the client application which I don't want. Is there any way to tell the serializer that it should flatten the inheritance to that of the sub-class i.e. ChildData

    Read the article

  • C++ Design Question on template types

    - by user231536
    I have a templated class template <typename T> class MyContainerClass For types to be substituted for T, it has to satisfy many requirements: for example, get_id(), int data(), etc. Obviously none of the fundamental types (PODs) are substitutable. One way I can provide this is via wrappers for the PODs that provide these functions. Is this an acceptable way? Another way would be to change the template to: template < typename T, typename C=traits<T> > class MyContainerClass and inside MyContainerClass, call traits::data() instead of data() on T objects. I will specialize traits<int>, traits<const char *> etc. Is this good design ? How do I design such a traits class (completely static methods or allow for inheritance) ? Or are the wrapper classes a good solution? What other alternatives are there?

    Read the article

  • How to make 2 incompatible types, but with the same members, interchangeable?

    - by Quigrim
    Yesterday 2 of the guys on our team came to me with an uncommon problem. We are using a third-party component in one of our winforms applications. All the code has already been written against it. They then wanted to incorporate another third-party component, by the same vender, into our application. To their delight they found that the second component had the exact same public members as the first. But to their dismay, the 2 components have completely separate inheritance hierarchies, and implement no common interfaces. Makes you wonder... Well, makes me wonder. An example of the problem: public class ThirdPartyClass1 { public string Name { get { return "ThirdPartyClass1"; } } public void DoThirdPartyStuff () { Console.WriteLine ("ThirdPartyClass1 is doing its thing."); } } public class ThirdPartyClass2 { public string Name { get { return "ThirdPartyClass2"; } } public void DoThirdPartyStuff () { Console.WriteLine ("ThirdPartyClass2 is doing its thing."); } } Gladly they felt copying and pasting the code they wrote for the first component was not the correct answer. So they were thinking of assigning the component instant into an object reference and then modifying the code to do conditional casts after checking what type it was. But that is arguably even uglier than the copy and paste approach. So they then asked me if I can write some reflection code to access the properties and call the methods off the two different object types since we know what they are, and they are exactly the same. But my first thought was that there goes the elegance. I figure there has to be a better, graceful solution to this problem.

    Read the article

  • Why is Attributes.IsDefined() missing overloads?

    - by Hans Passant
    Inspired by an SO question. The Attribute class has several overloads for the IsDefined() method. Covered are attributes applied to Assembly, Module, MemberInfo, ParameterInfo. The MemberInfo overload covers PropertyInfo, FieldInfo, EventInfo, MethodInfo, ConstructorInfo. That takes care of most of the AttributeTargets. Except for one biggy: there is no overload for Attribute.IsDefined(Type, Type) so that you could check if an attribute is defined on a class. Or a struct, delegate or enum for that matter. Not that this is a real problem, Type.GetCustomAttributes() can fix that. But all of the BlahInfo types have this too. I wonder at the lack of symmetry. I can't put a finger on why this would be problem for Type. Guessing at an inheritance problem doesn't explain it to me. Having ValueType in the mix might be a lead, still doesn't make sense. I don't buy "they forgot", they never do. Why is this overload missing?

    Read the article

  • How to handle single Ajax Error for Entire page using jquery

    - by Thiyagarajan
    In My page i am sending data to server side using 8 ajax call... I don't want to handle ajax error for each and every ajax call...... Single ajax error handle all the ajax error in entire page.... is their any inheritance is possible for the entire page.. function SendConfirmationEmail(ShipmentID, ChannelOrderReference) { var Url = '<%=Url.Action("SendShipmentEmail","Shipments") %>'; $.ajax({ cache: false, type: "POST", data: 'strOrderShipmentId=' + ShipmentID + '&channelOrderReference=' + ChannelOrderReference, url: Url, datatype: "HTML", success: function (data) { if (data == "1") { SucessErrorMessageDisplay('DivStatus', 'lblStatus', 'imgStatus', 0, 'Email is successfully sent for Order#' + ChannelOrderReference + ''); } if (data == "-2") { SucessErrorMessageDisplay('DivStatus', 'lblStatus', 'imgStatus', 0, 'Email Template is not Choosen for this Store'); } if (data == "-1") { SucessErrorMessageDisplay('DivStatus', 'lblStatus', 'imgStatus', 0, 'Problem in Sending Email for Order#' + ChannelOrderReference + ''); } if (data == "0") { SucessErrorMessageDisplay('DivStatus', 'lblStatus', 'imgStatus', 0, 'Connection Failed to Send Email for Order# ' + ChannelOrderReference + ''); } if (data == "-3") { SucessErrorMessageDisplay('DivStatus', 'lblStatus', 'imgStatus', 0, 'ShipTo Email Address is Not Given for Order# ' + ChannelOrderReference + ''); } // SucessErrorMessageDisplay('DivStatus', 'lblStatus', 'imgStatus', 0, 'Order# :' + ChannelOrderReference + ' is voided successfully'); }, error: function (xhr, ajaxOptions, thrownError) { if (xhr.status == 403) { window.location.href = '<%: Url.Action( "SessionExpire", "Home" ) %>'; } } }); }

    Read the article

  • C++ reinterpret cast ?

    - by Ian
    I would like to cast one object of the class PointsList to another object Points3DList (and vice versa) where: template <class T> class PointsList { protected: std::vector <Point <T> *> points; //Only illustration, not possible with templaes }; and template <class T> class Points3DList { protected: std::vector <Point3D<T> *> points; //Only illustration, not possible with templaes }; Between Point and Point3D there is no relationship (inheritance nor composition)... template <class T> class Point { protected: T x; T y; }; template <class T> class Point3D { protected: T x; T y; T z; }; What do you think about conversion Points3DList <T> *pl3D = new Points3DList <T> (); ... PointsList <T> *pl = reinterpret_cast < PointList <T> * > ( pl3D ); where pl3D represents pointer to Points3DList object.. Can reinterpret_cast be used in this case or it is better to create a conversion function? Data model in this case can not be changed...

    Read the article

facebook twitter digg google delicious technorati stumbleupon myspace wordpress linkedin gmail igoogle windows live tumblr viadeo yahoo buzz yahoo mail yahoo bookmarks favorites email print

< Previous Page | 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63  | Next Page >