Search Results

Search found 36179 results on 1448 pages for 'generic list'.

Page 73/1448 | < Previous Page | 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80  | Next Page >

  • Generic Any/Attach/Add function for Entity Framework

    - by Matt Thrower
    Looking through my EF classes, they're littered with code that looks like this: if (_myContext.[EntityType].Any(d => d.RowId == dc.RowId)) { _myContext.[EntityType].Attach(dc); _myContext.Entry(dc).State = EntityState.Modified; } else { _myContext.[EntityType].Add(dc); } It's the same thing over and over, and is clearly itching to be handled by a generic function. However, I'm not sure how you'd go about handling the need for it to deal with a variety of unexpected entity types. A good example to get me started would be most appreciated.

    Read the article

  • Error in my OO Generics design. How do I workaround it?

    - by John
    I get "E2511 Type parameter 'T' must be a class type" on the third class. type TSomeClass=class end; ParentParentClass<T>=class end; ParentClass<T: class> = class(ParentParentClass<T>) end; ChildClass<T: TSomeClass> = class(ParentClass<T>) end; I'm trying to write a lite Generic Array wrapper for any data type(ParentParentClass) ,but because I'm unable to free type idenitifiers( if T is TObject then Tobject(T).Free) , I created the second class, which is useful for class types, so I can free the objects. The third class is where I use my wrapper, but the compiler throws that error. How do I make it compile?

    Read the article

  • Recursion in assembly?

    - by Davis
    I'm trying to get a better grasp of assembly, and I am a little confused about how to recursively call functions when I have to deal with registers, popping/pushing, etc. I am embedding x86 assembly in C++. Here I am trying to make a method which given an array of integers will build a linked list containing these integers in the order they appear in the array. I am doing this by calling a recursive function: insertElem (struct elem *head, struct elem *newElem, int data) -head: head of the list -data: the number that will be inserted at the end of a list -newElem: points to the location in memory where I will store the new element (data field) My problem is that I keep overwriting the registers instead of a typical linked list. For example, if I give it an array {2,3,1,8,3,9} my linked-list will return the first element (head) and only the last element, because the elements keep overwriting each other after head is no longer null. So here my linked list looks something like: 2--9 instead of 2--3--1--8--3--9 I feel like I don't have a grasp on how to organize and handle the registers. newElem is in EBX and just keeps getting rewritten. Thanks in advance!

    Read the article

  • .NET C# setting the value of a field defined by a lambda selector

    - by Frank Michael Kraft
    I have a generic class HierarchicalBusinessObject. In the constructor of the class I pass a lambda expression that defines a selector to a field of TModel. protected HierarchicalBusinessObject (Expression<Func<TModel,string>> parentSelector) A call would look like this, for example: public class WorkitemBusinessObject : HierarchicalBusinessObject<Workitem,WorkitemDataContext> { public WorkitemBusinessObject() : base(w => w.SuperWorkitem, w => w.TopLevel == true) { } } I am able to use the selector for read within the class. For example: sourceList.Select(_parentSelector.Compile()).Where(... Now I am asking myself how I could use the selector to set a value to the field. Something like selector.Body() .... Field...

    Read the article

  • C#: Preferred pattern for functions requiring arguments that implement two interfaces

    - by JS Bangs
    The argument to my function f() must implement two different interfaces that are not related to each other by inheritance, IFoo and IBar. I know of two different ways of doing this. The first is to declare an empty interface that inherits from both: public interface IFooBar : IFoo, IBar { // nothing to see here } public int f(IFooBar arg) { // etc. } This, of course, requires that the classes declare themselves as implementing IFooBar rather than IFoo and IBar separately. The second way is to make f() generic with a constraint: public int f<T>(T arg) where T : IFoo, IBar { // etc. } Which of these do you prefer, and why? Are there any non-obvious advantages or disadvantages to each?

    Read the article

  • Architecting a generic search result web control

    - by Bartek Tatkowski
    In a project I'm currently working for we've stumbled upon the need for several kinds of search results presentation controls. The search result are similar, but not identical. For example, in the "office search" result we might want to present the office name and location, while in the "document search" could contain document name, author and publishing date. These fields should be sortable. My current strategy is to employ the Factory pattern and do something like this: ISearchResult officeResults = SearchResultFactory.CreateOfficeSearchResults(data); ISearchResult documentResults = SearchResultFactory.CreateDocumentSearchResults(data); The problem is: I don't know how to implement the markup code. Should I just do Controls.Add(officeResults); in the containing page? Or is there some ASPX trickery to create generic web controls? Or maybe I'm overthinking this and just should create five classes? ;)

    Read the article

  • what is the best way to have a Generic Comparer

    - by oo
    I have a lot of comparer classes where the class being compared is simply checking the name property of the object and doing a string compare. For example: public class ExerciseSorter : IComparer<Exercise> { public int Compare(Exercise x, Exercise y) { return String.Compare(x.Name, y.Name); } } public class CarSorter : IComparer<Car> { public int Compare(Car x, Car y) { return String.Compare(x.Name, y.Name); } } what is the best way to have this code generic so i dont need to write redundant code over and over again.

    Read the article

  • Using a Type object to create a generic

    - by Richard Neil Ilagan
    Hello all! I'm trying to create an instance of a generic class using a Type object. Basically, I'll have a collection of objects of varying types at runtime, and since there's no way for sure to know what types they exactly will be, I'm thinking that I'll have to use Reflection. I was working on something like: Type elType = Type.GetType(obj); Type genType = typeof(GenericType<>).MakeGenericType(elType); object obj = Activator.CreateInstance(genType); Which is well and good. ^_^ The problem is, I'd like to access a method of my GenericType< instance, which I can't because it's typed as an object class. I can't find a way to cast it obj into the specific GenericType<, because that was the problem in the first place (i.e., I just can't put in something like:) ((GenericType<elType>)obj).MyMethod(); How should one go about tackling this problem? Many thanks! ^_^

    Read the article

  • .NET 4.0 Generic Invariant, Covariant, Contravariant

    - by Sameer Shariff
    Here's the scenario i am faced with: public abstract class Record { } public abstract class TableRecord : Record { } public abstract class LookupTableRecord : TableRecord { } public sealed class UserRecord : LookupTableRecord { } public interface IDataAccessLayer<TRecord> where TRecord : Record { } public interface ITableDataAccessLayer<TTableRecord> : IDataAccessLayer<TTableRecord> where TTableRecord : TableRecord { } public interface ILookupTableDataAccessLayer<TLookupTableRecord> : ITableDataAccessLayer<TLookupTableRecord> where TLookupTableRecord : LookupTableRecord { } public abstract class DataAccessLayer<TRecord> : IDataAccessLayer<TRecord> where TRecord : Record, new() { } public abstract class TableDataAccessLayer<TTableRecord> : DataAccessLayer<TTableRecord>, ITableDataAccessLayer<TTableRecord> where TTableRecord : TableRecord, new() { } public abstract class LookupTableDataAccessLayer<TLookupTableRecord> : TableDataAccessLayer<TLookupTableRecord>, ILookupTableDataAccessLayer<TLookupTableRecord> where TLookupTableRecord : LookupTableRecord, new() { } public sealed class UserDataAccessLayer : LookupTableDataAccessLayer<UserRecord> { } Now when i try to cast UserDataAccessLayer to it's generic base type ITableDataAccessLayer<TableRecord>, the compiler complains that it cannot implicitly convert the type.

    Read the article

  • How to flatten list of options using higher order functions?

    - by Synesso
    Using Scala 2.7.7: If I have a list of Options, I can flatten them using a for-comprehension: val listOfOptions = List(None, Some("hi"), None) listOfOptions: List[Option[java.lang.String]] = List(None, Some(hi), None) scala> for (opt <- listOfOptions; string <- opt) yield string res0: List[java.lang.String] = List(hi) I don't like this style, and would rather use a HOF. This attempt is too verbose to be acceptable: scala> listOfOptions.flatMap(opt => if (opt.isDefined) Some(opt.get) else None) res1: List[java.lang.String] = List(hi) Intuitively I would have expected the following to work, but it doesn't: scala> List.flatten(listOfOptions) <console>:6: error: type mismatch; found : List[Option[java.lang.String]] required: List[List[?]] List.flatten(listOfOptions) Even the following seems like it should work, but doesn't: scala> listOfOptions.flatMap(_: Option[String]) <console>:6: error: type mismatch; found : Option[String] required: (Option[java.lang.String]) => Iterable[?] listOfOptions.flatMap(_: Option[String]) ^ The best I can come up with is: scala> listOfOptions.flatMap(_.toList) res2: List[java.lang.String] = List(hi) ... but I would much rather not have to convert the option to a list. That seems clunky. Any advice?

    Read the article

  • Generic Abstract Singleton with Custom Constructor in C#

    - by Heka
    I want to write a generic singleton with an external constructor. In other words the constructor can be modified. I have 2 designs in my mind but I don't know whether they are practical or not. First one is to enforce derived class' constructor to be non-public but I do not know if there is a way of it? Second one is to use a delegate and call it inside the constructor? It isn't necessarily to be a constructor. The reason I chose custom constructor is doing some custom initializations. Any suggestions would be appreciated :)

    Read the article

  • Razor support of generic extension methods

    - by Brian
    Hello, With regards to the Razor view engine, say I want to render Html.TextBoxFor<SomeModel>(i => i.Name), it doesn't seem that the inline syntax works as in: @Html.TextBoxFor<SomeModel>(i => i.Name) This doesn't seem to work because it interprets the generic as an HTML tag. I could use a code-block approach, but then what's the best approach to output the content? The HTML string returned from this method, do I response.write it, or is there a syntax for it, or what's the approach? Thanks.

    Read the article

  • How can I get the path separator in Perl?

    - by ram
    In case of Java, we can get the path separator using System.getProperty("path.separator"); Is there a similar way in Perl? All I want to do is to find a dir, immediate sub directory. Say I am being given two arguments $a and $b; I am splitting the first one based on the path separator and joining it again except the last fragment and comparing with the second argument. The problem is my code has to be generic and for that I need to know whats the system dependent path separator is?

    Read the article

  • Java Webservice with generic methods

    - by danby
    Hi, I was wondering if it is possible to make a generic webservice method in java like this: @WebMethod public <T extends Foo> void testGeneric(T data){ However when I try to consume this with a Java client I get an error stating: [ERROR] Schema descriptor {http://####/}testGeneric in message part "parameters" is not defined and could not be bound to Java. I know it is possible to make a method that takes a parameter such as List and this generates correctly using JAX-WS. I don't mind if there is a solution that means I am tied to using only a particular technology. Thanks, Dan.

    Read the article

  • AutoMapper determine what to map based on generic type

    - by Daz Lewis
    Hi, Is there a way to provide AutoMapper with just a source and based on the specified mapping for the type of that source automatically determine what to map to? So for example I have a type of Foo and I always want it mapped to Bar but at runtime my code can receive any one of a number of generic types. public T Add(T entity) { //List of mappings var mapList = new Dictionary<Type, Type> { {typeof (Foo), typeof (Bar)} {typeof (Widget), typeof (Sprocket)} }; //Based on the type of T determine what we map to...somehow! var t = mapList[entity.GetType()]; //What goes in ?? to ensure var in the case of Foo will be a Bar? var destination = AutoMapper.Mapper.Map<T, ??>(entity); } Any help is much appreciated.

    Read the article

  • Isn't an Iterator in c++ a kind of a pointer?

    - by Bilthon
    Ok this time I decided to make a list using the STL. I need to create a dedicated TCP socket for each client. So everytime I've got a connection, I instantiate a socket and add a pointer to it on a list. list<MyTcp*> SocketList; //This is the list of pointers to sockets list<MyTcp*>::iterator it; //An iterator to the list of pointers to TCP sockets. Putting a new pointer to a socket was easy, but now every time the connection ends I should disconnect the socket and delete the pointer so I don't get a huge memory leak, right? well.. I thought I was doing ok by setting this: it=SocketList.begin(); while( it != SocketList.end() ){ if((*it)->getClientId() == id){ pSocket = it; // <-------------- compiler complains at this line SocketList.remove(pSocket); pSocket->Disconnect(); delete pSocket; break; } } But the compiler is saying this: error: invalid cast from type ‘std::_List_iterator<MyTcp*>’ to type ‘MyTcp*’ Can someone help me here? i thought I was doing things right, isn't an iterator at any given time just pointing to one of the elements of the set? how can I fix it?

    Read the article

  • How can I make this code more generic

    - by Greg
    Hi How could I make this code more generic in the sense that the Dictionary key could be a different type, depending on what the user of the library wanted to implement? For example someone might what to use the extension methods/interfaces in a case where there "unique key" so to speak for Node is actually an "int" not a "string" for example. public interface ITopology { Dictionary<string, INode> Nodes { get; set; } } public static class TopologyExtns { public static void AddNode(this ITopology topIf, INode node) { topIf.Nodes.Add(node.Name, node); } public static INode FindNode(this ITopology topIf, string searchStr) { return topIf.Nodes[searchStr]; } } public class TopologyImp : ITopology { public Dictionary<string, INode> Nodes { get; set; } public TopologyImp() { Nodes = new Dictionary<string, INode>(); } }

    Read the article

  • Create instance of generic type in Java?

    - by David Citron
    Is it possible to create an instance of a generic type in Java? I'm thinking based on what I've seen that the answer is "no" (due to type erasure), but I'd be interested if anyone can see something I'm missing: class SomeContainer<E> { E createContents() { return what??? } } EDIT: It turns out that Super Type Tokens could be used to resolve my issue, but it requires a lot of reflection-based code, as some of the answers below have indicated. I'll leave this open for a little while to see if anyone comes up with anything dramatically different than Ian Robertson's Artima Article.

    Read the article

  • How to get Path Separator in Perl?

    - by ram
    In case of Java, we can get the path separator using System.getProperty("path.separator"); Is there a similar way in Perl? All I want to do is to find a dir, immediate sub directory. Say I am being given two argumens $a and $b; I am splitting the first one based on the path separator and joining it again except the last fragment and comparing with the second argument. The problem is my code has to be generic and for that I need to know whats the system dependent path separator is? Could you help if there is any way to get it? TIA

    Read the article

  • Mixing LINQ to SQL with properties of objects in a generic list

    - by BPotocki
    I am trying to accomplish something like this query: var query = from a in DatabaseTable where listOfObjects.Any(x => x.Id == a.Id) select a; Basically, I want to filter the results where a.Id equals a property of one of the objects in the generic list "listOfObjects". I'm getting the error "Local sequence cannot be used in LINQ to SQL implementation of query operators except the Contains() operator." Any ideas on how to filter this in an easily readable way using "contains" or another method? Thanks in advance.

    Read the article

  • Generic object load function for scala

    - by Isaac Oates
    I'm starting on a Scala application which uses Hibernate (JPA) on the back end. In order to load an object, I use this line of code: val addr = s.load(classOf[Address], addr_id).asInstanceOf[Address]; Needless to say, that's a little painful. I wrote a helper class which looks like this: import org.hibernate.Session class DataLoader(s: Session) { def loadAddress(id: Long): Address = { return s.load(classOf[Address], id).asInstanceOf[Address]; } ... } So, now I can do this: val dl = new DataLoader(s) val addr = dl loadAddress(addr_id) Here's the question: How do I write a generic parametrized method which can load any object using this same pattern? i.e val addr = dl load[Address](addr_id) (or something along those lines.) I'm new to Scala so please forgive anything here that's especially hideous.

    Read the article

  • Operator as and generic classes

    - by abatishchev
    I'm writing .NET On-the-Fly compiler for CLR scripting and want execution method make generic acceptable: object Execute() { return type.InvokeMember(..); } T Execute<T>() { return Execute() as T; /* doesn't work: The type parameter 'T' cannot be used with the 'as' operator because it does not have a class type constraint nor a 'class' constraint */ // also neither typeof(T) not T.GetType(), so on are possible return (T) Execute(); // ok } But I think operator as will be very useful: if result type isn't T method will return null, instead of an exception! Is it possible to do?

    Read the article

  • Rails: Generic form actions, cancel link losing `:back` on validation failure

    - by Patrick Connor
    I am trying to create a generic set of Submit, Cancel, and Destroy actions for forms. At this point, it appears that everything is working, except that I lose :back functionality then a form reloads due to validation errors. Is there a way to catch the fact that validation has failed, and in that case, keep the request.env['HTTP_REFERER'] or :back value the same without having to edit every controller? = simple_form_for @announcement do |f| = f.error_notification = f.input :message = f.input :starts_at = f.input :ends_at #submit = f.button :submit = "or " = link_to("cancel", url_for(:back)) .right - if !f.object.new_record? - resource = (f.object.class.name).downcase = link_to "destroy", url_for(:action => 'destroy'), :confirm => "Are you sure that you want to delete this #{resource}?", :method => :delete .clear .non_input #post_back_msg #indicator.inline = image_tag "indicator.gif" .inline = "Please wait..." .non_input

    Read the article

  • C# Using Reflection to Get a Generic Object's (and its Nested Objects) Properties

    - by Jimbo
    This is a scenario created to help understand what Im trying to achieve. I am trying to create a method that returns the specified property of a generic object e.g. public object getValue<TModel>(TModel item, string propertyName) where TModel : class{ PropertyInfo p = typeof(TModel).GetProperty(propertyName); return p.GetValue(item, null); } The code above works fine if you're looking for a property on the TModel item e.g. string customerName = getValue<Customer>(customer, "name"); However, if you want to find out what the customer's group's name is, it becomes a problem: e.g. string customerGroupName = getValue<Customer>(customer, "Group.name"); Hoping someone can give me some insight on this way out scenario - thanks.

    Read the article

  • How to check if TypeIdenitifier(T) is an Object?

    - by John
    I'm creating a generic list class that has a member of type Array(Array of ). The problem is the class descruction,because the class is supposed to be used for types from byte to types inheriting TObject. Specifically: destructor Destroy; var elem:T; begin /*if(T is Tobject) then //Check if T inherits TObject {Compiler error!} for elem in FData do TObject(elem).Free;*/ // do not know how to do it SetLength(FItems,0); //FItems : Array of T inherited Destroy; end; How do I check if T is TObject so I can free every member if the typeidenitifier is a class,for example?

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80  | Next Page >