Search Results

Search found 12751 results on 511 pages for 'interface'.

Page 7/511 | < Previous Page | 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14  | Next Page >

  • Where should I put interface?

    - by Roman
    I program a class in which I have a method which takes an callback object from an external software. At the moment Eclipse says that it does not know the type of the object I gave as argument (it is expectable since I do not specify this type, it's done by the external software). So, I think I need to write an interface for the object which I give as an argument to my method. In this respect I have two questions. Is it really so? Can I solve the mentioned problem in the mentioned way. If it is the case, where should I put this interface? In the same file where my class is? In the class? Outside of the class?

    Read the article

  • Interface with inner implementation - good or bad

    - by dermoritz
    I am working on a project with many someInterface - someInterfaceImpl-pairs. Some days ago I got the idea (probably inspired by reading some objective c code) to include the default implementations as an inner class. Now some colleagues (all with much more java experience than me) saw this idea - feedback was between shocked and surprised ("this is working?"). I googled around a bit but didn't find much evidence of usefulness of this "pattern" (personal i like it): pdf-paper and a faq about code style What do you think - especially in those cases where an "default" implementation is tightly coupled to an interface. Update i just found this: Java Interface-Implementation Pair (see accepted answer)

    Read the article

  • Java generic Interface performance

    - by halfwarp
    Simple question, but tricky answer I guess. Does using Generic Interfaces hurts performance? Example: public interface Stuff<T> { void hello(T var); } vs public interface Stuff { void hello(Integer var); <---- Integer used just as an example } My first thought is that it doesn't. Generics are just part of the language and the compiler will optimize it as though there were no generics (at least in this particular case of generic interfaces). Is this correct?

    Read the article

  • Top 10 Essential Application Programming Interface (API's)

    Web Service Application Programming Interface (API) is an interface implemented by a software program to enable interaction with other software, similar to the way a user interface facilitates interaction between humans and computers. The API (Application Programming Interface) has been an essential component for creating applications that hook into or utilize web apps such as Facebook and Flickr.

    Read the article

  • Using extension methods to decrease the surface area of a C# interface

    - by brian_ritchie
    An interface defines a contract to be implemented by one or more classes.  One of the keys to a well-designed interface is defining a very specific range of functionality. The profile of the interface should be limited to a single purpose & should have the minimum methods required to implement this functionality.  Keeping the interface tight will keep those implementing the interface from getting lazy & not implementing it properly.  I've seen too many overly broad interfaces that aren't fully implemented by developers.  Instead, they just throw a NotImplementedException for the method they didn't implement. One way to help with this issue, is by using extension methods to move overloaded method definitions outside of the interface. Consider the following example: .csharpcode, .csharpcode pre { font-size: small; color: black; font-family: Consolas, "Courier New", Courier, Monospace; background-color: #ffffff; /*white-space: pre;*/ } .csharpcode pre { margin: 0em; } .csharpcode .rem { color: #008000; } .csharpcode .kwrd { color: #0000ff; } .csharpcode .str { color: #006080; } .csharpcode .op { color: #0000c0; } .csharpcode .preproc { color: #cc6633; } .csharpcode .asp { background-color: #ffff00; } .csharpcode .html { color: #800000; } .csharpcode .attr { color: #ff0000; } .csharpcode .alt { background-color: #f4f4f4; width: 100%; margin: 0em; } .csharpcode .lnum { color: #606060; } 1: public interface IFileTransfer 2: { 3: void SendFile(Stream stream, Uri destination); 4: } 5:   6: public static class IFileTransferExtension 7: { 8: public static void SendFile(this IFileTransfer transfer, 9: string Filename, Uri destination) 10: { 11: using (var fs = File.OpenRead(Filename)) 12: { 13: transfer.SendFile(fs, destination); 14: } 15: } 16: } 17:   18: public static class TestIFileTransfer 19: { 20: static void Main() 21: { 22: IFileTransfer transfer = new FTPFileTransfer("user", "pass"); 23: transfer.SendFile(filename, new Uri("ftp://ftp.test.com")); 24: } 25: } In this example, you may have a number of overloads that uses different mechanisms for specifying the source file. The great part is, you don't need to implement these methods on each of your derived classes.  This gives you a better interface and better code reuse.

    Read the article

  • Factories, or Dependency Injection for object instantiation in WCF, when coding against an interface

    - by Saajid Ismail
    Hi I am writing a client/server application, where the client is a Windows Forms app, and the server is a WCF service hosted in a Windows Service. Note that I control both sides of the application. I am trying to implement the practice of coding against an interface: i.e. I have a Shared assembly which is referenced by the client application. This project contains my WCF ServiceContracts and interfaces which will be exposed to clients. I am trying to only expose interfaces to the clients, so that they are only dependant on a contract, not any specific implementation. One of the reasons for doing this is so that I can have my service implementation, and domain change at any time without having to recompile and redeploy the clients. The interfaces/contracts will in this case not change. I only need to recompile and redeploy my WCF service. The design issue I am facing now, is: on the client, how do I create new instances of objects, e.g. ICustomer, if the client doesn't know about the Customer concrete implementation? I need to create a new customer to be saved to the DB. Do I use dependency injection, or a Factory class to instantiate new objects, or should I just allow the client to create new instances of concrete implementations? I am not doing TDD, and I will typically only have one implementation of ICustomer or any other exposed interface.

    Read the article

  • Interface and partial classes

    - by Tomek Tarczynski
    According to rule SA1201 in StyleCop elements in class must appear in correct order. The order is following: Fields Constructors Finalizers (Destructors) Delegates Events Enums Interfaces Properties Indexers Methods Structs Classes Everything is ok, except of Interfaces part, because Interface can contain mehtods, events, properties etc... If we want to be strict about this rule then we won't have all members of Interface in one place which is often very useful. According to StyleCop help this problem can be solved by spliting class into partial classes. Example: /// <summary> /// Represents a customer of the system. /// </summary> public partial class Customer { // Contains the main functionality of the class. } /// <content> /// Implements the ICollection class. /// </content> public partial class Customer : ICollection { public int Count { get { return this.count; } } public bool IsSynchronized { get { return false; } } public object SyncRoot { get { return null; } } public void CopyTo(Array array, int index) { throw new NotImplementedException(); } } Are there any other good solutions to this problem?

    Read the article

  • Bind WCF webservice to specific network interface / IP

    - by Markus
    On a machine with multiple network cards I need to bind a WCF webservice to a specific network interface. It seems that the default is to bind on all network interfaces. The machine has two network adapters with the IPs 192.168.0.10 and 192.168.0.11. I have an Apache running that binds on 192.168.0.10:80 and need to run the webservice on 192.168.0.11:80. (Due to external circumstances I cannot choose another port.) I tried the following: string endpoint = "http://192.168.0.11:80/SOAP"; ServiceHost = new ServiceHost(typeof(TService), new Uri(endpoint)); ServiceHost.AddServiceEndpoint(typeof(TContract), Binding, ""); // or: ServiceHost.AddServiceEndpoint(typeof(TContract), Binding, endpoint); But it doesn't work; netstat -ano -p tcp always shows the webservice listening on 0.0.0.0:80, which is all interfaces (if I got that correct). When I start Apache first, it correctly binds to the other interface, which in turn prevents the WCF service to bind to "all". Any ideas?

    Read the article

  • Personalized UIView created with Interface Builder

    - by Malox
    I need to project a personalized UIView with a UIImageView and 3 UILabel. I need to allocate more of this view because I want put it into a UIScrollView. I would avoid to generate the view programatically because it's difficult and boring design it. My idea is to create a new class that extends UIView and design it with interface builder. For example my Personalized View code is like that: #import <UIKit/UIKit.h> @interface PersonalizedPreview : UIView { IBOutlet UIImageView *image; IBOutlet UILabel *first_label; IBOutlet UILabel *second_label; IBOutlet UILabel *third_label; } -(void) setImage:(UIImage *)image; @property (nonatomic, retain) IBOutlet UIImageView *image; @property (nonatomic, retain) IBOutlet UILabel *label; .... @end I would create an associated xib file for this view and initialize it simply specifing the xib file. Note that I don't want create a specific ViewController for this view and PersonalizedView is instantiate at runtime not when the app runs, moreover I don't know how many PersonalizedView I will instantiate, it depends on runtime execution. Anyone can help me? Thank you very much.

    Read the article

  • Extending the method pool of a concrete class which is derived by an interface

    - by CelGene
    Hello, I had created an interface to abstract a part of the source for a later extension. But what if I want to extend the derived classes with some special methods? So I have the interface here: class virtualFoo { public: virtual ~virtualFoo() { } virtual void create() = 0; virtual void initialize() = 0; }; and one derived class with an extra method: class concreteFoo : public virtualFoo { public: concreteFoo() { } ~concreteFoo() { } virtual void create() { } virtual void initialize() { } void ownMethod() { } }; So I try to create an Instance of concreteFoo and try to call ownMethod like this: void main() { virtualFoo* ptr = new concreteFoo(); concreteFoo* ptr2 = dynamic_cast(ptr); if(NULL != ptr2) ptr2->ownMethod(); } It works but is not really the elegant way. If I would try to use ptr-ownMethod(); directly the compiler complains that this method is not part of virtualFoo. Is there a chance to do this without using dynamic_cast? Thanks in advance!

    Read the article

  • R/XLL: Interface to call XLL method in R

    - by Neerav
    I am trying to call the methods defined in the XLL addin(for Excel) from R. Something similar to this Python code: import os from win32com.client import Dispatch Path = 'myxll.xll' xlApp = Dispatch("Excel.Application") xlApp.RegisterXLL(Path) # function call from excel # =xllfunction("param1","param2",...) result = xlApp.run('xllfunction', "param1","param2",...) Is there any library in R that does the XLL interface? Thanks for your help.

    Read the article

  • Register an Interceptor with Castle Fluent Interface

    - by Quintin Par
    I am trying to implement nhibernate transaction handling through Interceptors and couldn’t figure out how to register the interface through fluent mechanism. I see a Component.For<ServicesInterceptor>().Interceptors but not sure how to use it. Can someone help me out? This example seemed a little complex.

    Read the article

  • Fluent interface and task based applications

    - by Mmarquee
    We have a number of applications that are now looking tired and a bit drab. Looking at the MS style fluent interface looks nice but seems (to me) to be more document based rather than task based. Is there a nice 'modern' ui style that lends itself to task based applications?

    Read the article

  • Method name collision in interface implementation - Java

    - by Bhaskar
    If I have two interfaces , both quite different in their purposes , but with same method signature , how do I make a class implement both without being forced to write a single method that serves for the both the interfaces and writing some convoluted logic in the method implementation that checks for which type of object the call is being made and invoke proper code ? In C# , this is overcome by what is called as explicit interface implementation. Is there any equivalent way in Java ?

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14  | Next Page >