Search Results

Search found 1810 results on 73 pages for 'typed'.

Page 9/73 | < Previous Page | 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16  | Next Page >

  • What are the hibernate annotations used to persist a value typed Map with an enumerated type as a ke

    - by Jason Novak
    I am having trouble getting the right hibernate annotations to use on a value typed Map with an enumerated class as a key. Here is a simplified (and extremely contrived) example. public class Thing { public String id; public Letter startLetter; public Map<Letter,Double> letterCounts = new HashMap<Letter, Double>(); } public enum Letter { A, B, C, D } Here are my current annotations on Thing @Entity public class Thing { @Id public String id; @Enumerated(EnumType.STRING) public Letter startLetter; @CollectionOfElements @JoinTable(name = "Thing_letterFrequencies", joinColumns = @JoinColumn(name = "thingId")) @MapKey(columns = @Column(name = "letter", nullable = false)) @Column(name = "count") public Map<Letter,Double> letterCounts = new HashMap<Letter, Double>(); } Hibernate generates the following DDL to create the tables for my MySql database create table Thing (id varchar(255) not null, startLetter varchar(255), primary key (id)) type=InnoDB; create table Thing_letterFrequencies (thingId varchar(255) not null, count double precision, letter tinyblob not null, primary key (thingId, letter)) type=InnoDB; Notice that hibernate tries to define letter (my map key) as a tinyblob, however it defines startLetter as a varchar(255) even though both are of the enumerated type Letter. When I try to create the tables I see the following error BLOB/TEXT column 'letter' used in key specification without a key length I googled this error and it appears that MySql has issues when you try to make a tinyblob column part of a primary key, which is what hibernate needs to do with the Thing_letterFrequencies table. So I would rather have letter mapped to a varchar(255) the way startLetter is. Unfortunately, I've been fussing with the MapKey annotation for a while now and haven't been able to make this work. I've also tried @MapKeyManyToMany(targetEntity=Product.class) without success. Can anyone tell me what are the correct annotations for my letterCounts map so that hibernate will treat the letterCounts map key the same way it does startLetter?

    Read the article

  • Strongly Typed DataSet column requires custom type to implement IXmlSerializable?

    - by Phil
    I have a strongly typed Dataset with a single table with three columns. These columns all contain custom types. DataColumn1 is of type Parent DataColumn2 is of type Child1 DataColumn3 is of type Child2 Here is what these classes look like: [Serializable] [XmlInclude(typeof(Child1)), XmlInclude(typeof(Child2))] public abstract class Parent { public int p1; } [Serializable] public class Child1 :Parent { public int c1; } [Serializable] public class Child2 : Parent { public int c1; } now, if I add a row with DataColumn1 being null, and DataColumns 2 and 3 populated and try to serialize it, it works: DataSet1 ds = new DataSet1(); ds.DataTable1.AddDataTable1Row(null, new Child1(), new Child2()); StringBuilder sb = new StringBuilder(); using (StringWriter writer = new StringWriter(sb)) { ds.WriteXml(writer);//Works! } However, if I try to add a value to DataColumn1, it fails: DataSet1 ds = new DataSet1(); ds.DataTable1.AddDataTable1Row(new Child1(), new Child1(), new Child2()); StringBuilder sb = new StringBuilder(); using (StringWriter writer = new StringWriter(sb)) { ds.WriteXml(writer);//Fails! } Here is the Exception: "Type 'WindowsFormsApplication4.Child1, WindowsFormsApplication4, Version=1.0.0.0, Culture=neutral, PublicKeyToken=null' does not implement IXmlSerializable interface therefore can not proceed with serialization." I have also tried using the XmlSerializer to serialize the dataset, but I get the same exception. Does anyone know of a way to get around this where I don't have to implement IXmlSerializable on all the Child classes? Alternatively, is there a way to implement IXmlSerializable keeping all default behavior the same (ie not having any class specific code in the ReadXml and WriteXml methods)

    Read the article

  • C# How to create various objects at runtime that can hold strongly typed data?

    - by JL
    Is it possible to create objects at runtime without having to have hard coded class definitions, then populate properties with primitives or even strongly typed data types? For example: Lets say I want to an XML config file that could hold configuration values for connecting to various systems in an SOA application. In C# I read in these values, but for each system the properties are different (e.g: SQL might have a connection string, while SharePoint might need a username + password + domain + url, while yet an smtp server would need username + password + port + url) So instead of creating static classes as follows public class SharePointConfiguration or public class SQLConfiguration, then have each class with custom properties (this is cumbersome) Is there not a more preferred way to achieve this, without using 1990's methods, in otherwords it would still be nice to have intellisense and code completion and named properties. Since this collection of properties (object) would be passed within the class and possible to other classes from function to function I am also wondering where this class definition would get defined if its all happening at run time. Any recommendations, and hope the question was clear enough. Would like to use language features, not hacks. Thank you.

    Read the article

  • How to delete a row from a typed dataset and save it to a database?

    - by Zingam
    I am doing this as a small project to learn about disconnected and connected models in .NET 4.0 and SQL Server 2008 R2. I have three tables: Companies (PK CompanyID) Addresses (PK AddressID, FK CompanyID) ContactPersons (PK ContactPersonID, FK CompanyID) CompanyID is assigned manually by the users. The other IDs are auto-generated. Companies has a one-to-many relationship with ContactPerson. I have set any changes to cascade. I display all records in Companies in a DataGridView and when a row is clicked, the corresponding records in ContactPersons are displayed in a second DataGridView. I have successfully implemented updating and inserting new records but I completely fail in my attempts to delete rows and save the changes to the database. I us a typed dataset. If I use this: DataRow[] contactPersonRows = m_SoldaCompaniesFileDataSet.ContactPersons.Select("ContactPersonID = " + this.m_CurrentContactPerson.ContactPersonID); m_SoldaCompaniesFileDataSet.ContactPersons.Rows.Remove(contactPersonRows[0]); The records are displayed properly in the DataGridView but are not saved in the database later. If I use this: DataRow row = m_SoldaCompaniesFileDataSet.ContactPersons.Rows.Find(this.m_CurrentContactPerson.ContactPersonID); row.Delete(); The records are set but I get an exeception: DeletedRowInaccessibleException, when I try to refresh the DataGridView. The exception pop-s up in the auto-generated dataset.design file. I am pretty much stuck at this point since yesterday. I cannot find anything anywhere that remotely resembles my problem. And I cannot understand actually what is going on.

    Read the article

  • Java: over-typed structures? To have many types in Object[]?

    - by HH
    Term over-type structure = a data structure that accepts different types, can be primitive or user-defined. I think ruby supports many types in structures such as tables. I tried a table with types 'String', 'char' and 'File' in Java but errs. How can I have over-typed structure in Java? How to show types in declaration? What about in initilization? Suppose a structure: INDEX VAR FILETYPE //0 -> file FILE //1 -> lineMap SizeSequence //2 -> type char //3 -> binary boolean //4 -> name String //5 -> path String Code import java.io.*; import java.util.*; public class Object { public static void print(char a) { System.out.println(a); } public static void print(String s) { System.out.println(s); } public static void main(String[] args) { Object[] d = new Object[6]; d[0] = new File("."); d[2] = 'T'; d[4] = "."; print(d[2]); print(d[4]); } } Errors Object.java:18: incompatible types found : java.io.File required: Object d[0] = new File("."); ^ Object.java:19: incompatible types found : char required: Object d[2] = 'T'; ^

    Read the article

  • c# - How do you get a variable's name as it was physically typed in its declaration?

    - by Petras
    The class below contains the field city. I need to dynamically determine the field's name as it is typed in the class declaration i.e. I need to get the string "city" from an instance of the object city. I have tried to do this by examining its Type in DoSomething() but can't find it when examining the contents of the Type in the debugger. Is it possible? public class Person { public string city = "New York"; public Person() { } public void DoSomething() { Type t = city.GetType(); string field_name = t.SomeUnkownFunction(); //would return the string "city" if it existed! } } Some people in their answers below have asked me why I want to do this. Here's why. In my real world situation, there is a custom attribute above city. [MyCustomAttribute("param1", "param2", etc)] public string city = "New York"; I need this attribute in other code. To get the attribute, I use reflection. And in the reflection code I need to type the string "city" MyCustomAttribute attr; Type t = typeof(Person); foreach (FieldInfo field in t.GetFields()) { if (field.Name == "city") { //do stuff when we find the field that has the attribute we need } } Now this isn't type safe. If I changed the variable "city" to "workCity" in my field declaration in Person this line would fail unless I knew to update the string if (field.Name == "workCity") //I have to make this change in another file for this to still work, yuk! { } So I am trying to find some way to pass the string to this code without physically typing it. Yes, I could declare it as a string constant in Person (or something like that) but that would still be typing it twice. Phew! That was tough to explain!! Thanks Thanks to all who answered this * a lot*. It sent me on a new path to better understand lambda expressions. And it created a new question.

    Read the article

  • C# 4.0: Dynamic Programming

    - by Paulo Morgado
    The major feature of C# 4.0 is dynamic programming. Not just dynamic typing, but dynamic in broader sense, which means talking to anything that is not statically typed to be a .NET object. Dynamic Language Runtime The Dynamic Language Runtime (DLR) is piece of technology that unifies dynamic programming on the .NET platform, the same way the Common Language Runtime (CLR) has been a common platform for statically typed languages. The CLR always had dynamic capabilities. You could always use reflection, but its main goal was never to be a dynamic programming environment and there were some features missing. The DLR is built on top of the CLR and adds those missing features to the .NET platform. The Dynamic Language Runtime is the core infrastructure that consists of: Expression Trees The same expression trees used in LINQ, now improved to support statements. Dynamic Dispatch Dispatches invocations to the appropriate binder. Call Site Caching For improved efficiency. Dynamic languages and languages with dynamic capabilities are built on top of the DLR. IronPython and IronRuby were already built on top of the DLR, and now, the support for using the DLR is being added to C# and Visual Basic. Other languages built on top of the CLR are expected to also use the DLR in the future. Underneath the DLR there are binders that talk to a variety of different technologies: .NET Binder Allows to talk to .NET objects. JavaScript Binder Allows to talk to JavaScript in SilverLight. IronPython Binder Allows to talk to IronPython. IronRuby Binder Allows to talk to IronRuby. COM Binder Allows to talk to COM. Whit all these binders it is possible to have a single programming experience to talk to all these environments that are not statically typed .NET objects. The dynamic Static Type Let’s take this traditional statically typed code: Calculator calculator = GetCalculator(); int sum = calculator.Sum(10, 20); Because the variable that receives the return value of the GetCalulator method is statically typed to be of type Calculator and, because the Calculator type has an Add method that receives two integers and returns an integer, it is possible to call that Sum method and assign its return value to a variable statically typed as integer. Now lets suppose the calculator was not a statically typed .NET class, but, instead, a COM object or some .NET code we don’t know he type of. All of the sudden it gets very painful to call the Add method: object calculator = GetCalculator(); Type calculatorType = calculator.GetType(); object res = calculatorType.InvokeMember("Add", BindingFlags.InvokeMethod, null, calculator, new object[] { 10, 20 }); int sum = Convert.ToInt32(res); And what if the calculator was a JavaScript object? ScriptObject calculator = GetCalculator(); object res = calculator.Invoke("Add", 10, 20); int sum = Convert.ToInt32(res); For each dynamic domain we have a different programming experience and that makes it very hard to unify the code. With C# 4.0 it becomes possible to write code this way: dynamic calculator = GetCalculator(); int sum = calculator.Add(10, 20); You simply declare a variable who’s static type is dynamic. dynamic is a pseudo-keyword (like var) that indicates to the compiler that operations on the calculator object will be done dynamically. The way you should look at dynamic is that it’s just like object (System.Object) with dynamic semantics associated. Anything can be assigned to a dynamic. dynamic x = 1; dynamic y = "Hello"; dynamic z = new List<int> { 1, 2, 3 }; At run-time, all object will have a type. In the above example x is of type System.Int32. When one or more operands in an operation are typed dynamic, member selection is deferred to run-time instead of compile-time. Then the run-time type is substituted in all variables and normal overload resolution is done, just like it would happen at compile-time. The result of any dynamic operation is always dynamic and, when a dynamic object is assigned to something else, a dynamic conversion will occur. Code Resolution Method double x = 1.75; double y = Math.Abs(x); compile-time double Abs(double x) dynamic x = 1.75; dynamic y = Math.Abs(x); run-time double Abs(double x) dynamic x = 2; dynamic y = Math.Abs(x); run-time int Abs(int x) The above code will always be strongly typed. The difference is that, in the first case the method resolution is done at compile-time, and the others it’s done ate run-time. IDynamicMetaObjectObject The DLR is pre-wired to know .NET objects, COM objects and so forth but any dynamic language can implement their own objects or you can implement your own objects in C# through the implementation of the IDynamicMetaObjectProvider interface. When an object implements IDynamicMetaObjectProvider, it can participate in the resolution of how method calls and property access is done. The .NET Framework already provides two implementations of IDynamicMetaObjectProvider: DynamicObject : IDynamicMetaObjectProvider The DynamicObject class enables you to define which operations can be performed on dynamic objects and how to perform those operations. For example, you can define what happens when you try to get or set an object property, call a method, or perform standard mathematical operations such as addition and multiplication. ExpandoObject : IDynamicMetaObjectProvider The ExpandoObject class enables you to add and delete members of its instances at run time and also to set and get values of these members. This class supports dynamic binding, which enables you to use standard syntax like sampleObject.sampleMember, instead of more complex syntax like sampleObject.GetAttribute("sampleMember").

    Read the article

  • Creating a dynamic, extensible C# Expando Object

    - by Rick Strahl
    I love dynamic functionality in a strongly typed language because it offers us the best of both worlds. In C# (or any of the main .NET languages) we now have the dynamic type that provides a host of dynamic features for the static C# language. One place where I've found dynamic to be incredibly useful is in building extensible types or types that expose traditionally non-object data (like dictionaries) in easier to use and more readable syntax. I wrote about a couple of these for accessing old school ADO.NET DataRows and DataReaders more easily for example. These classes are dynamic wrappers that provide easier syntax and auto-type conversions which greatly simplifies code clutter and increases clarity in existing code. ExpandoObject in .NET 4.0 Another great use case for dynamic objects is the ability to create extensible objects - objects that start out with a set of static members and then can add additional properties and even methods dynamically. The .NET 4.0 framework actually includes an ExpandoObject class which provides a very dynamic object that allows you to add properties and methods on the fly and then access them again. For example with ExpandoObject you can do stuff like this:dynamic expand = new ExpandoObject(); expand.Name = "Rick"; expand.HelloWorld = (Func<string, string>) ((string name) => { return "Hello " + name; }); Console.WriteLine(expand.Name); Console.WriteLine(expand.HelloWorld("Dufus")); Internally ExpandoObject uses a Dictionary like structure and interface to store properties and methods and then allows you to add and access properties and methods easily. As cool as ExpandoObject is it has a few shortcomings too: It's a sealed type so you can't use it as a base class It only works off 'properties' in the internal Dictionary - you can't expose existing type data It doesn't serialize to XML or with DataContractSerializer/DataContractJsonSerializer Expando - A truly extensible Object ExpandoObject is nice if you just need a dynamic container for a dictionary like structure. However, if you want to build an extensible object that starts out with a set of strongly typed properties and then allows you to extend it, ExpandoObject does not work because it's a sealed class that can't be inherited. I started thinking about this very scenario for one of my applications I'm building for a customer. In this system we are connecting to various different user stores. Each user store has the same basic requirements for username, password, name etc. But then each store also has a number of extended properties that is available to each application. In the real world scenario the data is loaded from the database in a data reader and the known properties are assigned from the known fields in the database. All unknown fields are then 'added' to the expando object dynamically. In the past I've done this very thing with a separate property - Properties - just like I do for this class. But the property and dictionary syntax is not ideal and tedious to work with. I started thinking about how to represent these extra property structures. One way certainly would be to add a Dictionary, or an ExpandoObject to hold all those extra properties. But wouldn't it be nice if the application could actually extend an existing object that looks something like this as you can with the Expando object:public class User : Westwind.Utilities.Dynamic.Expando { public string Email { get; set; } public string Password { get; set; } public string Name { get; set; } public bool Active { get; set; } public DateTime? ExpiresOn { get; set; } } and then simply start extending the properties of this object dynamically? Using the Expando object I describe later you can now do the following:[TestMethod] public void UserExampleTest() { var user = new User(); // Set strongly typed properties user.Email = "[email protected]"; user.Password = "nonya123"; user.Name = "Rickochet"; user.Active = true; // Now add dynamic properties dynamic duser = user; duser.Entered = DateTime.Now; duser.Accesses = 1; // you can also add dynamic props via indexer user["NickName"] = "AntiSocialX"; duser["WebSite"] = "http://www.west-wind.com/weblog"; // Access strong type through dynamic ref Assert.AreEqual(user.Name,duser.Name); // Access strong type through indexer Assert.AreEqual(user.Password,user["Password"]); // access dyanmically added value through indexer Assert.AreEqual(duser.Entered,user["Entered"]); // access index added value through dynamic Assert.AreEqual(user["NickName"],duser.NickName); // loop through all properties dynamic AND strong type properties (true) foreach (var prop in user.GetProperties(true)) { object val = prop.Value; if (val == null) val = "null"; Console.WriteLine(prop.Key + ": " + val.ToString()); } } As you can see this code somewhat blurs the line between a static and dynamic type. You start with a strongly typed object that has a fixed set of properties. You can then cast the object to dynamic (as I discussed in my last post) and add additional properties to the object. You can also use an indexer to add dynamic properties to the object. To access the strongly typed properties you can use either the strongly typed instance, the indexer or the dynamic cast of the object. Personally I think it's kinda cool to have an easy way to access strongly typed properties by string which can make some data scenarios much easier. To access the 'dynamically added' properties you can use either the indexer on the strongly typed object, or property syntax on the dynamic cast. Using the dynamic type allows all three modes to work on both strongly typed and dynamic properties. Finally you can iterate over all properties, both dynamic and strongly typed if you chose. Lots of flexibility. Note also that by default the Expando object works against the (this) instance meaning it extends the current object. You can also pass in a separate instance to the constructor in which case that object will be used to iterate over to find properties rather than this. Using this approach provides some really interesting functionality when use the dynamic type. To use this we have to add an explicit constructor to the Expando subclass:public class User : Westwind.Utilities.Dynamic.Expando { public string Email { get; set; } public string Password { get; set; } public string Name { get; set; } public bool Active { get; set; } public DateTime? ExpiresOn { get; set; } public User() : base() { } // only required if you want to mix in seperate instance public User(object instance) : base(instance) { } } to allow the instance to be passed. When you do you can now do:[TestMethod] public void ExpandoMixinTest() { // have Expando work on Addresses var user = new User( new Address() ); // cast to dynamicAccessToPropertyTest dynamic duser = user; // Set strongly typed properties duser.Email = "[email protected]"; user.Password = "nonya123"; // Set properties on address object duser.Address = "32 Kaiea"; //duser.Phone = "808-123-2131"; // set dynamic properties duser.NonExistantProperty = "This works too"; // shows default value Address.Phone value Console.WriteLine(duser.Phone); } Using the dynamic cast in this case allows you to access *three* different 'objects': The strong type properties, the dynamically added properties in the dictionary and the properties of the instance passed in! Effectively this gives you a way to simulate multiple inheritance (which is scary - so be very careful with this, but you can do it). How Expando works Behind the scenes Expando is a DynamicObject subclass as I discussed in my last post. By implementing a few of DynamicObject's methods you can basically create a type that can trap 'property missing' and 'method missing' operations. When you access a non-existant property a known method is fired that our code can intercept and provide a value for. Internally Expando uses a custom dictionary implementation to hold the dynamic properties you might add to your expandable object. Let's look at code first. The code for the Expando type is straight forward and given what it provides relatively short. Here it is.using System; using System.Collections.Generic; using System.Linq; using System.Dynamic; using System.Reflection; namespace Westwind.Utilities.Dynamic { /// <summary> /// Class that provides extensible properties and methods. This /// dynamic object stores 'extra' properties in a dictionary or /// checks the actual properties of the instance. /// /// This means you can subclass this expando and retrieve either /// native properties or properties from values in the dictionary. /// /// This type allows you three ways to access its properties: /// /// Directly: any explicitly declared properties are accessible /// Dynamic: dynamic cast allows access to dictionary and native properties/methods /// Dictionary: Any of the extended properties are accessible via IDictionary interface /// </summary> [Serializable] public class Expando : DynamicObject, IDynamicMetaObjectProvider { /// <summary> /// Instance of object passed in /// </summary> object Instance; /// <summary> /// Cached type of the instance /// </summary> Type InstanceType; PropertyInfo[] InstancePropertyInfo { get { if (_InstancePropertyInfo == null && Instance != null) _InstancePropertyInfo = Instance.GetType().GetProperties(BindingFlags.Instance | BindingFlags.Public | BindingFlags.DeclaredOnly); return _InstancePropertyInfo; } } PropertyInfo[] _InstancePropertyInfo; /// <summary> /// String Dictionary that contains the extra dynamic values /// stored on this object/instance /// </summary> /// <remarks>Using PropertyBag to support XML Serialization of the dictionary</remarks> public PropertyBag Properties = new PropertyBag(); //public Dictionary<string,object> Properties = new Dictionary<string, object>(); /// <summary> /// This constructor just works off the internal dictionary and any /// public properties of this object. /// /// Note you can subclass Expando. /// </summary> public Expando() { Initialize(this); } /// <summary> /// Allows passing in an existing instance variable to 'extend'. /// </summary> /// <remarks> /// You can pass in null here if you don't want to /// check native properties and only check the Dictionary! /// </remarks> /// <param name="instance"></param> public Expando(object instance) { Initialize(instance); } protected virtual void Initialize(object instance) { Instance = instance; if (instance != null) InstanceType = instance.GetType(); } /// <summary> /// Try to retrieve a member by name first from instance properties /// followed by the collection entries. /// </summary> /// <param name="binder"></param> /// <param name="result"></param> /// <returns></returns> public override bool TryGetMember(GetMemberBinder binder, out object result) { result = null; // first check the Properties collection for member if (Properties.Keys.Contains(binder.Name)) { result = Properties[binder.Name]; return true; } // Next check for Public properties via Reflection if (Instance != null) { try { return GetProperty(Instance, binder.Name, out result); } catch { } } // failed to retrieve a property result = null; return false; } /// <summary> /// Property setter implementation tries to retrieve value from instance /// first then into this object /// </summary> /// <param name="binder"></param> /// <param name="value"></param> /// <returns></returns> public override bool TrySetMember(SetMemberBinder binder, object value) { // first check to see if there's a native property to set if (Instance != null) { try { bool result = SetProperty(Instance, binder.Name, value); if (result) return true; } catch { } } // no match - set or add to dictionary Properties[binder.Name] = value; return true; } /// <summary> /// Dynamic invocation method. Currently allows only for Reflection based /// operation (no ability to add methods dynamically). /// </summary> /// <param name="binder"></param> /// <param name="args"></param> /// <param name="result"></param> /// <returns></returns> public override bool TryInvokeMember(InvokeMemberBinder binder, object[] args, out object result) { if (Instance != null) { try { // check instance passed in for methods to invoke if (InvokeMethod(Instance, binder.Name, args, out result)) return true; } catch { } } result = null; return false; } /// <summary> /// Reflection Helper method to retrieve a property /// </summary> /// <param name="instance"></param> /// <param name="name"></param> /// <param name="result"></param> /// <returns></returns> protected bool GetProperty(object instance, string name, out object result) { if (instance == null) instance = this; var miArray = InstanceType.GetMember(name, BindingFlags.Public | BindingFlags.GetProperty | BindingFlags.Instance); if (miArray != null && miArray.Length > 0) { var mi = miArray[0]; if (mi.MemberType == MemberTypes.Property) { result = ((PropertyInfo)mi).GetValue(instance,null); return true; } } result = null; return false; } /// <summary> /// Reflection helper method to set a property value /// </summary> /// <param name="instance"></param> /// <param name="name"></param> /// <param name="value"></param> /// <returns></returns> protected bool SetProperty(object instance, string name, object value) { if (instance == null) instance = this; var miArray = InstanceType.GetMember(name, BindingFlags.Public | BindingFlags.SetProperty | BindingFlags.Instance); if (miArray != null && miArray.Length > 0) { var mi = miArray[0]; if (mi.MemberType == MemberTypes.Property) { ((PropertyInfo)mi).SetValue(Instance, value, null); return true; } } return false; } /// <summary> /// Reflection helper method to invoke a method /// </summary> /// <param name="instance"></param> /// <param name="name"></param> /// <param name="args"></param> /// <param name="result"></param> /// <returns></returns> protected bool InvokeMethod(object instance, string name, object[] args, out object result) { if (instance == null) instance = this; // Look at the instanceType var miArray = InstanceType.GetMember(name, BindingFlags.InvokeMethod | BindingFlags.Public | BindingFlags.Instance); if (miArray != null && miArray.Length > 0) { var mi = miArray[0] as MethodInfo; result = mi.Invoke(Instance, args); return true; } result = null; return false; } /// <summary> /// Convenience method that provides a string Indexer /// to the Properties collection AND the strongly typed /// properties of the object by name. /// /// // dynamic /// exp["Address"] = "112 nowhere lane"; /// // strong /// var name = exp["StronglyTypedProperty"] as string; /// </summary> /// <remarks> /// The getter checks the Properties dictionary first /// then looks in PropertyInfo for properties. /// The setter checks the instance properties before /// checking the Properties dictionary. /// </remarks> /// <param name="key"></param> /// /// <returns></returns> public object this[string key] { get { try { // try to get from properties collection first return Properties[key]; } catch (KeyNotFoundException ex) { // try reflection on instanceType object result = null; if (GetProperty(Instance, key, out result)) return result; // nope doesn't exist throw; } } set { if (Properties.ContainsKey(key)) { Properties[key] = value; return; } // check instance for existance of type first var miArray = InstanceType.GetMember(key, BindingFlags.Public | BindingFlags.GetProperty); if (miArray != null && miArray.Length > 0) SetProperty(Instance, key, value); else Properties[key] = value; } } /// <summary> /// Returns and the properties of /// </summary> /// <param name="includeProperties"></param> /// <returns></returns> public IEnumerable<KeyValuePair<string,object>> GetProperties(bool includeInstanceProperties = false) { if (includeInstanceProperties && Instance != null) { foreach (var prop in this.InstancePropertyInfo) yield return new KeyValuePair<string, object>(prop.Name, prop.GetValue(Instance, null)); } foreach (var key in this.Properties.Keys) yield return new KeyValuePair<string, object>(key, this.Properties[key]); } /// <summary> /// Checks whether a property exists in the Property collection /// or as a property on the instance /// </summary> /// <param name="item"></param> /// <returns></returns> public bool Contains(KeyValuePair<string, object> item, bool includeInstanceProperties = false) { bool res = Properties.ContainsKey(item.Key); if (res) return true; if (includeInstanceProperties && Instance != null) { foreach (var prop in this.InstancePropertyInfo) { if (prop.Name == item.Key) return true; } } return false; } } } Although the Expando class supports an indexer, it doesn't actually implement IDictionary or even IEnumerable. It only provides the indexer and Contains() and GetProperties() methods, that work against the Properties dictionary AND the internal instance. The reason for not implementing IDictionary is that a) it doesn't add much value since you can access the Properties dictionary directly and that b) I wanted to keep the interface to class very lean so that it can serve as an entity type if desired. Implementing these IDictionary (or even IEnumerable) causes LINQ extension methods to pop up on the type which obscures the property interface and would only confuse the purpose of the type. IDictionary and IEnumerable are also problematic for XML and JSON Serialization - the XML Serializer doesn't serialize IDictionary<string,object>, nor does the DataContractSerializer. The JavaScriptSerializer does serialize, but it treats the entire object like a dictionary and doesn't serialize the strongly typed properties of the type, only the dictionary values which is also not desirable. Hence the decision to stick with only implementing the indexer to support the user["CustomProperty"] functionality and leaving iteration functions to the publicly exposed Properties dictionary. Note that the Dictionary used here is a custom PropertyBag class I created to allow for serialization to work. One important aspect for my apps is that whatever custom properties get added they have to be accessible to AJAX clients since the particular app I'm working on is a SIngle Page Web app where most of the Web access is through JSON AJAX calls. PropertyBag can serialize to XML and one way serialize to JSON using the JavaScript serializer (not the DCS serializers though). The key components that make Expando work in this code are the Properties Dictionary and the TryGetMember() and TrySetMember() methods. The Properties collection is public so if you choose you can explicitly access the collection to get better performance or to manipulate the members in internal code (like loading up dynamic values form a database). Notice that TryGetMember() and TrySetMember() both work against the dictionary AND the internal instance to retrieve and set properties. This means that user["Name"] works against native properties of the object as does user["Name"] = "RogaDugDog". What's your Use Case? This is still an early prototype but I've plugged it into one of my customer's applications and so far it's working very well. The key features for me were the ability to easily extend the type with values coming from a database and exposing those values in a nice and easy to use manner. I'm also finding that using this type of object for ViewModels works very well to add custom properties to view models. I suspect there will be lots of uses for this - I've been using the extra dictionary approach to extensibility for years - using a dynamic type to make the syntax cleaner is just a bonus here. What can you think of to use this for? Resources Source Code and Tests (GitHub) Also integrated in Westwind.Utilities of the West Wind Web Toolkit West Wind Utilities NuGet© Rick Strahl, West Wind Technologies, 2005-2012Posted in CSharp  .NET  Dynamic Types   Tweet !function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js";fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document,"script","twitter-wjs"); (function() { var po = document.createElement('script'); po.type = 'text/javascript'; po.async = true; po.src = 'https://apis.google.com/js/plusone.js'; var s = document.getElementsByTagName('script')[0]; s.parentNode.insertBefore(po, s); })();

    Read the article

  • How to implement a SIMPLE "You typed ACB, did you mean ABC?"

    - by marcgg
    I know this is not a straight up question, so if you need me to provide more information about the scope of it, let me know. There are a bunch of questions that address almost the same issue (they are linked here), but never the exact same one with the same kind of scope and objective - at least as far as I know. Context: I have a MP3 file with ID3 tags for artist name and song title. I have two tables Artists and Songs The ID3 tags might be slightly off (e.g. Mikaell Jacksonne) I'm using ASP.NET + C# and a MSSQL database I need to synchronize the MP3s with the database. Meaning: The user launches a script The script browses through all the MP3s The script says "Is 'Mikaell Jacksonne' 'Michael Jackson' YES/NO" The user pick and we start over Examples of what the system could find: In the database... SONGS = {"This is a great song title", "This is a song title"} ARTISTS = {"Michael Jackson"} Outputs... "This is a grt song title" did you mean "This is a great song title" ? "This is song title" did you mean "This is a song title" ? "This si a song title" did you mean "This is a song title" ? "This si song a title" did you mean "This is a song title" ? "Jackson, Michael" did you mean "Michael Jackson" ? "JacksonMichael" did you mean "Michael Jackson" ? "Michael Jacksno" did you mean "Michael Jackson" ? etc. I read some documentation from this /how-do-you-implement-a-did-you-mean and this is not exactly what I need since I don't want to check an entire dictionary. I also can't really use a web service since it's depending a lot on what I already have in my database. If possible I'd also like to avoid dealing with distances and other complicated things. I could use the google api (or something similar) to do this, meaning that the script will try spell checking and test it with the database, but I feel there could be a better solution since my database might end up being really specific with weird songs and artists, making spell checking useless. I could also try something like what has been explained on this post, using Soundex for c#. Using a regular spell checker won't work because I won't be using words but names and 'titles'. So my question is: is there a relatively simple way of doing this, and if so, what is it? Any kind of help would be appreciated. Thanks!

    Read the article

  • Is there an analog for the VI '.' command to repeat-last-typed-text

    - by Don
    I've used emacs for decades and always wondered, but kept on coding, if there was a way to type in something, them move the cursor and insert the same text, like the VI . command. Instead what I do is to type the text, set the mark, backup, copy the region, go to the next spot (often just C-n, down one line) and then pre-arg yank, C-u C-y. It's the overhead of set mark, backup and copy region that makes me just go ahead and retype the thing.

    Read the article

  • Can Automapper populate a strongly typed object from the data in a NameValueCollection?

    - by Seth Petry-Johnson
    Can Automapper map values from a NameValueCollection onto an object, where target.Foo receives the value stored in the collection under the "Foo" key? I have a business object that stores some data in named properties and other data in a property bag. Different views make different assumptions about the data in the property bag, which I capture in page-specific view models. I want to use AutoMapper to map both the "inherent" attributes (the ones that always exist) as well as the "dynamic" attributes (the ones that vary per view and may or may not exist).

    Read the article

  • Hybrid EAV/CR model via WCF (and statically-typed language)?

    - by Pat
    Background I'm working on the architecture for a cloud-based LOB application, using Silverlight for the client, WCF, ASP.NET/C# for server and SQL Server for storage. The data model requires some flexibility per user (ability to add custom properties and define validation rules for them, for example), and a hybrid EAV/CR persistence model on the server side will suit nicely. Problem I need an efficient and maintainable technology and approach to handle the transformation from the persisted EAV model to/from WCF (and similarly allow the client to bind to the resulting data - DataGrid is a key UI element)? Admission: I don't yet know enough about WCF to understand if it supports ExpandoObject directly, but I suspect it will. Options I started off looking at WCF RIA services, but quickly discovered they're heavily dependent upon both static type data and compile-time code generation. Neither of these appeal. The options I'm considering include: Using WCF RIA services and pass the data over the network directly in EAV form (i.e. Dictionary), and handle the binding issue purely on the client side (like this) Using a dynamic language (probably IronPython) to handle both ends of the communication, with plumbing to generate the necessary CLR type data on the client to allow binding, and transform to/from EAV form on the server (spam preventer stopped me from posting a URL here, I'll try it in a comment). Dynamic LINQ (CreateClass() and friends), although I'm way out of my depth there and don't know what the limitations on that approach might be yet. I'm interested in comments on these approaches as well as alternative approaches that might solve the problem. Other Notes The Silverlight client will not be the only consumer of the service, making me slightly uncomfortable with option #1 above. While the data model is flexible, it's not expected to be modified heavily. For argument's sake, we could assume that we might have 25 distinct data models active at a given time, with something like 10-20 unique data fields/rules each. Modifications to the data model will happen infrequently (typically when a new user is initially configured).

    Read the article

  • How to connect an existing strongly-typed data set to a different server at run time?

    - by Kiril
    I am coding a simple space empire management game in Visual C# 2008, which relies on connecting to a remote SQL server database to get/store data. I would like the user to be able to connect to a user-specified SQL server from the login screen(he specifies IP address, port, database name, ID, password and presses "connect" button). However, I found out that the Dataset connection string property is read only and cannot be changed. Is there any way to guide the wizard-generated DataSet to a user-specified server at run time?

    Read the article

  • ASP.NET MVC: How to display strongly typed view model, containing list of items, which also contain

    - by Sam Delaney
    Hi, I'm building an app using ASP.NET MVC which I want to use a strongly type view model, which contains a List called items which contains an id int and itemName string. The view model also conatins a List called people, and the Person class contains a List. The way I want to display the information is as a table, with each row having a column of Person name, then n number of columns which contain checkboxes, one for each of the List, and checked based on whether the Person's List (called items) contains the id of the Item. I have the display working fine, but I'm struggling to understand how to name the items so that the posted method can read the data. This is what I have in the BeginForm: <table cellpadding="20"> <thead> <th>Person name</th> <!-- for each of the items, create a column with the item name --> <% foreach( var i in Model.items ) { %> <th><%= Html.Encode(i.itemName) %></th> <% } %> </thead> <% foreach( var p in Model.people ) { %> <tr> <td><%= Html.Encode(p.name) %></td> <!-- for each item, create a column with a checkbox --> <% foreach( var i in Model.items ) { %> <td> <% if( p.items.Contains(i.id) ) { %> <!-- vm is the name of the view model passed to the view --> <%= Html.CheckBox( "vm.people[" + p.id + "].items[" + i.id + "]", true ) %> <% } else { %> <%= Html.CheckBox( "vm.people[" + p.id + "].items[" + i.id + "]", false ) %> <% } %> </td> <% } %> </tr> <% } %> </table> And this code displays the information perfectly. When I click submit, however, I get an Object Reference Not Set.. error message. Can anyone help with this please?

    Read the article

  • Can I create a custom class that inherits from a strongly typed DataRow?

    - by Calvin Fisher
    I'm working on a huge, old project with a lot of brittle code, some of which has been around since the .NET 1.0 era, and it has been and will be worked on by other people... so I'd like to change as little as possible. I have one project in my solution that contains DataSet.xsd. This project compiles to a separate assembly (Data.dll). The database schema includes several tables arranged more or less hierarchically, but the only way the tables are actually linked together is through joins. I can get, e.g. DepartmentRow and EmployeeRow objects from the autogenerated code. EmployeeRow contains information from the employee's corresponding DepartmentRow through a join. I'm making a new report to view multiple departments and all their employees. If I use the existing data access scheme, all I will be able to get is a spreadsheet-like output where each employee is represented on one line, with department information repeated over and over in its appropriate columns. E.g.: Department1...Employee1... Department1...Employee2... Department2...Employee3... But what the customer would like is to have each department render like a heading, with a list of employees beneath each. E.g.: - Department1... Employee1... Employee2... + Department2... I'm trying to do this by inheriting hierarchical objects from the autogenerated Row objects. E.g.: public class Department : DataSet.DepartmentRow { public List<Employee> Employees; } That way I could nest the data in the report by using a collection of Department objects as the DataSource, each of which will put its list of Employees in a subreport. The problem is that this gives me a The type Data.DataSet.DepartmentRow has no constructors defined error. And when I try to make a constructor, e.g. public class Department : DataSet.DepartmentRow { private Department() { } public List<Employee> Employees; } I get a 'Data.DataSet.DepartmentRow(System.Data.DataRowBuilder)' is inaccessible due to its protection level. error in addition to the first one. Is there a way to accomplish what I'm trying to do? Or is there something else I should be trying entirely?

    Read the article

  • Does the 'dynamic' keyword and the DLR promote C# to a first class citizen as a dynamically typed la

    - by Quigrim
    I understand that the new ‘dynamic’ keyword in C# 4.0 facilitates interaction with dynamic .NET languages, and can help to cut code by using it instead of reflection. So usage is for very specific situations. However, what I would like to know is if it will give C# all the dynamic benefits that one would get in other dynamic languages such is the IronXXX languages? In other words, will it be possible to write a entire application in C# in a dynamic language style? And if it is possible, would it be recommended or not. And why, or why not respectively? Will I get all the benefits of a dynamic language without switching to another language?

    Read the article

  • Must a Language that Implements Monads be Statically Typed?

    - by Morgan Cheng
    I am learning functional programming style. From this link http://channel9.msdn.com/shows/Going+Deep/Brian-Beckman-Dont-fear-the-Monads/, Brian Beckman gave a brilliant introduction about Monad. He mentioned that Monad is about composition of functions so as to address complexity. A Monad includes a unit function that transfers type T to an amplified type M(T); and a Bind function that, given function from T to M(U), transforms type M(T) to another type M(U). (U can be T, but is not necessarily). In my understanding, the language implementing monad should be type-checked statically. Otherwise, type errors cannot be found during compilation and "Complexity" is not controlled. Is my understanding correct?

    Read the article

  • Is there an Emacs-analog for the VI '.' command to repeat-last-typed-text

    - by Don
    I've used emacs for decades and always wondered, but kept on coding, if there was a way to type in something, them move the cursor and insert the same text, like the VI . command. Instead what I do is to type the text, set the mark, backup, copy the region, go to the next spot (often just C-n, down one line) and then pre-arg yank, C-u C-y. It's the overhead of set mark, backup and copy region that makes me just go ahead and retype the thing.

    Read the article

  • Making "helper" text in a form be a different color then typed text.

    - by aslum
    <input name="phone" type="text" id="phone" value="Phone #" onfocus="value=''"> I've got two problems here. The main one is I would like the helper text (in this case "Phone Number") to be a different color then the inputted text from the user, to make it easier for the user to differentiate between filled and unfilled fields. The second is that with this methodology (onfocus="value''") if you mistype something in a field and come back to it you have to retype the whole thing which isn't really acceptable.

    Read the article

  • Is there a term for this concept, and does it exist in a static-typed language?

    - by Strilanc
    Recently I started noticing a repetition in some of my code. Of course, once you notice a repetition, it becomes grating. Which is why I'm asking this question. The idea is this: sometimes you write different versions of the same class: a raw version, a locked version, a read-only facade version, etc. These are common things to do to a class, but the translations are highly mechanical. Surround all the methods with lock acquires/releases, etc. In a dynamic language, you could write a function which did this to an instance of a class (eg. iterate over all the functions, replacing them with a version which acquires/releases a lock.). I think a good term for what I mean is 'reflected class'. You create a transformation which takes a class, and returns a modified-in-a-desired-way class. Synchronization is the easiest case, but there are others: make a class immutable [wrap methods so they clone, mutate the clone, and include it in the result], make a class readonly [assuming you can identify mutating methods], make a class appear to work with type A instead of type B, etc. The important part is that, in theory, these transformations make sense at compile-time. Even though an ActorModel<T> has methods which change depending on T, they depend on T in a specific way knowable at compile-time (ActorModel<T> methods would return a future of the original result type). I'm just wondering if this has been implemented in a language, and what it's called.

    Read the article

  • Is there a better way to declare an empty, typed matrix in MATLAB?

    - by Arthur Ward
    Is there a way to "declare" a variable with a particular user-defined type in MATLAB? zeros() only works for built-in numeric types. The only solution I've come up with involves using repmat() to duplicate a dummy object zero times: arr = repmat(myClass(), [1 0]) Without declaring variables this way, any code which does "arr(end+1) = myClass()" has to include a special case for the default empty matrix which is of type double. Have I missed something a little more sensible?

    Read the article

  • How to take a collection of bytes and pull typed values out of it?

    - by Pat
    Say I have a collection of bytes var bytes = new byte[] {0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7}; and I want to pull out a defined value from the bytes as a managed type, e.g. a ushort. What is a simple way to define what types reside at what location in the collection and pull out those values? One (ugly) way is to use System.BitConverter and a Queue or byte[] with an index and simply iterate through, e.g.: int index = 0; ushort first = System.BitConverter.ToUint16(bytes, index); index += 2; // size of a ushort int second = System.BitConverter.ToInt32(bytes, index); index += 4; ... This method gets very, very tedious when you deal with a lot of these structures! I know that there is the System.Runtime.InteropServices.StructLayoutAttribute which allows me to define the locations of types inside a struct or class, but there doesn't seem to be a way to import the collection of bytes into that struct. If I could somehow overlay the struct on the collection of bytes and pull out the values, that would be ideal. E.g. Foo foo = (Foo)bytes; // doesn't work because I'd need to implement the implicit operator ushort first = foo.first; int second = foo.second; ... [StructLayout(LayoutKind.Explicit, Size=FOO_SIZE)] public struct Foo { [FieldOffset(0)] public ushort first; [FieldOffset(2)] public int second; } Any thoughts on how to achieve this?

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16  | Next Page >