Search Results

Search found 16948 results on 678 pages for 'static analysis'.

Page 60/678 | < Previous Page | 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67  | Next Page >

  • PHP Array To Class Static Public Values.

    - by what
    I want to make a class that has all the values of an array as a static object in that class. For example: $vars=array(... );//some array with actual values $Class_code='class MyClass{'; for($i=0; $i<count($vars); $i++){ $Class_code.='static public $'.strval($vars[i]).';'; } eval($Class_code.'}'); /* When I echo the line above it says that the vars for MyClass (MyClass::vars) are missing even with strval(). */ So, how can I get $vars[i] to be a string if strval didn't work?

    Read the article

  • Javascript/Iframe in Static FBML

    - by Loveleen Kaur
    Is there any way the following script be embedded in Static FBML <script src="http://widgets.twimg.com/j/2/widget.js"></script> <script> new TWTR.Widget({ version: 2, type: 'profile', rpp: 4, interval: 6000, width: 250, height: 300, theme: { shell: { background: '#333333', color: '#ffffff' }, tweets: { background: '#000000', color: '#ffffff', links: '#4aed05' } }, features: { scrollbar: false, loop: false, live: false, hashtags: true, timestamp: true, avatars: false, behavior: 'all' } }).render().setUser('twitter').start(); </script> I have tried following code in the Static FBML but it doesnt seem to work <fb:iframe scrolling='no' frameborder='0' marginheight='0' src='http://www.demo.kaazunut.com/twitter-box.html' height='500' width='500'></fb:iframe>

    Read the article

  • Shared static classes between AppDomains in loaded library code

    - by Christian Stewart
    I'm working on a program in which I want to do something similar to what the Photon Server system does: Offer a common "API" class library, which contains common data classes, enumerations, and interfaces for working with the host program. Have client programs (class libraries) reference this DLL and implement interfaces listed within it. Have the "host" application load built DLL client libraries into separate AppDomains and reference the interfaces that lie within to have polymorphic client code from within a dll file. I have something like this worked out: a class library that contains common code, but I've run into the following question How should I handle static classes? Should I add a method that is called by the host program to synchronize data? How do I keep a static class the same between AppDomains? Should I discard these classes in favor of better interfaces between the code levels? And in general, how do I share data between these loaded AppDomains?

    Read the article

  • Calling gwt static method from parent of iframe

    - by Richard Wallis
    I'd like to know how to call a GWT static method from the parent of the iframe in which the gwt module is loaded. As a simple example suppose I have the following gwt class: public class Simple { public static void showWindow() { Window.alert("Hello from the iframe"); } } I create an html host page called "iFrameHost.html" that can run the function above. Then in an unrelated GWT module on a different page I call: Frame iFrame = new Frame("iFrameHost.html"); RootPanel.get().add(iFrame); How do I now call the showWindow() method from the parent page?

    Read the article

  • Can't use static const as param in function call within binding tags in Flex 3

    - by buzzer
    I'm having a problem in flex 3 where if a static const I have defined is used as the parameter to a function call within binding tags I get a "1120: Access of undefined property NodePropertyMatrix". _propMtx is a ArrayCollection. <mx:HBox visible="{_propMtx.getItemAt(NodePropertyMatrix.srcParent)}"> Above code throws the error, but the following code does not <mx:HBox visible="{NodePropertyMatrix.srcParent}"> NodePropertyMatrix is an AS class as follows: package model.constants { import mx.collections.ArrayCollection; public class NodePropertyMatrix { public static const srcParent:Number = 0; } } Anyone know what is wrong here?

    Read the article

  • What is the proper way to localize a static website

    - by Pavel
    Hey! I need to localize our site to a number of languages. The site consists of several static pages, no dynamic backend. We have a nice international community and the people are ready to help us. The problem is how to arrange website translation, what is the right workflow? What are the best practices for static website localization? Is it possible to arrange translation in a wiki way, where several translators could translate site pages online?

    Read the article

  • Can you make an Extension Method Static/Shared?

    - by Matt Thrower
    OK, I've probably misunderstood something here but, as far as I can see ... An extension method has to be contained in a module, not a class You can't make methods in modules Static/Shared Therefore you can't use an extension method on a class without instantiating it. In other words you can't make an extension method on String called "MyExtensionMethod" and use: String.MyExtensionMethod("String") But instead .. Dim test As String test.MyExtensionMethod("string") Is this correct? Or is there a way I can get extension methods to work as static methods?

    Read the article

  • Best way to delay access to static web pages until services become available with J2EE

    - by Dean Povey
    I have a J2EE application front-ended by a bunch of GWT pages. When the server is starting up, it is possible that these static pages can be accessed before the services required to implement the GWT RPC calls (database etc) are available. I wondering what the best approach is to prevent a user accessing this static content before these services become available. For the purpose of this exercise, assume that there is an isInitialized() method somewhere. I am happy with either a page displaying an error message or simply refusing the connection.

    Read the article

  • public (static) swap() method vs. redundant (non-static) private ones...

    - by Helper Method
    I'm revisiting data structures and algorithms to refresh my knowledge and from time to time I stumble across this problem: Often, several data structures do need to swap some elements on the underlying array. So I implement the swap() method in ADT1, ADT2 as a private non-static method. The good thing is, being a private method I don't need to check on the parameters, the bad thing is redundancy. But if I put the swap() method in a helper class as a public static method, I need to check the indices every time for validity, making the swap call very unefficient when many swaps are done. So what should I do? Neglect the performance degragation, or write small but redundant code?

    Read the article

  • Static assembly initialization

    - by ph0enix
    I'm attempting to develop an Interceptor framework (in C#) where I can simply implement some interfaces, and through the use of some static initialization, register all my Interceptors with a common Dispatcher to be invoked at a later time. The problem lies in the fact that my Interceptor implementations are never actually referenced by my application so the static constructors never get called, and as a result, the Interceptors are never registered. If possible, I would like to keep all references to my Interceptor libraries out of my application, as this is my way of (hopefully) enforcing loose coupling across different modules. Hopefully this makes some sense. Let me know if there's anything I can clarify... Does anyone have any ideas, or perhaps a better way to go about implementing my Interceptor pattern? TIA, Jeremy

    Read the article

  • C++ Static Array Initialization - Memory Issue

    - by donalmg
    Hi, I have a header file which contains a member variable declaration of a static char array: class ABC { public: static char newArray[4]; // other variables / functions private: void setArray(int i, char * ptr); } In the CPP file, I have the array initialized to NULL: char ABC::newArray[4] = {0}; In the ABC constructor, I need to overwrite this value with a value constructed at runtime, such as the encoding of an integer: ABC::ABC() { int i; //some int value defined at runtime memset(newArray, 0, 4); // not sure if this is necessary setArray(i,newArray); } ... void setArray(int i, char * value) { // encoding i to set value[0] ... value [3] } When I return from this function, and print the modified newArray value, it prints out many more characters than the 4 specified in the array declaration. Any ideas why this is the case. I just want to set the char array to 4 characters and nothing further. Thanks...

    Read the article

  • How to configure IIS7 to Redirect member of An active Directory group to static page

    - by user1759075
    On IIS, we have disabled Anonymous authentication and enabled Windows Authentication What we need is to only allow users who are members of an Active Directory security group to access the Access Point at all. All other users should be directed to a static web page that will give them instructions on how to request access. By adding the security group to the website permissions, and removing the \Users group, we have almost achieved this. Users in the group are allowed through, those not in the group are asked for a (Windows) username and password. Instead of requesting the username and password, we want IIS to redirect them to the static page. Please advise me on how can this be done.

    Read the article

  • Removing Unused (Unreferenced) Static Global Variable Constants in C++

    - by Synetech inc.
    Hi, I have a header file with a few common constants like names and stuff that are automatically included in each project (an example follows). The thing is that they are included in the compiled binary (EXE) whether they are used (referenced) or not. If I use DEFINEs instead, then naturally they are not included if they are not used, but of course consts are better than defines so… I tried Googling it, but the closest thing I could find was a question right here on SO that did not quite help. Matters of i18n aside, how can I keep the ones that are not used out of the binary, while still keeping it easy to use like this? Thanks. //COMMON.H: static const CString s_Company _T("Acme inc."); //etc. static const CString s_Digits _T("0123456789"); //TEST.CPP: #include common.h int main() { AfxMessageBox(s_Company); } //s_Company should be in the final EXE, but s_Digits should not be, but is

    Read the article

  • Good Design for Initialization of Static Array

    - by jplot
    I have a question regarding good design in C++. I have a class A, and all objects of this class use an integer array of constant values (they should share the same array, as their values are constant). The array needs to be computed (just once) before any object A. I thought about having another class B which contains the integer array as a static member, an init() method which would fill this array according to some formula and a static boolean flag initialized (if this variable if true then the init() method would do nothing), but I'm not sure this is the best way to solve my design issue. So my question is, what would be a good design/way to accomplish this ? Thanks in advance.

    Read the article

  • Linking LLVM JIT Code to Static LLVM Libraries?

    - by inflector
    I'm in the process of implementing a cross-platform (Mac OS X, Windows, and Linux) application which will do lots of CPU intensive analysis of financial data. The bulk of the analysis engine will be written in C++ for speed reasons, with a user-accessible scripting engine interfacing with the C++ testing engine. I want to write several scripting front-ends over time to emulate other popular software with existing large user bases. The first front will be a VisualBasic-like scripting language. I'm thinking that LLVM would be perfect for my needs. Performance is very important because of the sheer amount of data; it can take hours or days to run a single run of tests to get an answer. I believe that using LLVM will also allow me to use a single back-end solution while I implement different front-ends for different flavors of the scripting language over time. The testing engine itself will be separated from the interface and testing will even take place in a separate process with progress and results being reported to the testing management interface. Tests will consist of scripting code integrated with the testing engine code. In a previous implementation of a similar commercial testing system I wrote, I built a fast interpreter which easily interfaced with the testing library because it was written in C++ and linked directly to the testing engine library. Callbacks from scripting code to testing library objects involved translating between the formats with significant overhead. I'm imagining that with LLVM, I could implement the callbacks into C++ directly so that I could make the scripting code work almost as if it had been written in C++. Likewise, if all the code was compiled to LLVM byte-code format, it seems like the LLVM optimizers could optimize across the boundaries between the scripting language and the testing engine code that was written in C++. I don't want to have to compile the testing engine every time. Ideally, I'd like to JIT compile only the scripting code. For small tests, I'd skip some optimization passes, while for large tests, I'd perform full optimizations during the link. So is this possible? Can I precompile the testing engine to a .o object file or .a library file and then link in the scripting code using the JIT? Finally, ideally, I'd like to have the scripting code implement specific methods as subclasses for a specific C++ class. So the C++ testing engine would only see C++ objects while the JIT setup code compiled scripting code that implemented some of the methods for the objects. It seems that if I used the right name mangling algorithm it would be relatively easy to set up the LLVM generation for the scripting language to look like a C++ method call which could then be linked into the testing engine. Thus the linking stage would go in two directions, calls from the scripting language into the testing engine objects to retrieve pricing information and test state information and calls from the testing engine of methods of some particular C++ objects where the code was supplied not from C++ but from the scripting language. In summary: 1) Can I link in precompiled (either .bc, .o, or .a) files as part of the JIT compilation, code-generation process? 2) Can I link in code using that the process in 1) above in such a way that I am able to create code that acts as if it was all written in C++?

    Read the article

  • Scope quandary with namespaces, function templates, and static data

    - by Adrian McCarthy
    This scoping problem seems like the type of C++ quandary that Scott Meyers would have addressed in one of his Effective C++ books. I have a function, Analyze, that does some analysis on a range of data. The function is called from a few places with different types of iterators, so I have made it a template (and thus implemented it in a header file). The function depends on a static table of data, AnalysisTable, that I don't want to expose to the rest of the code. My first approach was to make the table a static const inside Analysis. namespace MyNamespace { template <typename InputIterator> int Analyze(InputIterator begin, InputIterator end) { static const int AnalysisTable[] = { /* data */ }; ... // implementation uses AnalysisTable return result; } } // namespace MyNamespace It appears that the compiler creates a copy of AnalysisTable for each instantiation of Analyze, which is wasteful of space (and, to a small degree, time). So I moved the table outside the function like this: namespace MyNamespace { const int AnalysisTable[] = { /* data */ }; template <typename InputIterator> int Analyze(InputIterator begin, InputIterator end) { ... // implementation uses AnalysisTable return result; } } // namespace MyNamespace There's only one copy of the table now, but it's exposed to the rest of the code. I'd rather keep this implementation detail hidden, so I introduced an unnamed namespace: namespace MyNamespace { namespace { // unnamed to hide AnalysisTable const int AnalysisTable[] = { /* data */ }; } // unnamed namespace template <typename InputIterator> int Analyze(InputIterator begin, InputIterator end) { ... // implementation uses AnalysisTable return result; } } // namespace MyNamespace But now I again have multiple copies of the table, because each compilation unit that includes this header file gets its own. If Analyze weren't a template, I could move all the implementation detail out of the header file. But it is a template, so I seem stuck. My next attempt was to put the table in the implementation file and to make an extern declaration within Analyze. // foo.h ------ namespace MyNamespace { template <typename InputIterator> int Analyze(InputIterator begin, InputIterator end) { extern const int AnalysisTable[]; ... // implementation uses AnalysisTable return result; } } // namespace MyNamespace // foo.cpp ------ #include "foo.h" namespace MyNamespace { const int AnalysisTable[] = { /* data */ }; } This looks like it should work, and--indeed--the compiler is satisfied. The linker, however, complains, "unresolved external symbol AnalysisTable." Drat! (Can someone explain what I'm missing here?) The only thing I could think of was to give the inner namespace a name, declare the table in the header, and provide the actual data in an implementation file: // foo.h ----- namespace MyNamespace { namespace PrivateStuff { extern const int AnalysisTable[]; } // unnamed namespace template <typename InputIterator> int Analyze(InputIterator begin, InputIterator end) { ... // implementation uses PrivateStuff::AnalysisTable return result; } } // namespace MyNamespace // foo.cpp ----- #include "foo.h" namespace MyNamespace { namespace PrivateStuff { const int AnalysisTable[] = { /* data */ }; } } Once again, I have exactly one instance of AnalysisTable (yay!), but other parts of the program can access it (boo!). The inner namespace makes it a little clearer that they shouldn't, but it's still possible. Is it possible to have one instance of the table and to move the table beyond the reach of everything but Analyze?

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67  | Next Page >