I want to execute a static method from certain class in certain namespace, but I have a problem with using it as a method parameter.
Example:
Lets say there is a class:
namespace ExampleNamespace {
public ref class A
{
public:
static int MethodA();
};
}
And I want to use MethodA in other namespace as a other's method parameter:
MethodB(MethodA());
Only way I can make it work is by writing it like this:
ExampleNamespace::A^ a;
MethodB(a->MethodA());
Is there a way to write it without that 'a' declaration before?
Something like
MethodB(ExampleNamespace::A->MethodA())
wont work...
Thank you in advance.
MethodB(ExampleNamespace::A::MethodA());
Related
I have a subclass of the Button class and I would like to override the dragFinished method of the Component class. However, when I try to do this:
#Override
protected void dragFinished(int x, int y){
// other code here
}
I am getting an error: method does not override or implement a method from a supertype.
Also, if this provides more information, when I try to call super.dragFinished(x, y) within the method, I get this error: dragFinished(int,int) is not public in Component; cannot be accessed from outside package.
Any help will be appreciated. Thanks!
Is it possible your IDE auto-completed inheritance from the wrong class e.g. java.awt.Button instead of com.codename1.ui.Button?
I was wondering how Mybatis get the private variable in Java.
For example:
Let's say we have a Java class called Foo:
public class Foo{
private int foolID;
public Foo(int foolID){
this.foolID = foolID;
}
}
And let's create XML mapper for insert.
<insert id="insert" parameterType="Foo">
insert into foo_table (id)
values (#{foolID});
</insert>
Let's say there are FooDAO java class and FooMapper java interface for this insert.
My question is how come foolID is readable even without Getter (Even if there is a getter method for foolID, I never specify what the getter is...). It seems like magic to me, and I know there is no magic for programming... :)
The only way I can think of is reflection.
Thanks for your help in advance.
That's correct, reflection is used to access private fields, but only if accessing private fields is not restricted.
Seams like reflection is used heavily not just to access private fields but to invoke setters getters etc.
I am trying my best to explain the situation. I hope, what I wrote, is understandable.
We already have class defined like
public ref class TestClass
{
public:
TestClass();
virtual ~TestClass();
protected:
Car* m_car;
}
TestClass is managed C++ and Car is unmanaged C++.
So far so good, but now I need to make static object of TestClass also. So I modify the code like below
public ref class TestClass
{
private:
static TestClass^ s_test = nullptr ;
public:
TestClass();
virtual ~TestClass();
static TestClass^ Instance();
protected:
Car* m_car;
}
When I want to use static instant of the class, I just get it from calling
TestClass staticobj = TestClass::Instance();
Elsewhere, just call
TestClass normalobj = gcnew TestClass();
Instance function is creating s_test static object and returns it.
TestClass ^ TestClass::Instance()
{
if(s_test == nullptr)
{
s_test = gcnew TestClass();
s_test->m_car = new Car();
}
return s_test;
}
Is it a good approach?
Is there any other better approach to accomplish same thing?
Edit :
FYI Above code works.
I combined Krizz and Reed Copsey’s solutions. That solve independent Singleton and memory leak.
Here is my sample code,
Special Singleton class derived from test class,
public ref class SpecialSingletonTestClass: public TestClass
{
private:
static SpecialSingletonTestClass ^ s_ SpecialSingletonTestClass = nullptr;
public:
SpecialSingletonTestClass ();
static SpecialSingletonTestClass ^ Instance();
};
Changed the testclass so it has now one more finalizer function.
public ref class TestClass
{
public:
TestClass ();
virtual ~ TestClass ();
! TestClass ();
protected:
Car* m_car;
}
I tested above pattern , it worked.
Thanks you guys,
L.E.
Is it a good approach?
I would probably not consider this a good approach, as you're making a single class both a singleton and a normal class that you can instance directly.
Typically, if you need a singleton, this would preclude the need or desire to be able to instantiate the class.
If you truly need to have a way to have a "global" instance of this class, I would encapsulate that in a separate class which implements the singleton. This would, at least, make it clear that you are dealing with something that's a single instance in that case. I would not mix both use cases into a single class.
Well, actually there is an issue with memory leaks in your code.
You declare only virtual ~TestClass(); which, for managed classes, are internally turned by C++/CLI compiler into implementation of IDisposable.Dispose().
Therefore, if you put delete car into it, it will be called only if you delete test_class or, e.g. wrap into using (TestClass tst) {} block when using from C#.
It will not be called when object is GCed!
To be sure it is called you need to add finalizer to your class !MyClass(); which is turned by compiler into virtual void Finalize() and thus non-deterministically called when GC is freeing an object.
And it is the only way to free m_car of singleton object.
Therefore, I suggest:
TestClass()
{
m_car = new Car();
}
~TestClass()
{
if (m_car)
delete m_car;
m_car = NULL;
}
!TestClass()
{
if (m_car)
delete m_car;
m_car = NULL;
}
I'm unsure as to what situation you could possibly be in that would require both singleton-style semantics and normal creation semantics for the same class.
As far as what you've coded though, it looks completely fine. My only comments would be that your Instance() function shouldn't need to perform construction on Car, the Instance() function should just call the default constructor of TestClass which should do all that.
EDIT
In reference to:
#crush . The class is already define i just need to get static object of it. Singleton means only one object of the class, but in this case, class have multiple normal object. But i want to use only one object of this class for one specific goal only for limited period of time. – L.E. 2 mins ago
A singleton is (usually) a sign of bad design - alot of people call it an anti-pattern actually. Chances are if you just need this one single specific instance of this class for a limited period of time there are some issues:
Singleton design is made for static-style existence - the variable will live for the scope of your program after lazily initialized.
Allowing global access will move your code towards spaghetti logic. You'd be better off dynamically allocating the one you need and passing the pointer to it to where you need it to be. A shared_ptr would be good for this.
You should find a way around the singleton-style implementation in this case even if it's more work for you - it'll almost certainly be better design.
I got a ViewModel which I export with MEF. I'd like this ViewModel to be initialized differently each time it's being imported, according to an enum/specific object parameter that will be provided to it.
I've been reading a little on the subject and I found that maybe this -
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ee155691.aspx#metadata_and_metadata_views
would be able to fit my needs, but I'm not sure that this would be the best way to do it.
Another method I've been thinking about is importing the class normally, and then once I've an instance, to call a special initialization method that would receive my parameter. However this doesn't seem like a classic MEF implementation, and maybe losses some of its "magic".
I'm hoping someone would be able to point out for me what would be the recommended method to achieve this.
Thanks!
A workaround is exporting a factory that creates instances of your type. While this means you cannot directly import thos instances, it does have the benefit that the logic to create them is the responsability of the factory so users of the class do not have to know about it:
public class ServiceWithParameter
{
public ServiceWithParameter( int a )
{
this.a = a;
}
private readonly int a;
}
[Export]
public class ServiceWithParameterFactory
{
public ServiceWithParameterFactory()
{
instance = 0;
}
public ServiceWithParameter Instance()
{
return new ServiceWithParameter( instance++ );
}
private int instance;
}
//now everywhere you need ServiceWithParameter:
[Import]
ServiceWithParameterFactory serviceFactory;
var instanceA = serviceFactory.Instance(); //instanceA.a = 0
var instanceB = serviceFactory.Instance(); //instanceB.a = 1
A more extensible way is telling the container you have a factory and an example is presented here: http://pwlodek.blogspot.com/2010/10/mef-object-factories-using-export.html
In php we can call static member functions using class objects. For example
class Human
{
public static function Speak()
{
echo "I am a human.";
}
}
$human = new Human();
$human->Speak();
What we would expect is that a static member function can only be called using the class name and not the class instance variable (object). But what i have seen while programming is that php allows calling a static member function using the class object also. Is there any practical use or some important reason that this feature has been provided in php ?
This feature exists in java and c++ also. Thanks Oli for pointing this out in your response.
This is the same as in other OO languages, such as C++ and Java. Why would you want the interpreter to prevent this?
UPDATE
My best guess for this (and this is only a guess) is "for convenience". In essence, why should the user of your class necessarily care whether a given member function is static or not? In some circumstances, this will certainly matter; in others, maybe not. I'm not saying this is a great justification, but it's all I can come up with!
it allows you to abstract from the particular definition of the method, so that for example if you had to turn it into a static one at some point, you don't have to rewrite all the method calls!
I can't answer for PHP, (or really for anything) but consider this hypothetical C++:
class base{
public:
static void speak(){cout<<"base\n";}
};
class sub :public base {
public:
static void speak(){cout<<"sub\n"; }
};
int _tmain(int argc, _TCHAR* argv[]){
base *base1 = new base();
base1->speak();
sub *sub1 = new sub();
sub1->speak();
base *sub2 = new sub();
sub2->speak();
((sub*)sub2)->speak();
}
The output would be:
base
sub
base
sub
I'm sure it could be useful... maybe helping you determine which class's static method you should call based on the object currently in hand.