Search Results

Search found 3838 results on 154 pages for 'abstract factory'.

Page 8/154 | < Previous Page | 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15  | Next Page >

  • How can I create object in abstract class without having knowledge of implementation?

    - by Greg
    Hi, Is there a way to implement the "CreateNode" method in my library abstract below? Or can this only be done in client code outside the library? I current get the error "Cannot create an instance of the abstract class or interface 'ToplogyLibrary.AbstractNode" public abstract class AbstractTopology<T> { // Properties public Dictionary<T, AbstractNode<T>> Nodes { get; private set; } public List<AbstractRelationship<T>> Relationships { get; private set; } // Constructors protected AbstractTopology() { Nodes = new Dictionary<T, AbstractNode<T>>(); } // Methods public AbstractNode<T> CreateNode() { var node = new AbstractNode<T>(); // ** Does not work ** Nodes.Add(node.Key, node); } } } public abstract class AbstractNode<T> { public T Key { get; set; } } public abstract class AbstractRelationship<T> { public AbstractNode<T> Parent { get; set; } public AbstractNode<T> Child { get; set; } }

    Read the article

  • Best method of including an abstract in a latex 'book'?

    - by olan
    Hello there. I've been looking for the answer to this question for a while now but can't seem to find it, so I'm hoping someone on here can help me. I'm writing up a thesis in Latex, and really like the \frontmatter, \mainmatter and \backmatter ability when using the "book" environment. However I need to add an abstract and the \begin{abstract} environment is undefined when creating a "book". If I change to a "report" however, I lose the functionality of the *matter terms. So what I really need to know is: is there a simple method of including an abstract in a "book" and have it formatted the same as it would be in a "report"? (i.e. centered vertically and horizontally with an 'abstract' heading) Thanks for any help! First post on stackoverflow after reading for months!

    Read the article

  • Is is possible to create a factory class in PHP?

    - by user198729
    Like the BeanFactory in java: In the much more common case where the BeanFactory itself directly creates the bean by calling its constructor (equivalent to Java code calling new), the class attribute specifies the class of the bean to be constructed. In the less common case where the BeanFactory calls a static, so-called factory method on a class to create the bean, the class attribute specifies the actual class containing the static factory method. Note:it's not the factory method

    Read the article

  • CEO Taken Captive in His Own Factory?

    - by Stephen Slade
    Last Friday was no ordinary day for Chip Starnes, the 42 year old factory owner of Specialty Medical Supplies in China. He recently announced movement of some of the production of their diabetes testing equipment from Beijing to Mumbai India.  Of the 110 employees at the facility, about 80 protested by blocking the doors and refusing to let Chip Starnes out of the facility.  He has been trapped in his office several days now.  The employees think the factory was closing but Mr. Starnes said it was not. Mis-information? Poor communications? Work-stoppage. This is a good example of supply chain disruption. Parked cars are blocking the entrance to the facility, front gates are chained close, the CEO a prisoner in his own factory. Chip Starnes was presented with documents to sign in Chinese indicating he would pay severance and other demands he did not understand, possibly bankrupting the company.    If you depend on supply from China and other foreign suppliers, how reliable are your sources? For example how are the shopfloor employee relations? Is it possible to predict these types of HR risks and plan around them? What are your contingencies? It's important to ask the right questions and hear good answers. Having tools in place to rapidly evaluate, assess and react to these disruptions are the keys to survival. Hear how leading organizations are reinforcing their supply chains and mitigating risk through technology with Oracle's latest release of Oracle Supply Chain Management. Source: WSJ pg.B1, June 25, 2013

    Read the article

  • Looking for a better Factory pattern (Java)

    - by Sam Goldberg
    After doing a rough sketch of a high level object model, I am doing iterative TDD, and letting the other objects emerge as a refactoring of the code (as it increases in complexity). (That whole approach may be a discussion/argument for another day.) In any case, I am at the point where I am looking to refactor code blocks currently in an if-else blocks into separate objects. This is because there is another another value combination which creates new set of logical sub-branches. To be more specific, this is a trading system feature, where buy orders have different behavior than sell orders. Responses to the orders have a numeric indicator field which describes some event that occurred (e.g. fill, cancel). The combination of this numeric indicator field plus whether it is a buy or sell, require different processing buy the code. Creating a family of objects to separate the code for the unique handling each of the combinations of the 2 fields seems like a good choice at this point. The way I would normally do this, is to create some Factory object which when called with the 2 relevant parameters (indicator, buysell), would return the correct subclass of the object. Some times I do this pattern with a map, which allows to look up a live instance (or constructor to use via reflection), and sometimes I just hard code the cases in the Factory class. So - for some reason this feels like not good design (e.g. one object which knows all the subclasses of an interface or parent object), and a bit clumsy. Is there a better pattern for solving this kind of problem? And if this factory method approach makes sense, can anyone suggest a nicer design?

    Read the article

  • I'm using a sequence in Factory Girl to get unique values but I'm getting validation errors

    - by Sean Seefried
    I have a model defined this way class Lga < ActiveRecord::Base validates_uniqueness_of :code validates_presence_of :name end I've defined a factory for Lgas with Factory.sequence(:lga_id) { |n| n + 10000 } Factory.define :lga do |l| id = Factory.next :lga_id l.code "lga_#{id}" l.name "LGA #{id}" end However, when I run Factory.create(:lga) Factory.create(:lga) in script/console I get >> Factory.create(:lga) => #<Lga id: 2, code: "lga_10001", name: "LGA 10001", created_at: "2010-03-18 23:55:29", updated_at: "2010-03-18 23:55:29"> >> Factory.create(:lga) ActiveRecord::RecordInvalid: Validation failed: Code has already been taken

    Read the article

  • Oracle: Addressing Information Overload in Factory Automation

    - by [email protected]
     ORACLE's Stephen Slade has written about addressing information overload on the factory floor.  According to Slade, today's automated processes create large amounts of valuable data, but only a small percentage remains actionable.Oracle claims information overload can cost financially, as companies struggle to store and collect reams of data needed to identify embedded trends, while producing manual reports to meet quality standards, regulatory requirements and general reporting goals.Increasing scrutiny of new requirements and standards add to the need to find new ways to process data. Many companies are now using analytical engines to contextualise data into 'actionable information'. Oracle claims factories need to seriously address their data collection, audit trail and records retention processes. By organising their data, factories can maximise outcomes from excellence and contuinuous improvement programs, and gain visibility into costs int the supply chain.Analytics tools and technologies such as Business Intelligence (BI), Enterprise Manufacturing Intelligence (EMI) and Manufacturing Operations Centers (MOC) can help consolidate, contextual and distribute information.   FULL ARICLE:  http://www.myfen.com.au/news/oracle--addressing-information-overload-in-factory

    Read the article

  • Can You Have "Empty" Abstract/Classes?

    - by ShrimpCrackers
    Of course you can, I'm just wondering if it's rational to design in such a way. I'm making a breakout clone and was doing some class design. I wanted to use inheritance, even though I don't have to, to apply what I've learned in C++. I was thinking about class design and came up with something like this: GameObject - base class (consists of data members like x and y offsets, and a vector of SDL_Surface* MovableObject : GameObject - abstract class + derived class of GameObject (one method void move() = 0; ) NonMovableObject : GameObject - empty class...no methods or data members other than constructor and destructor(at least for now?). Later I was planning to derive a class from NonMovableObject, like Tileset : NonMovableObject. I was just wondering if "empty" abstract classes or just empty classes are often used...I notice that the way I'm doing this, I'm just creating the class NonMovableObject just for sake of categorization. I know I'm overthinking things just to make a breakout clone, but my focus is less on the game and more on using inheritance and designing some sort of game framework.

    Read the article

  • Generate Unique Abstract Backgrounds with Ablaze

    - by Jason Fitzpatrick
    If you want custom and unique backgrounds without having to code your own image-generating engine, Ablaze makes it simple (and fun) to create abstract images. You can customize a wide array of options in Ablaze including the base shape (ring, horizontal line, or random), number of particles, distance each particle travels, and the speed (if you increase the speed range you get more distinct lines and if you decrease it you get smoother smokier shapes). You can also seed the design with a color palette pulled from any image you provide (the sample above was seeded with a Wonder Woman comic panel). Tweak and reset the pattern generation as much as you want; when you create an abstract image worthy of your desktop just click the save button to grab a copy of it in PNG format. Ablaze [via Flowing Data] How To Create a Customized Windows 7 Installation Disc With Integrated Updates How to Get Pro Features in Windows Home Versions with Third Party Tools HTG Explains: Is ReadyBoost Worth Using?

    Read the article

  • Is it possible to create a C++ factory system that can create an instance of any "registered" object

    - by chrensli
    Hello, I've spent my entire day researching this topic, so it is with some scattered knowledge on the topic that i come to you with this inquiry. Please allow me to describe what I am attempting to accomplish, and maybe you can either suggest a solution to the immediate question, or another way to tackle the problem entirely. I am trying to mimic something related to how XAML files work in WPF, where you are essentially instantiating an object tree from an XML definition. If this is incorrect, please inform. This issue is otherwise unrelated to WPF, C#, or anything managed - I solely mention it because it is a similar concept.. So, I've created an XML parser class already, and generated a node tree based on ObjectNode objects. ObjectNode objects hold a string value called type, and they have an std::vector of child ObjectNode objects. The next step is to instantiate a tree of objects based on the data in the ObjectNode tree. This intermediate ObjectNode tree is needed because the same ObjectNode tree might be instantiated multiple times or delayed as needed. The tree of objects that is being created is such that the nodes in the tree are descendants of a common base class, which for now we can refer to as MyBase. Leaf nodes can be of any type, not necessarily derived from MyBase. To make this more challenging, I will not know what types of MyBase derived objects might be involved, so I need to allow for new types to be registered with the factory. I am aware of boost's factory. Their docs have an interesting little design paragraph on this page: o We may want a factory that takes some arguments that are forwarded to the constructor, o we will probably want to use smart pointers, o we may want several member functions to create different kinds of objects, o we might not necessarily need a polymorphic base class for the objects, o as we will see, we do not need a factory base class at all, o we might want to just call the constructor - without #new# to create an object on the stack, and o finally we might want to use customized memory management. I might not be understanding this all correctly, but that seems to state that what I'm trying to do can be accomplished with boost's factory. But all the examples I've located, seem to describe factories where all objects are derived from a base type. Any guidance on this would be greatly appreciated. Thanks for your time!

    Read the article

  • factorygirl rails, says "top required" in my spec - don't know how to fix

    - by user924088
    I get the following error message when I run my tests. It says that the problem is in my lecture_spec, and that the top is required. I don't know if this has something to do with requiring my spec_helper.rb file. 1) Lecture has a valid factory Failure/Error: FactoryGirl.create(:lecture).should be_valid NoMethodError: undefined method `after_build=' for #<Lecture:0x007fe7747bce70> # ./spec/models/lecture_spec.rb:21:in `block (2 levels) in <top (required)>' My factory looks like the following: require 'faker' FactoryGirl.define do factory :question do association :lecture name { Faker::Lorem.words(1) } description {Faker::Lorem.words(7)} factory :question_one do answer 1 end factory :question_two do answer 2 end factory :question_three do answer 3 end end end And this is my lecture_spec file require 'spec_helper' describe Lecture do it "has a valid factory" do FactoryGirl.create(:lecture).should be_valid end end and this is my lecture factory, where I defined the lecture factory. FactoryGirl.define do factory :lecture do #association :question name {Faker::Lorem.words(1)} description {Faker::Lorem.words(7)} soundfile_file_name {Faker::Lorem.words(1)} soundfile_content_type {Faker::Lorem.words(3)} soundfile_file_size {Faker::Lorem.words(8)} after_build do |question| [:question_one, :question_two, :question_three].each do |question| association :questions, factory: :question, strategy: :build end end end end

    Read the article

  • Factory.next not working in FactoryGirl 4.x and Rails 3.0. Anyone know the replacement?

    - by cchapman900
    I'm very new to Rails and am following along in the Ruby on Rails 3 Tutorial book by Michael Hartl and am running into a little bump while using the factory_girl gem. Specifically, I'm not sure how to update the code Factory.next(...) Before coming to this, I did run into a little problem between the older version of FactoryGirl used in the book and the current 4.1 version I'm using now, but was able to resolve it. Specifically, the old way of writing code as user = Factory(:user) needed to be updated to user = FactoryGirl.create(:user) That was fine, but now I'm coming to the code (as written in the book): spec/controllers/users_controler_spec.rb . @users << Factory(:user, :email => Factory.next(:email)) . which I've tried updating to . @users << FactoryGirl.create(:user, :email => FactoryGirl.next(:email)) . but get the error: Failure/Error: @users << FactoryGirl.create(:user, :email => FactoryGirl.next(:email)) NoMethodError: undefined method `next' for FactoryGirl:Module I've tried a few different variations but still can't quite get it. Is the problem I'm having with FactoryGirl and just not using the gem correctly or does it have something to do with the Ruby methods?

    Read the article

  • Can i override an abstract method written in a parent class, with a different name in a child class?

    - by Ranhiru
    abstract class SettingSaver { public abstract void add(string Name, string Value); public abstract void remove(string SettingName); } class XMLSettings : SettingSaver { public override void add(string Name, string Value) { throw new NotImplementedException(); } public override void remove(string SettingName) { throw new NotImplementedException(); } } Is there anyway that I can change the name of the add function in XMLSettings class to addSetting but make sure it overrides the add function in the SettingSaver? I know it should be definitely overridden in derived classes but just want to know whether I can use a different name :) Thanx in advance :D

    Read the article

  • Building a database class in PHP

    - by Sprottenwels
    I wonder if I should write a database class for my application, and if so, how to accomplish it? Over there on SO, a guy mentioned it should be written as an abstract class. However, I can't understand why this would be a benefit. Do I understand correctly, that if I would write an abstract class, every other class that methods will need a database connection, could simply extend this abstract class and have it's own database object? If so, how is this different from a "normal" class where I could instantiate an database object? Another method would be to completely forget about my own class and to instantiate a mysqli object on demand. What do you recommend?

    Read the article

  • What is the better design decision approach?

    - by palm snow
    I have two classes (MyFoo1 and MyFoo2) that share some common functionality. So far it does not seem like I need any polymorphic inheritence but at this point I am considering the following options: Have the common functionality in a utility class. Both of these classes call these methods from that utility class. Have an abstract class and implement common methods in that abstract class. Then derive MyFoo1 and MyFoo2 from that abstract class. Any suggestion on what would be a better design decision?

    Read the article

  • When is factory method better than simple factory and vice versa?

    - by Bruce
    Hi all Working my way through the Head First Design Patterns book. I believe I understand the simple factory and the factory method, but I'm having trouble seeing what advantages factory method brings over simple factory. If an object A uses a simple factory to create its B objects, then clients can create it like this: A a = new A(new BFactory()); whereas if an object uses a factory method, a client can create it like this: A a = new ConcreteA(); // ConcreteA contains a method for instantiating the same Bs that the BFactory above creates, with the method hardwired into the subclass of A, ConcreteA. So in the case of the simple factory, clients compose A with a B factory, whereas with the factory method, the client chooses the appropriate subclass for the types of B it wants. There really doesn't seem to be much to choose between them. Either you have to choose which BFactory you want to compose A with, or you have to choose the right subclass of A to give you the Bs. Under what circumstances is one better than the other? Thanks all!

    Read the article

  • Extending abstract classes in c#

    - by ng
    I am a Java developer and I have noticed some differences in extending abstract classes in c# as opposed to Java. I was wondering how a c# developer would achived the following. 1) Covarience public abstract class A { public abstract List<B> List(); } public class BList : List<T> where T : B { } public abstract class C : A { public abstract BList List(); } So in the above hierarchy, there is covarience in C where it returns a type compatible with what A returns. However this gives me an error in Visual Studio. Is there a way to specify a covarient return type in c#? 2) Adding a setter to a property public abstract class A { public abstract String Name { get; } } public abstract class B : A { public abstract String Name { get; set } } Here the compiler complains of hiding. Any suggestions? Please do not suggest using interfaces unless that is the ONLY way to do this.

    Read the article

  • Caching factory design

    - by max
    I have a factory class XFactory that creates objects of class X. Instances of X are very large, so the main purpose of the factory is to cache them, as transparently to the client code as possible. Objects of class X are immutable, so the following code seems reasonable: # module xfactory.py import x class XFactory: _registry = {} def get_x(self, arg1, arg2, use_cache = True): if use_cache: hash_id = hash((arg1, arg2)) if hash_id in _registry: return _registry[hash_id] obj = x.X(arg1, arg2) _registry[hash_id] = obj return obj # module x.py class X: # ... Is it a good pattern? (I know it's not the actual Factory Pattern.) Is there anything I should change? Now, I find that sometimes I want to cache X objects to disk. I'll use pickle for that purpose, and store as values in the _registry the filenames of the pickled objects instead of references to the objects. Of course, _registry itself would have to be stored persistently (perhaps in a pickle file of its own, in a text file, in a database, or simply by giving pickle files the filenames that contain hash_id). Except now the validity of the cached object depends not only on the parameters passed to get_x(), but also on the version of the code that created these objects. Strictly speaking, even a memory-cached object could become invalid if someone modifies x.py or any of its dependencies, and reloads it while the program is running. So far I ignored this danger since it seems unlikely for my application. But I certainly cannot ignore it when my objects are cached to persistent storage. What can I do? I suppose I could make the hash_id more robust by calculating hash of a tuple that contains arguments arg1 and arg2, as well as the filename and last modified date for x.py and every module and data file that it (recursively) depends on. To help delete cache files that won't ever be useful again, I'd add to the _registry the unhashed representation of the modified dates for each record. But even this solution isn't 100% safe since theoretically someone might load a module dynamically, and I wouldn't know about it from statically analyzing the source code. If I go all out and assume every file in the project is a dependency, the mechanism will still break if some module grabs data from an external website, etc.). In addition, the frequency of changes in x.py and its dependencies is quite high, leading to heavy cache invalidation. Thus, I figured I might as well give up some safety, and only invalidate the cache only when there is an obvious mismatch. This means that class X would have a class-level cache validation identifier that should be changed whenever the developer believes a change happened that should invalidate the cache. (With multiple developers, a separate invalidation identifier is required for each.) This identifier is hashed along with arg1 and arg2 and becomes part of the hash keys stored in _registry. Since developers may forget to update the validation identifier or not realize that they invalidated existing cache, it would seem better to add another validation mechanism: class X can have a method that returns all the known "traits" of X. For instance, if X is a table, I might add the names of all the columns. The hash calculation will include the traits as well. I can write this code, but I am afraid that I'm missing something important; and I'm also wondering if perhaps there's a framework or package that can do all of this stuff already. Ideally, I'd like to combine in-memory and disk-based caching.

    Read the article

  • How to avoid general names for abstract classes?

    - by djechlin
    In general it's good to avoid words like "handle" or "process" as part of routine names and class names, unless you are dealing with (e.g.) file handles or (e.g.) unix processes. However abstract classes often don't really know what they're going to do with something besides, say, process it. In my current situation I have an "EmailProcessor" that logs into a user's inbox and processes messages from it. It's not really clear to me how to give this a more precise name, although I've noticed the following style matter arises: better to treat derived classes as clients and named the base class by the part of the functionality it implements? Gives it more meaning but will violate is-a. E.g. EmailAcquirer would be a reasonable name since it's acquiring for the derived class, but the derived class won't be acquiring for anyone. Or just really vague name since who knows what the derived classes will do. However "Processor" is still too general since it's doing many relevant operations, like logging in and using IMAP. Any way out of this dilemma? Problem is more evident for abstract methods, in which you can't really answer the question "what does this do?" because the answer is simply "whatever the client wants."

    Read the article

  • C#/.NET Little Wonders: Tuples and Tuple Factory Methods

    - by James Michael Hare
    Once again, in this series of posts I look at the parts of the .NET Framework that may seem trivial, but can really help improve your code by making it easier to write and maintain.  This week, we look at the System.Tuple class and the handy factory methods for creating a Tuple by inferring the types. What is a Tuple? The System.Tuple is a class that tends to inspire a reaction in one of two ways: love or hate.  Simply put, a Tuple is a data structure that holds a specific number of items of a specific type in a specific order.  That is, a Tuple<int, string, int> is a tuple that contains exactly three items: an int, followed by a string, followed by an int.  The sequence is important not only to distinguish between two members of the tuple with the same type, but also for comparisons between tuples.  Some people tend to love tuples because they give you a quick way to combine multiple values into one result.  This can be handy for returning more than one value from a method (without using out or ref parameters), or for creating a compound key to a Dictionary, or any other purpose you can think of.  They can be especially handy when passing a series of items into a call that only takes one object parameter, such as passing an argument to a thread's startup routine.  In these cases, you do not need to define a class, simply create a tuple containing the types you wish to return, and you are ready to go? On the other hand, there are some people who see tuples as a crutch in object-oriented design.  They may view the tuple as a very watered down class with very little inherent semantic meaning.  As an example, what if you saw this in a piece of code: 1: var x = new Tuple<int, int>(2, 5); What are the contents of this tuple?  If the tuple isn't named appropriately, and if the contents of each member are not self evident from the type this can be a confusing question.  The people who tend to be against tuples would rather you explicitly code a class to contain the values, such as: 1: public sealed class RetrySettings 2: { 3: public int TimeoutSeconds { get; set; } 4: public int MaxRetries { get; set; } 5: } Here, the meaning of each int in the class is much more clear, but it's a bit more work to create the class and can clutter a solution with extra classes. So, what's the correct way to go?  That's a tough call.  You will have people who will argue quite well for one or the other.  For me, I consider the Tuple to be a tool to make it easy to collect values together easily.  There are times when I just need to combine items for a key or a result, in which case the tuple is short lived and so the meaning isn't easily lost and I feel this is a good compromise.  If the scope of the collection of items, though, is more application-wide I tend to favor creating a full class. Finally, it should be noted that tuples are immutable.  That means they are assigned a value at construction, and that value cannot be changed.  Now, of course if the tuple contains an item of a reference type, this means that the reference is immutable and not the item referred to. Tuples from 1 to N Tuples come in all sizes, you can have as few as one element in your tuple, or as many as you like.  However, since C# generics can't have an infinite generic type parameter list, any items after 7 have to be collapsed into another tuple, as we'll show shortly. So when you declare your tuple from sizes 1 (a 1-tuple or singleton) to 7 (a 7-tuple or septuple), simply include the appropriate number of type arguments: 1: // a singleton tuple of integer 2: Tuple<int> x; 3:  4: // or more 5: Tuple<int, double> y; 6:  7: // up to seven 8: Tuple<int, double, char, double, int, string, uint> z; Anything eight and above, and we have to nest tuples inside of tuples.  The last element of the 8-tuple is the generic type parameter Rest, this is special in that the Tuple checks to make sure at runtime that the type is a Tuple.  This means that a simple 8-tuple must nest a singleton tuple (one of the good uses for a singleton tuple, by the way) for the Rest property. 1: // an 8-tuple 2: Tuple<int, int, int, int, int, double, char, Tuple<string>> t8; 3:  4: // an 9-tuple 5: Tuple<int, int, int, int, double, int, char, Tuple<string, DateTime>> t9; 6:  7: // a 16-tuple 8: Tuple<int, int, int, int, int, int, int, Tuple<int, int, int, int, int, int, int, Tuple<int,int>>> t14; Notice that on the 14-tuple we had to have a nested tuple in the nested tuple.  Since the tuple can only support up to seven items, and then a rest element, that means that if the nested tuple needs more than seven items you must nest in it as well.  Constructing tuples Constructing tuples is just as straightforward as declaring them.  That said, you have two distinct ways to do it.  The first is to construct the tuple explicitly yourself: 1: var t3 = new Tuple<int, string, double>(1, "Hello", 3.1415927); This creates a triple that has an int, string, and double and assigns the values 1, "Hello", and 3.1415927 respectively.  Make sure the order of the arguments supplied matches the order of the types!  Also notice that we can't half-assign a tuple or create a default tuple.  Tuples are immutable (you can't change the values once constructed), so thus you must provide all values at construction time. Another way to easily create tuples is to do it implicitly using the System.Tuple static class's Create() factory methods.  These methods (much like C++'s std::make_pair method) will infer the types from the method call so you don't have to type them in.  This can dramatically reduce the amount of typing required especially for complex tuples! 1: // this 4-tuple is typed Tuple<int, double, string, char> 2: var t4 = Tuple.Create(42, 3.1415927, "Love", 'X'); Notice how much easier it is to use the factory methods and infer the types?  This can cut down on typing quite a bit when constructing tuples.  The Create() factory method can construct from a 1-tuple (singleton) to an 8-tuple (octuple), which of course will be a octuple where the last item is a singleton as we described before in nested tuples. Accessing tuple members Accessing a tuple's members is simplicity itself… mostly.  The properties for accessing up to the first seven items are Item1, Item2, …, Item7.  If you have an octuple or beyond, the final property is Rest which will give you the nested tuple which you can then access in a similar matter.  Once again, keep in mind that these are read-only properties and cannot be changed. 1: // for septuples and below, use the Item properties 2: var t1 = Tuple.Create(42, 3.14); 3:  4: Console.WriteLine("First item is {0} and second is {1}", 5: t1.Item1, t1.Item2); 6:  7: // for octuples and above, use Rest to retrieve nested tuple 8: var t9 = new Tuple<int, int, int, int, int, int, int, 9: Tuple<int, int>>(1,2,3,4,5,6,7,Tuple.Create(8,9)); 10:  11: Console.WriteLine("The 8th item is {0}", t9.Rest.Item1); Tuples are IStructuralComparable and IStructuralEquatable Most of you know about IComparable and IEquatable, what you may not know is that there are two sister interfaces to these that were added in .NET 4.0 to help support tuples.  These IStructuralComparable and IStructuralEquatable make it easy to compare two tuples for equality and ordering.  This is invaluable for sorting, and makes it easy to use tuples as a compound-key to a dictionary (one of my favorite uses)! Why is this so important?  Remember when we said that some folks think tuples are too generic and you should define a custom class?  This is all well and good, but if you want to design a custom class that can automatically order itself based on its members and build a hash code for itself based on its members, it is no longer a trivial task!  Thankfully the tuple does this all for you through the explicit implementations of these interfaces. For equality, two tuples are equal if all elements are equal between the two tuples, that is if t1.Item1 == t2.Item1 and t1.Item2 == t2.Item2, and so on.  For ordering, it's a little more complex in that it compares the two tuples one at a time starting at Item1, and sees which one has a smaller Item1.  If one has a smaller Item1, it is the smaller tuple.  However if both Item1 are the same, it compares Item2 and so on. For example: 1: var t1 = Tuple.Create(1, 3.14, "Hi"); 2: var t2 = Tuple.Create(1, 3.14, "Hi"); 3: var t3 = Tuple.Create(2, 2.72, "Bye"); 4:  5: // true, t1 == t2 because all items are == 6: Console.WriteLine("t1 == t2 : " + t1.Equals(t2)); 7:  8: // false, t1 != t2 because at least one item different 9: Console.WriteLine("t2 == t2 : " + t2.Equals(t3)); The actual implementation of IComparable, IEquatable, IStructuralComparable, and IStructuralEquatable is explicit, so if you want to invoke the methods defined there you'll have to manually cast to the appropriate interface: 1: // true because t1.Item1 < t3.Item1, if had been same would check Item2 and so on 2: Console.WriteLine("t1 < t3 : " + (((IComparable)t1).CompareTo(t3) < 0)); So, as I mentioned, the fact that tuples are automatically equatable and comparable (provided the types you use define equality and comparability as needed) means that we can use tuples for compound keys in hashing and ordering containers like Dictionary and SortedList: 1: var tupleDict = new Dictionary<Tuple<int, double, string>, string>(); 2:  3: tupleDict.Add(t1, "First tuple"); 4: tupleDict.Add(t2, "Second tuple"); 5: tupleDict.Add(t3, "Third tuple"); Because IEquatable defines GetHashCode(), and Tuple's IStructuralEquatable implementation creates this hash code by combining the hash codes of the members, this makes using the tuple as a complex key quite easy!  For example, let's say you are creating account charts for a financial application, and you want to cache those charts in a Dictionary based on the account number and the number of days of chart data (for example, a 1 day chart, 1 week chart, etc): 1: // the account number (string) and number of days (int) are key to get cached chart 2: var chartCache = new Dictionary<Tuple<string, int>, IChart>(); Summary The System.Tuple, like any tool, is best used where it will achieve a greater benefit.  I wouldn't advise overusing them, on objects with a large scope or it can become difficult to maintain.  However, when used properly in a well defined scope they can make your code cleaner and easier to maintain by removing the need for extraneous POCOs and custom property hashing and ordering. They are especially useful in defining compound keys to IDictionary implementations and for returning multiple values from methods, or passing multiple values to a single object parameter. Tweet Technorati Tags: C#,.NET,Tuple,Little Wonders

    Read the article

  • Getting link to abstract indexed in Google Scholar

    - by JordanReiter
    We have a large digital library with thousands of papers indexed in Google Scholar. We allow Google Scholar to index our PDFs but they're blocked unless you have a subscription. So Google has full-text indexing/searching of our PDFs (great!) but then the links point just to those PDFs (boo!) instead of the more helpful abstract pages. Does anyone know what could cause an issue like this? I am, to the best of my knowledge, following all of the guidelines laid out in their Inclusion Guidelines. Here's some example meta data: <meta name="citation_title" content="Sample Title"/> <meta name="citation_author" content="LastName, FirstName"/> <meta name="citation_publication_date" content="2012/06/26"/> <meta name="citation_volume" content="1"/> <meta name="citation_issue" content="1"/> <meta name="citation_firstpage" content="10"/> <meta name="citation_lastpage" content="20"/> <meta name="citation_conference_title" content="Name of the Conference"/> <meta name="citation_isbn" content="1-234567-89-X"/> <meta name="citation_pdf_url" content="http://www.example.org/p/1234/proceeding_1234.pdf"/> <meta name="citation_fulltext_html_url" content="http://www.example.org/f/1234/"/> <meta name="citation_abstract_html_url" content="http://www.example.org/p/1234/"/> <link rel="canonical" href="http://www.example.org/p/1234/" /> example.org/p/1234 is the abstract page for the article; example.org/f/1234 is the fulltext link accessible to subscribers only (and to Google Scholar). example.org/p/1234/proceeding_1234.pdf is the fulltext PDF link.

    Read the article

  • Use decorator and factory together to extend objects?

    - by TheClue
    I'm new to OOP and design pattern. I've a simple app that handles the generation of Tables, Columns (that belong to Table), Rows (that belong to Column) and Values (that belong to Rows). Each of these object can have a collection of Property, which is in turn defined as an enum. They are all interfaces: I used factories to get concrete instances of these products, depending on circumnstances. Now I'm facing the problem of extending these classes. Let's say I need another product called "SpecialTable" which in turn has some special properties or new methods like 'getSomethingSpecial' or an extended set of Property. The only way is to extend/specialize all my elements (ie. build a SpecialTableFactory, a SpecialTable interface and a SpecialTableImpl concrete)? What to do if, let's say, I plan to use standard methods like addRow(Column column, String name) that doesn't need to be specialized? I don't like the idea to inherit factories and interfaces, but since SpecialTable has more methods than Table i guess it cannot share the same factory. Am I wrong? Another question: if I need to define product properties at run time (a Table that is upgraded to SpecialTable at runtime), i guess i should use a decorator. Is it possible (and how) to combine both factory and decorator design? Is it better to use a State or Strategy pattern, instead?

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15  | Next Page >