Search Results

Search found 61449 results on 2458 pages for 'base class library'.

Page 596/2458 | < Previous Page | 592 593 594 595 596 597 598 599 600 601 602 603  | Next Page >

  • How should I organize my Java GUI?

    - by Spencer
    I'm creating a game in Java for fun and I'm trying to decide how to organize my classes for the GUI. So far, all the classes with only the swing components and layout (no logic) are in a package called "ui". I now need to add listeners (i.e. ActionListener) to components (i.e. button). The listeners need to communicate with the Game class. Currently I have: Game.java - creates the frame add panels to it import javax.swing.; import ui.; public class Game { private JFrame frame; Main main; Rules rules; Game() { rules = new Rules(); frame = new JFrame(); frame.setDefaultCloseOperation(JFrame.EXIT_ON_CLOSE); main = new Main(); frame.setContentPane(main.getContentPane()); show(); } void show() { frame.pack(); frame.setLocationRelativeTo(null); frame.setVisible(true); } public static void main(String[] args) { new Game(); } } Rules.java - game logic ui package - all classes create new panels to be swapped out with the main frame's content pane Main.java (Main Menu) - creates a panel with components Where do I now place the functionality for the Main class? In the game class? Separate class? Or is the whole organization wrong? Thanks

    Read the article

  • What are the different methods for injecting cross-cutting concerns?

    - by Stacy Vicknair
    What are the different methods for injecting cross-cutting concerns into a class so that I can minimize the coupling of the classes involved while keeping the code testable (TDD or otherwise)? For example, consider if I have a class that requires both logging functionality and centralized exception management. Should I use DIP and inject both required concerns via an interface into the class that requires them? Should I use a service locater that I pass to each class that will require some cross cutting functionality? Is there a different solution altogether? Am I asking the wrong question entirely?

    Read the article

  • Why One-to-one relationship dosen't work?

    - by eugenn
    I'm trying to create a very simple relationship between two objects. Can anybody explain me why I can't find the Company object via findBy method? class Company { String name String desc City city static constraints = { city(unique: true) } } class City { String name static constraints = { } } class BootStrap { def init = { servletContext -> new City(name: 'Tokyo').save() new City(name: 'New York').save() new Company(name: 'company', city: City.findByName('New York')).save() def c = Company.findByName('company') // Why c=null????! } def destroy = { } }

    Read the article

  • C# DDD Populate Immutable Objects

    - by Russel
    Hi I have a immutable Customer class in my domain assembly. It contains the following GET properties : id, firstname and lastname. I have a CustomerRepository class in my persistence assembly. In turn, this CustomerRepository class should populate and return a Customer object using a remote web-serivce. My Customer class contains no setter properties and it contains a private constructor. The reason - I dont want the UI developer to get the wrong idea - He should not be able to create or change a Customer object. My question: How do I get my CustomerRepository to populate my Customer object. Reflection? Or should I sacrifice my design and enable a public constructor for constructing the customer object?

    Read the article

  • Who needs singletons?

    - by sexyprout
    Imagine you access your MySQL database via PDO. You got some functions, and in these functions, you need to access the database. The first thing I thought of is global, like: $db = new PDO('mysql:host=127.0.0.1;dbname=toto', 'root', 'pwd'); function some_function() { global $db; $db->query('...'); } But it's considered as a bad practice. So, after a little search, I ended up with the Singleton pattern, which "applies to situations in which there needs to be a single instance of a class." According to the example of the manual, we should do this: class Database { private static $instance, $db; private function __construct(){} static function singleton() { if(!isset(self::$instance)) self::$instance = new __CLASS__; return self:$instance; } function get() { if(!isset(self::$db)) self::$db = new PDO('mysql:host=127.0.0.1;dbname=toto', 'user', 'pwd') return self::$db; } } function some_function() { $db = Database::singleton(); $db->get()->query('...'); } some_function(); But I just can't understand why you need that big class when you can do it merely with: class Database { private static $db; private function __construct(){} static function get() { if(!isset(self::$rand)) self::$db = new PDO('mysql:host=127.0.0.1;dbname=toto', 'user', 'pwd'); return self::$db; } } function some_function() { Database::get()->query('...'); } some_function(); This last one works perfectly and I don't need to worry about $db anymore. But maybe I'm forgetting something. So, who's wrong, who's right?

    Read the article

  • Most proper way to use inherited classes with shared scopes in Mongo?

    - by Trip
    I have the TestVisual class that is inherited by the Game class : class TestVisual < Game include MongoMapper::Document end class Game include MongoMapper::Document belongs_to :maestra key :incorrect, Integer key :correct, Integer key :time_to_complete, Integer key :maestra_id, ObjectId timestamps! end As you can see it belongs to Maestra. So I can do Maestra.first.games But I can not to Maestra.first.test_visuals Since I'm working specifically with TestVisuals, that is ideally what I would like to pull. Is this possible with Mongo. If it isn't or if it isn't necessary, is there any other better way to reach the TestVisual object from Maestra and still have it inherit Game ?

    Read the article

  • Catch a PHP Object Instantiation Error

    - by Rob Wilkerson
    It's really irking me that PHP considers the failure to instantiate an object a Fatal Error (which can't be caught) for the application as a whole. I have set of classes that aren't strictly necessary for my application to function--they're really a convenience. I have a factory object that attempts to instantiate the class variant that's indicated in a config file. This mechanism is being deployed for message storage and will support multiple store types: DatabaseMessageStore FileMessageStore MemcachedMessageStore etc. A MessageStoreFactory class will read the application's preference from a config file, instantiate and return an instance of the appropriate class. It might be easy enough to slap a conditional around the instantiation to ensure that class_exists(), but MemcachedMessageStore extends PHP's Memcached class. As a result, the class_exists() test will succeed--though instantiation will fail--if the memcached bindings for PHP aren't installed. Is there any other way to test whether a class can be instantiated properly? If it can't, all I need to do is tell the user which features won't be available to them, but let them continue one with the application. Thanks.

    Read the article

  • Does C++ have a static polymorphism implementation of interface that does not use vtable?

    - by gilbertc
    Does C++ have a proper implementation of interface that does not use vtable? for example class BaseInterface{ public: virtual void func() const = 0; } class BaseInterfaceImpl:public BaseInterface{ public: void func(){ std::cout<<"called."<<endl; } } BaseInterface* obj = new BaseInterfaceImpl(); obj->func(); the call to func at the last line goes to vtable to find the func ptr of BaseInterfaceImpl::func, but is there any C++ way to do that directly as the BaseInterfaceImpl is not subclassed from any other class besides the pure interface class BaseInterface? Thanks. Gil.

    Read the article

  • Type of member is not CLS-compliant

    - by John Galt
    Using Visual Studio 2008 and VB.Net: I have a working web app that uses an ASMX web service which is compiled into its separate assembly. I have another class library project compiled as a separate assembly that serves as a proxy to this web service. This all seems to work at runtime but I am getting this warning at compile time which I don't understand and would like to fix: Type of member 'wsZipeee' is not CLS-compliant I have dozens of webforms in the main project that reference the proxy class with no compile time complaints as this snippet shows: Imports System.Data Partial Class frmZipeee Inherits System.Web.UI.Page Public wsZipeee As New ProxyZipeeeService.WSZipeee.Zipeee Dim dsStandardMsg As DataSet Private Sub Page_Load(ByVal sender As System.Object, ByVal e As System.EventArgs) Handles MyBase.Load And yet I have one webform (also in the root of the main project) which gives me the "not CLS-compliant" message but yet attempts to reference the proxy class just like the other ASPX files. I get the compile time warning on the line annoted by me with 'ERROR here.. Imports System.Data Partial Class frmHome Inherits System.Web.UI.Page Public wsZipeee As New ProxyZipeeeService.WSZipeee.Zipeee ERROR here Dim dsStandardMsg As DataSet Private Sub Page_Load(ByVal sender As System.Object, ByVal e As System.EventArgs) Handles MyBase.Load This makes no sense to me. The file with the warning is called frmHome.aspx.vb; all others in the project declare things the same way and have no warning. BTW, the webservice itself returns standard datatypes: integer, string, and dataset.

    Read the article

  • how does serializable work in java?

    - by Karl Trumstedt
    If I have an instance of a class that I store in a session I need to make it serializable. This class has a static variable, will this be serialized in every instance stored? The static variable is a reference to a cache containing a lot of data in the background. Will all of this data be serialized? If so, it seems preferable to make this variable transient and re-fetch the cache instance each time the instance is restored. Maybe not store the cache instance at all in the class. Will the constructor execute when a class is restored from a serialized state? if not is there any other method I can use to re-instate a transient variable?

    Read the article

  • Why would it be necessary to subclass from object in Python?

    - by rmh
    I've been using Python for quite a while now, and I'm still unsure as to why you would subclass from object. What is the difference between this: class MyClass(): pass And this: class MyClass(object): pass As far as I understand, object is the base class for all classes and the subclassing is implied. Do you get anything from explicitly subclassing from it? What is the most "Pythonic" thing to do?

    Read the article

  • How to call a generic method with an anonymous type involving generics?

    - by Alex Black
    I've got this code that works: def testTypeSpecialization = { class Foo[T] def add[T](obj: Foo[T]): Foo[T] = obj def addInt[X <% Foo[Int]](obj: X): X = { add(obj) obj } val foo = addInt(new Foo[Int] { def someMethod: String = "Hello world" }) assert(true) } But, I'd like to write it like this: def testTypeSpecialization = { class Foo[T] def add[X, T <% Foo[X](obj: T): T = obj val foo = add(new Foo[Int] { def someMethod: String = "Hello world" }) assert(true) } This second one fails to compile: no implicit argument matching parameter type (Foo[Int]{ ... }) = Foo[Nothing] was found. Basically: I'd like to create a new anonymous class/instance on the fly (e.g. new Foo[Int] { ... } ), and pass it into an "add" method which will add it to a list, and then return it The key thing here is that the variable from "val foo = " I'd like its type to be the anonymous class, not Foo[Int], since it adds methods (someMethod in this example) Any ideas? I think the 2nd one fails because the type Int is being erased. I can apparently 'hint' the compiler like this: def testTypeSpecialization = { class Foo[T] def add[X, T <% Foo[X]](dummy: X, obj: T): T = obj val foo = add(2, new Foo[Int] { def someMethod: String = "Hello world" }) assert(true) }

    Read the article

  • Robotlegs: Warning: Injector already has a rule for type

    - by MikeW
    I have a bunch of warning messages like this appear when using Robotlegs/Signals. Everytime this command class executes, which is every 2-3 seconds ..this message displays below If you have overwritten this mapping intentionally you can use "injector.unmap()" prior to your replacement mapping in order to avoid seeing this message. Warning: Injector already has a rule for type "mx.messaging.messages::IMessage", named "". The command functions fine otherwise but I think I'm doing something wrong anyhow. public class MessageReceivedCommand extends SignalCommand { [Inject] public var message:IMessage; ...etc.. do something with message.. } the application context doesnt map IMessage to this command, as I only see an option to mapSignalClass , besides the payload is received fine. Wonder if anyone knows how I might either fix or suppress this message. I've tried calling this as the warning suggests injector.unmap(IMessage, "") but I receive an error - no mapping found for ::IMessage named "". Thanks Edit: A bit more info about the error Here is the signal that I dispatch to the command public class GameMessageSignal extends Signal { public function GameMessageSignal() { super(IMessage); } } which is dispatched from a IPushDataService class gameMessage.dispatch(message.message); and the implementation is wired up in the app context via injector.mapClass(IPushDataService, PushDataService); along with the signal signalCommandMap.mapSignalClass(GameMessageSignal, MessageReceivedCommand); Edit #2: Probably good to point out also I inject an instance of GameMessageSignal into IPushDataService public class PushDataService extends BaseDataService implements IPushDataService { [Inject] public var gameMessage:GameMessageSignal; //then private function processMessage(message:MessageEvent):void { gameMessage.dispatch(message.message); } } Edit:3 The mappings i set up in the SignalContext: injector.mapSingleton(IPushDataService); injector.mapClass(IPushDataService, PushDataService);

    Read the article

  • Storing object into cache using Linq classes and velocity

    - by Arun
    I careated couple of linq classes & marked the datacontext as unidirectional. Out of four classes; one is main class while other three are having the one to many relationship with first one; When I load the object of main class & put into the memory OR serialize it into an XML file; I never get the child class data while it is maked as DataContractAttribute. How can I force object to put the child class data into XML file or into cache ?

    Read the article

  • java reflection

    - by user622222
    Hi all, System.out.println("Class name : "); BufferedReader reader= new BufferedReader(new InputStreamReader(System.in)); String line = reader.readLine(); Class<?> writeoutClass = Class.forName(line); Method Writeout = null; for (Method mth : writeoutClass.getDeclaredMethods()) { if (mth.getName().startsWith("Writeout")) { Writeout = mth; break; } It's giving error like that; java.lang.ClassNotFoundException: a How can i generate that class?

    Read the article

  • Java reflection appropriateness

    - by jsn
    This may be a fairly subjective question, but maybe not. My application contains a bunch of forms that are displayed to the user at different times. Each form is a class of its own. Typically the user clicks a button, which launches a new form. I have a convenience function that builds these buttons, you call it like this: buildButton( "button text", new SelectionAdapter() { @Override public void widgetSelected( SelectionEvent e ) { showForm( new TasksForm( args... ) ); } } ); I do this dozens of times, and it's really cumbersome having to make a SelectionAdapter every time. Really all I need for the button to know is what class to instantiate when it's clicked and what arguments to give the constructor, so I built a function that I call like this instead: buildButton( "button text", TasksForm.class, args... ); Where args is an arbitrary list of objects that you could use to instantiate TasksForm normally. It uses reflection to get a constructor from the class, match the argument list, and build an instance when it needs to. Most of the time I don't have to pass any arguments to the constructor at all. The downside is obviously that if I'm passing a bad set of arguments, it can't detect that at compilation time, so if it fails, a dialog is displayed at runtime. But it won't normally fail, and it'll be easy to debug if it does. I think this is much cleaner because I come from languages where the use of function and class literals is pretty common. But if you're a normal Java programmer, would seeing this freak you out, or would you appreciate not having to scan a zillion SelectionAdapters?

    Read the article

  • Bootstrap inline button dropdown within <p> jumbotron

    - by C.B.
    Currently I have a jumbotron setup with some paragraph text, and I would like to stick a button dropdown inline with the text. Dropdown button <span class="btn-group"> <button type="button" class="btn btn-default dropdown-toggle" data-toggle="dropdown"> Button... <span class="caret"></span> </button> <ul class="dropdown-menu" role="menu"> <li><a href="#">Opt 1</a></li> <li><a href="#">Opt 2</a></li> </ul> </span> Jumbotron <div class="jumbotron"> <h1>Hello!</h1> <p>Welcome</p> <p>Another paragraph <!-- dropdown is here --> </p> </div> <!-- jumbotron --> If the dropdown is within the <p> tag, it does not "dropdown" (but renders). If it is outside of the <p> tag it functions fine, but I would like it to be inline with the text and need the text to be in the <p> tag to get the style. Any ideas? Things to note -- If I replace the <span> tags with <div> tags, it will work fine within the <p> tags, but won't be inline.

    Read the article

  • Converting string to a simple type

    - by zespri
    .Net framework contains a great class named Convert that allows conversion between simple types, DateTime type and String type. Also the class support conversion of the types implementing IConvertible interface. The class has been implemented in the very first version of .Net framework. There were a few things in the first .Net framework that were not done quite right. For example .Parse methods on simple types would throw an exception if the string couldn't be parsed and there would be no way to check if exception is going to be thrown in advance. A future version of .Net Framework removed this deficiency by introducing the TryParse method that resolved this problem. The Convert class dates back to time of the old Parse method, so the ChangeType method on this class in implemented old style - if conversion can't be performed an exception is thrown. Take a look at the following code: public static T ConvertString<T>(string s, T @default) { try { return (T)Convert.ChangeType(s, typeof(T), CultureInfo.InvariantCulture); } catch (Exception) { return @default; } } This code basically does what I want. However I would pretty much like to avoid the ugly try/catch here. I'm sure, that similar to TryParse, there is a modern method of rewriting this code without the catch-all. Could you suggest one?

    Read the article

  • Is it OK to write a constructor which does nothing?

    - by Roman
    To use methods of a class I need to instantiate a class. At the moment the class has not constructor (so I want to write it). But than I have realized that the constructor should do nothing (I do need to specify values of fields). In this context I have a question if it is OK to write constructor which does nothing. For example: public Point() { }

    Read the article

  • What would be a better implementation of shared variable among subclass

    - by Churk
    So currently I have a spring unit testing application. And it requires me to get a session cookie from a foreign authentication source. Problem what that is, this authentication process is fairly expensive and time consuming, and I am trying to create a structure where I am authenticate once, by any subclass, and any subsequent subclass is created, it will reuse this session cookie without hitting the authentication process again. My problem right now is, the static cookie is null each time another subclass is created. And I been reading that using static as a global variable is a bad idea, but I couldn't think of another way to do this because of Spring framework setting things during run time and how I would set the cookie so that all other classes can use it. Another piece of information. The variable is being use, but is change able during run time. It is not a single user being signed in and used across the board. But more like a Sub1 would call login, and we have a cookie. Then multiple test will be using that login until SubX will come in and say, I am using different credential, so I need to login as something else. And repeats. Here is a outline of my code: public class Parent implements InitializingBean { protected static String BASE_URL; public static Cookie cookie; ... All default InitializingBean methods ... afterPropertiesSet() { cookie = // login process returns a cookie } } public class Sub1 extends Parent { @resource public String baseURL; @PostConstruct public void init() { // set parents with my baseURL; BASE_URL = baseURL; } public void doSomething() { // Do something with cookie, because it should have been set by parent class } } public class Sub2 extends Parent { @resource public String baseURL; @PostConstruct public void init() { // set parents with my baseURL; BASE_URL = baseURL; } public void doSomethingElse() { // Do something with cookie, because it should have been set by parent class } }

    Read the article

  • Java: Reflection against casting when you know superclass

    - by Ema
    I don't know exactly how to define my doubt so please be patient if the question has already been asked. Let's say I have to dinamically instantiate an object. This object will surely be instance of a subclass of a known, immutable class A. I can obtain dinamically the specific implementation class. Would it be better to use reflection exactly as if I didn't know anything about the target class, or would it be preferrable/possible to do something like: A obj = (Class.forName("com.package.Sub-A")) new A(); where Sub-A extends A ? The purpose would be to avoid reflection overhead times... Thank you in advance.

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 592 593 594 595 596 597 598 599 600 601 602 603  | Next Page >