Search Results

Search found 45334 results on 1814 pages for 'class constructors'.

Page 6/1814 | < Previous Page | 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13  | Next Page >

  • java: can't use constructors in abstract class

    - by ufk
    Hi. I created the following abstract class for job scheduler in red5: package com.demogames.jobs; import com.demogames.demofacebook.MysqlDb; import org.red5.server.api.IClient; import org.red5.server.api.IConnection; import org.red5.server.api.IScope; import org.red5.server.api.scheduling.IScheduledJob; import org.red5.server.api.so.ISharedObject; import org.apache.log4j.Logger; import org.red5.server.api.Red5; /** * * @author ufk */ abstract public class DemoJob implements IScheduledJob { protected IConnection conn; protected IClient client; protected ISharedObject so; protected IScope scope; protected MysqlDb mysqldb; protected static org.apache.log4j.Logger log = Logger .getLogger(DemoJob.class); protected DemoJob (ISharedObject so, MysqlDb mysqldb){ this.conn=Red5.getConnectionLocal(); this.client = conn.getClient(); this.so=so; this.mysqldb=mysqldb; this.scope=conn.getScope(); } protected DemoJob(ISharedObject so) { this.conn=Red5.getConnectionLocal(); this.client=this.conn.getClient(); this.so=so; this.scope=conn.getScope(); } protected DemoJob() { this.conn=Red5.getConnectionLocal(); this.client=this.conn.getClient(); this.scope=conn.getScope(); } } Then i created a simple class that extends the previous one: public class StartChallengeJob extends DemoJob { public void execute(ISchedulingService service) { log.error("test"); } } The problem is that my main application can only see the constructor without any parameters. with means i can do new StartChallengeJob() why doesn't the main application sees all the constructors ? thanks!

    Read the article

  • Why is an anonymous inner class containing nothing generated from this code?

    - by Andrew Westberg
    When run through javac on the cmd line Sun JVM 1.6.0_20, this code produces 6 .class files OuterClass.class OuterClass$1.class OuterClass$InnerClass.class OuterClass$InnerClass2.class OuterClass$InnerClass$InnerInnerClass.class OuterClass$PrivateInnerClass.class When run through JDT in eclipse, it produces only 5 classes. OuterClass.class OuterClass$1.class OuterClass$InnerClass.class OuterClass$InnerClass2.class OuterClass$InnerClass$InnerInnerClass.class OuterClass$PrivateInnerClass.class When decompiled, OuterClass$1.class contains nothing. Where is this extra class coming from and why is it created? package com.test; public class OuterClass { public class InnerClass { public class InnerInnerClass { } } public class InnerClass2 { } //this class should not exist in OuterClass after dummifying private class PrivateInnerClass { private String getString() { return "hello PrivateInnerClass"; } } public String getStringFromPrivateInner() { return new PrivateInnerClass().getString(); } }

    Read the article

  • Class Loading Deadlocks

    - by tomas.nilsson
    Mattis follows up on his previous post with one more expose on Class Loading Deadlocks As I wrote in a previous post, the class loading mechanism in Java is very powerful. There are many advanced techniques you can use, and when used wrongly you can get into all sorts of trouble. But one of the sneakiest deadlocks you can run into when it comes to class loading doesn't require any home made class loaders or anything. All you need is classes depending on each other, and some bad luck. First of all, here are some basic facts about class loading: 1) If a thread needs to use a class that is not yet loaded, it will try to load that class 2) If another thread is already loading the class, the first thread will wait for the other thread to finish the loading 3) During the loading of a class, one thing that happens is that the <clinit method of a class is being run 4) The <clinit method initializes all static fields, and runs any static blocks in the class. Take the following class for example: class Foo { static Bar bar = new Bar(); static { System.out.println("Loading Foo"); } } The first time a thread needs to use the Foo class, the class will be initialized. The <clinit method will run, creating a new Bar object and printing "Loading Foo" But what happens if the Bar object has never been used before either? Well, then we will need to load that class as well, calling the Bar <clinit method as we go. Can you start to see the potential problem here? A hint is in fact #2 above. What if another thread is currently loading class Bar? The thread loading class Foo will have to wait for that thread to finish loading. But what happens if the <clinit method of class Bar tries to initialize a Foo object? That thread will have to wait for the first thread, and there we have the deadlock. Thread one is waiting for thread two to initialize class Bar, thread two is waiting for thread one to initialize class Foo. All that is needed for a class loading deadlock is static cross dependencies between two classes (and a multi threaded environment): class Foo { static Bar b = new Bar(); } class Bar { static Foo f = new Foo(); } If two threads cause these classes to be loaded at exactly the same time, we will have a deadlock. So, how do you avoid this? Well, one way is of course to not have these circular (static) dependencies. On the other hand, it can be very hard to detect these, and sometimes your design may depend on it. What you can do in that case is to make sure that the classes are first loaded single threadedly, for example during an initialization phase of your application. The following program shows this kind of deadlock. To help bad luck on the way, I added a one second sleep in the static block of the classes to trigger the unlucky timing. Notice that if you uncomment the "//Foo f = new Foo();" line in the main method, the class will be loaded single threadedly, and the program will terminate as it should. public class ClassLoadingDeadlock { // Start two threads. The first will instansiate a Foo object, // the second one will instansiate a Bar object. public static void main(String[] arg) { // Uncomment next line to stop the deadlock // Foo f = new Foo(); new Thread(new FooUser()).start(); new Thread(new BarUser()).start(); } } class FooUser implements Runnable { public void run() { System.out.println("FooUser causing class Foo to be loaded"); Foo f = new Foo(); System.out.println("FooUser done"); } } class BarUser implements Runnable { public void run() { System.out.println("BarUser causing class Bar to be loaded"); Bar b = new Bar(); System.out.println("BarUser done"); } } class Foo { static { // We are deadlock prone even without this sleep... // The sleep just makes us more deterministic try { Thread.sleep(1000); } catch(InterruptedException e) {} } static Bar b = new Bar(); } class Bar { static { try { Thread.sleep(1000); } catch(InterruptedException e) {} } static Foo f = new Foo(); }

    Read the article

  • Requriing static class setter to be called before Constructor, bad design?

    - by roverred
    I have a class, say Foo, and every instance of Foo will need and contain the same List object, myList. Since every class instance will share the same List Object, I thought it would be good to make myList static and use a static function to set myList before the constructor is called. I was wondering if this was bad, because this requires the setter to be called before the constructor. If the person doesn't, the program will crash. Alternative way would be passing myList every time. Thanks.

    Read the article

  • should I extend or create instance of the class

    - by meWantToLearn
    I have two classes Class A and Class B in Class A, i have three methods that perform the save, delete and select operation based upon the object I pass them. in Class B I perform the logic operations, such as modification to the property of the object before being passed to the methods of Class A, My problem is in Class B, should it extend Class A, and call the methods of class A , by parent::methodName or create instance of class A and then call Class A does not includes any property just methods. class A{ public function save($obj){ //code here } public function delete($obj){ //code here } public function select($obj){ //code here } } //Should I extend class A, and call the method by parent::methodName($obj) or create an instance of class A, call the method $instanceOfA-methodName($obj); class B extends A{ public function checkIfHasSaved($obj){ if($obj->saved == 'Yes'){ parent::save($obj); //**should I call the method like this** $instanceOFA = new A(); //**or create instance of class A and call without extending class A** instanceOFA->save($obj); } //other logic operations here } }

    Read the article

  • Changing multiple objects with a new class name using Jquery

    - by liquilife
    I'd like to click on a trigger and show a specific image. There are multiple triggers which would show a specific image related to it within a set. There are 4 sets The challenge for me is toggling the other images to hide only in this 'set' when one of these triggers are clicked, as there can only be one image showing at a time in each set. Here is the HTML I've put together thus far: <!-- Thumbnails which can be clicked on to toggle the larger preview image --> <div class="materials"> <a href="javascript:;" id="shirtgrey"><img src="/grey_shirt.png" height="122" width="122" /></a> <a href="javascript:;" id="shirtred"><img src="red_shirt.png" height="122" width="122" /></a> <a href="javascript:;" id="shirtblue"><img src="hblue_shirt.png" height="122" width="122" /></a> <a href="javascript:;" id="shirtgreen"><img src="green_shirt.png" height="122" width="122" /></a> </div> <div class="collars"> <a href="javascript:;" id="collargrey"><img src="grey_collar.png" height="122" width="122" /></a> <a href="javascript:;" id="collarred"><img src="red_collar.png" height="122" width="122" /></a> <a href="javascript:;" id="collarblue"><img src="blue_collar.png" height="122" width="122" /></a> <a href="javascript:;" id="collargreen"><img src="green_collar.png" height="122" width="122" /></a> </div> <div class="cuffs"> <a href="javascript:;" id="cuffgrey"><img src="grey_cuff.png" height="122" width="122" /></a> <a href="javascript:;" id="cuffred"><img src="red_cuff.png" height="122" width="122" /></a> <a href="javascript:;" id="cuffblue"><img src="blue_cuff.png" height="122" width="122" /></a> <a href="javascript:;" id="cuffgreen"><img src="/green_cuff.png" height="122" width="122" /></a> </div> <div class="pockets"> <a href="javascript:;" id="pocketgrey"><img src="grey_pocket.png" height="122" width="122" /></a> <a href="javascript:;" id="pocketred"><img src=".png" height="122" width="122" /></a> <a href="javascript:;" id="pocketblue"><img src="blue_pocket.png" height="122" width="122" /></a> <a href="javascript:;" id="pocketgreen"><img src="green_pocket.png" height="122" width="122" /></a> </div> <!-- The larger images where one from each set should be viewable at one time, triggered by the thumb clicked above --> <div class="selectionimg"> <div class="selectShirt"> <img src="grey_shirt.png" height="250" width="250" class="selectShirtGrey show" /> <img src="red_shirt.png" height="250" width="250" class="selectShirtRed hide" /> <img src="blue_shirt.png" height="250" width="250" class="selectShirtBlue hide" /> <img src="green_shirt.png" height="250" width="250" class="selectShirtGreen hide" /> </div> <div class="selectCollar"> <img src="grey_collar.png" height="250" width="250" class="selectCollarGrey show" /> <img src="red_collar.png" height="250" width="250" class="selectCollarRed hide" /> <img src="blue_collar.png" height="250" width="250" class="selectCollarBlue hide" /> <img src="green_collar.png" height="250" width="250" class="selectCollarGreen hide" /> </div> <div class="selectCuff"> <img src="grey_cuff.png" height="250" width="250" class="selectCuffGrey show" /> <img src="red_cuff.png" height="250" width="250" class="selectCuffRed hide" /> <img src="blue_cuff.png" height="250" width="250" class="selectCuffBlue hide" /> <img src="green_cuff.png" height="250" width="250" class="selectCuffGreen hide" /> </div> <div class="selectPocket"> <img src="grey_pocket.png" height="250" width="250" class="selectPocketGrey show" /> <img src="hred_pocket.png" height="250" width="250" class="selectPocketRed hide" /> <img src="blue_pocket.png" height="250" width="250" class="selectPocketBlue hide" /> <img src="green_pocket.png" height="250" width="250" class="selectPocketGreen hide" /> </div> </div> How can jQuery be used to change a class of an image to "show" and ensure that all other images in that same div are set to a class of "hide"? First time posting here. I'm very efficient with HTML and CSS and have a basic understanding of jQuery. I'm learning and this just seems a little bit beyond my abilities at the moment. I hope this all makes sense. Thanks for any help.

    Read the article

  • Getting an object from a 2d array inside of a class

    - by user36324
    I am have a class file that contains two classes, platform and platforms. platform holds the single platform information, and platforms has an 2d array of platforms. Im trying to render all of them in a for loop but it is not working. If you could kindly help me i would greatly appreciate. void Platforms::setUp() { for(int x = 0; x < tilesW; x++){ for(int y = 0; y < tilesH; y++){ Platform tempPlat(x,y,true,renderer,filename,tileSize/scaleW,tileSize/scaleH); platArray[x][y] = tempPlat; } } } void Platforms::show() { for(int x = 0; x < tilesW; x++){ for(int y = 0; y < tilesH; y++){ platArray[x][y].show(renderer,scaleW,scaleH); } } }

    Read the article

  • Purpose of PHP constructors

    - by Bharanikumar
    Hi, I am working with classes and object class structure, but not at a complex level – just classes and functions, then, in one place, instantiation. As to __construct and __destruct, please tell me very simply: what is the purpose of constructors and destructors? I know the school level theoretical explanation, but i am expecting something like in real world, as in which situations we have to use them. Provide also an example, please. Regards

    Read the article

  • C# new class with only single property : derive from base or encapsulate into new ?

    - by Gobol
    I've tried to be descriptive :) It's rather programming-style problem than coding problem in itself. Let's suppose we have : A: public class MyDict { public Dictionary<int,string> dict; // do custom-serialization of "dict" public void SaveToFile(...); // customized deserialization of "dict" public void LoadFromFile(...); } B: public class MyDict : Dictionary<int,string> { } Which option would be better in the matter of programming style ? class B: is to be de/serialized externally. Main problem is : is it better to create new class (which would have only one property - like opt A:) or to create a new class derived - like opt B: ? I don't want any other data processing than adding/removing and de/serializing to stream. Thanks in advance!

    Read the article

  • Static class vs Singleton class in C# [closed]

    - by Floradu88
    Possible Duplicate: What is the difference between all-static-methods and applying a singleton pattern? I need to make a decision for a project I'm working of whether to use static or singleton. After reading an article like this I am inclined to use singleton. What is better to use static class or singleton? Edit 1 : Client Server Desktop Application. Please provide code oriented solutions.

    Read the article

  • polymorphism, inheritance in c# - base class calling overridden method?

    - by Andrew Johns
    This code doesn't work, but hopefully you'll get what I'm trying to achieve here. I've got a Money class, which I've taken from http://www.noticeablydifferent.com/CodeSamples/Money.aspx, and extended it a little to include currency conversion. The implementation for the actual conversion rate could be different in each project, so I decided to move the actual method for retrieving a conversion rate (GetCurrencyConversionRate) into a derived class, but the ConvertTo method contains code that would work for any implementation assuming the derived class has overriden GetCurrencyConversionRate so it made sense to me to keep it in the parent class? So what I'm trying to do is get an instance of SubMoney, and be able to call the .ConvertTo() method, which would in turn use the overriden GetCurrencyConversionRate, and return a new instance of SubMoney. The problem is, I'm not really understanding some concepts of polymorphism and inheritance yet, so not quite sure what I'm trying to do is even possible in the way I think it is, as what is currently happening is that I end up with an Exception where it has used the base GetCurrencyConversionRate method instead of the derived one. Something tells me I need to move the ConvertTo method down to the derived class, but this seems like I'll be duplicating code in multiple implementations, so surely there's a better way? public class Money { public CurrencyConversionRate { get { return GetCurrencyConversionRate(_regionInfo.ISOCurrencySymbol); } } public static decimal GetCurrencyConversionRate(string isoCurrencySymbol) { throw new Exception("Must override this method if you wish to use it."); } public Money ConvertTo(string cultureName) { // convert to base USD first by dividing current amount by it's exchange rate. Money someMoney = this; decimal conversionRate = this.CurrencyConversionRate; decimal convertedUSDAmount = Money.Divide(someMoney, conversionRate).Amount; // now convert to new currency CultureInfo cultureInfo = new CultureInfo(cultureName); RegionInfo regionInfo = new RegionInfo(cultureInfo.LCID); conversionRate = GetCurrencyConversionRate(regionInfo.ISOCurrencySymbol); decimal convertedAmount = convertedUSDAmount * conversionRate; Money convertedMoney = new Money(convertedAmount, cultureName); return convertedMoney; } } public class SubMoney { public SubMoney(decimal amount, string cultureName) : base(amount, cultureName) {} public static new decimal GetCurrencyConversionRate(string isoCurrencySymbol) { // This would get the conversion rate from some web or database source decimal result = new Decimal(2); return result; } }

    Read the article

  • jQuery only firing last class in multiple-class click

    - by user1134644
    I have a set of links like so: <a href="#internalLink1" class="classA">This has Class A</a> <a href="#internalLink2" class="classB">This has Class B</a> <a href="#internalLink3" class="classA classB">This has Class A and Class B</a> And here's the corresponding jQuery: $('.classA').click(function(){ // do class A stuff }); $('.classB').click(function(){ // do class B stuff }); Currently, when I click on the first link with Class A, it does the Class A stuff like it's supposed to. Similarly, when I click on the second link with Class B, it does the Class B stuff like it's supposed to. No worries there. My issue is, when I click on the third link with BOTH classes, it only fires the function for whichever class comes last (in this case, class B. If I put class A at the end instead, it performs class A's function). I want it to fire both. What am I doing wrong? Thanks in advance. EDIT: To those posting fiddles, nearly all of them work, so as many have said, it's most likely not my code, but the way it displays in my file. For a little more clarification, I was teaching myself some jQuery and decided to try making a (very) simple "Choose Your Own Adventure" type game. Here's a jsfiddle containing the opening of my bare-bones-please-don't-laugh game. Click on "Hide in the bushes", then "Examine the victim", then "Take any valuables and leave, he's dead already" <-- THIS is where the issue is. It's supposed to add 98 gold ("hawks") to your inventory, AND tell you that your alignment has shifted 1 point towards Chaotic. At the moment, it only does the chaotic alert, and no gold gets added to your inventory. The other option (refresh the fiddle to restart) that adds money to your inventory, but DOES NOT make you chaotic, works just fine (if you select "Search him for identification" instead of "take the money and run") Sorry this is so long!

    Read the article

  • Hints to properly design UML class diagram

    - by mic4ael
    Here is the problem. I have just started learning UML and that is why I would like to ask for a few cues from experienced users how I could improve my diagram because I do know it lacks a lot of details, it has mistakes for sure etc. Renovation company hires workers. Each employee has some kind of profession, which is required to work on a particular position. Workers work in groups consisting of at most 15 members - so called production units, which specializes in a specified kind of work. Each production unit is managed by a foreman. Every worker in order to be able to perform job tasks needs proper accessories. There are two kind of tools - light and heavy. To use heavy tools, a worker must have proper privileges. A worker can have at most 3 light tools taken from the warehouse.

    Read the article

  • Isn't class scope purely for organization?

    - by Di-0xide
    Isn't scope just a way to organize classes, preventing outside code from accessing certain things you don't want accessed? More specifically, is there any functional gain to having public, protected, or private-scoped methods? Is there any advantage to classifying method/property scope rather than to, say, just public-ize everything? My presumption says no simply because, in binary code, there is no sense of scope (other than r/w/e, which isn't really scope at all, but rather global permissions for a block of memory). Is this correct? What about in languages like Java and C#[.NET]?

    Read the article

  • What class structure allows for a base class and mix/match of subclasses? (Similar to Users w/ roles)

    - by cdeszaq
    I have a set of base characteristics, and then a number of sub-types. Each instance must be one of the sub-types, but can be multiple sub-types at once. The sub-types of each thing can change. In general, I don't care what subtype I have, but sometimes I do care. This is much like a Users-Roles sort of relationship where a User having a particular Role gives the user additional characteristics. Sort of like duck-typing (ie. If my Foo has a Bar, I can treat it like a ThingWithABar.) Straight inheritance doesn't work, since that doesn't allow mix/match of sub-types. (ie. no multi-inheritance). Straight composition doesn't work because I can't switch that up at runtime. How can I model this?

    Read the article

  • how can i select first second or third element with given class name using CSS?

    - by Tumharyyaaden
    ie. i have the following: <div class="myclass">my text1</div> some other code+containers... <div class="myclass">my text2</div> some other code+containers... <div class="myclass">my text3</div> some other code+containers... i have the css class div.myclass {doing things} that applies to all obviously but i also wanted to be able to select the first, second or third like this: div.myclass:first {color:#000;} div.myclass:second {color:#FFF;} div.myclass:third {color:#006;} almost like the jQuery index selection .eq( index ) which is what i am using currently but need a noscript alternative. Thanks in advance!

    Read the article

  • Accessing every child class of parent class in Java

    - by darkie15
    Hi All, I have to implement a logic whereby given a child class, I need to access its parent class and all other child class of that parent class, if any. I did not find any API in Java Reflection which allows us to access all child classes of a parent class. Is there any way to do it? Ex. class B extends class A class C extends class A Now using class B, I can find the superclass by calling getSuperClass(). But is there any way to find all the child classes once I have the parent class i.e. class B and class C?? Regards, darkie

    Read the article

  • Some confusion with a class variable, but with a twist...

    - by Omega
    I have a class called MyPackage.WebServer and it has a property called DBEngine. I am also dynamically loading a module and class using load_module. Inside this class, it attempts to reference MyPackage.WebServer. When it does though, DBEngine is not set to the value given when WebServer is instantiated. It's the default (None). Would the fact that I'm using load_module cause a different object graph to be created and thus isolate my dynamically loaded class from the rest of my python app?

    Read the article

  • Constructors in Inner classes (implementing Interfaces)

    - by thepandaatemyface
    Hi, How would I go about writing a constructor for an inner class which is implementing an interface? I know I could make a whole new class, but I figure there's got to be a way to do something along the line of this: JButton b = new JButton(new AbstractAction() { public AbstractAction() { super("This is a button"); } public void actionPerformed(ActionEvent e) { System.out.println("button clicked"); } }); When I enter this it doesn't recognize the AbstractAction method as a constructor (compiler asks for return type). Anyone have an idea? Thanks

    Read the article

  • "Public" nested classes or not

    - by Frederick
    Suppose I have a class 'Application'. In order to be initialised it takes certain settings in the constructor. Let's also assume that the number of settings is so many that it's compelling to place them in a class of their own. Compare the following two implementations of this scenario. Implementation 1: class Application { Application(ApplicationSettings settings) { //Do initialisation here } } class ApplicationSettings { //Settings related methods and properties here } Implementation 2: class Application { Application(Application.Settings settings) { //Do initialisation here } class Settings { //Settings related methods and properties here } } To me, the second approach is very much preferable. It is more readable because it strongly emphasises the relation between the two classes. When I write code to instantiate Application class anywhere, the second approach is going to look prettier. Now just imagine the Settings class itself in turn had some similarly "related" class and that class in turn did so too. Go only three such levels and the class naming gets out out of hand in the 'non-nested' case. If you nest, however, things still stay elegant. Despite the above, I've read people saying on StackOverflow that nested classes are justified only if they're not visible to the outside world; that is if they are used only for the internal implementation of the containing class. The commonly cited objection is bloating the size of containing class's source file, but partial classes is the perfect solution for that problem. My question is, why are we wary of the "publicly exposed" use of nested classes? Are there any other arguments against such use?

    Read the article

  • Can someone here explain constructors and destructors in python - simple explanation required - new

    - by rgolwalkar
    i will try to see if it makes sense :- class Person: '''Represnts a person ''' population = 0 def __init__(self,name): //some statements and population += 1 def __del__(self): //some statements and population -= 1 def sayHi(self): '''grettings from person''' print 'Hi My name is %s' % self.name def howMany(self): '''Prints the current population''' if Person.population == 1: print 'i am the only one here' else: print 'There are still %d guyz left ' % Person.population rohan = Person('Rohan') rohan.sayHi() rohan.howMany() sanju = Person('Sanjivi') sanju.howMany() del rohan # am i doing this correctly --- ? i need to get an explanation for this del - destructor O/P:- Initializing person data ****************************************** Initializing Rohan ****************************************** Population now is: 1 Hi My name is Rohan i am the only one here Initializing person data ****************************************** Initializing Sanjivi ****************************************** Population now is: 2 In case Person dies: ****************************************** Sanjivi Bye Bye world there are still 1 people left i am the only one here In case Person dies: ****************************************** Rohan Bye Bye world i am the last person on earth Population now is: 0 If required i can paste the whole lesson as well --- learning from :- http://www.ibiblio.org/swaroopch/byteofpython/read/

    Read the article

  • How to write constructors which might fail to properly instantiate an object

    - by whitman
    Sometimes you need to write a constructor which can fail. For instance, say I want to instantiate an object with a file path, something like obj = new Object("/home/user/foo_file") As long as the path points to an appropriate file everything's fine. But if the string is not a valid path things should break. But how? You could: 1. throw an exception 2. return null object (if your programming language allows constructors to return values) 3. return a valid object but with a flag indicating that its path wasn't set properly (ugh) 4. others? I assume that the "best practices" of various programming languages would implement this differently. For instance I think ObjC prefers (2). But (2) would be impossible to implement in C++ where constructors must have void as a return type. In that case I take it that (1) is used. In your programming language of choice can you show how you'd handle this problem and explain why?

    Read the article

  • Is It "Wrong"/Bad Design To Put A Thread/Background Worker In A Class?

    - by Jetti
    I have a class that will read from Excel (C# and .Net 4) and in that class I have a background worker that will load the data from Excel while the UI can remain responsive. My question is as follows: Is it bad design to have a background worker in a class? Should I create my class without it and use a background worker to operate on that class? I can't see any issues really of creating my class this way but then again I am a newbie so I figured I would make sure before I continue on. I hope that this question is relevant here as I don't think it should be on stackoverflow as my code works, this just a design issue.

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13  | Next Page >