|
|
teknolog123 wrote: My problem is that I want to update that string every minute. I can make server send the updated data every minute but how can the client keep listening?
I think your client/server module is working reversely. Instead of server sending data to client every minute, let client do the request to server for the data and let server keep listening for the client requests. I think that makes sense, right?
Knock out 't' from can't, you can if you think you can. 
|
|
|
|
|
Yes you're right! Thanks, I'll do so
|
|
|
|
|
You are welcome. 
Knock out 't' from can't, you can if you think you can.
|
|
|
|
|
It looks like you may use a Duplex channel.
|
|
|
|
|
Hi everybody!
How can I install an application (.exe) from my WPF (Windows Presentation Foundation) in the client-side.
I'm automating a test and need to install the software for test the steps, but when I run the setup.exe it's everything OK, but when it will finish to install, I get an error, I need administrative privileges, but I'm running the test in administrative account.
Please, help me, I don't know what is the correct code that I need.
Maybe whit a certificate, but How?
Thanks in advance!!!
|
|
|
|
|
public void method1<T> (T obj) where T:mybase, new()
{
}
i have the problem with the "new ()", any idea why it is added and what it means.
|
|
|
|
|
It means T has a default constructor.
|
|
|
|
|
It means that the class derived from mybase (or mybase itself) must have a default constructor, and can be instantiated through your code here, for instance T object1 = new T();. If you don't have this constraint in place, you cannot instantiate the class like this. Another point, the only instantiation you can do here is based on the default constructor - you cannot call another constructor in its place.
"WPF has many lovers. It's a veritable porn star!" - Josh Smith As Braveheart once said, "You can take our freedom but you'll never take our Hobnobs!" - Martin Hughes.
My blog | My articles | MoXAML PowerToys | Onyx
|
|
|
|
|
But you can use default(T);
|
|
|
|
|
You can, but that just assigns a default value. It doesn't instantiate and it's not constrained by the new().
"WPF has many lovers. It's a veritable porn star!" - Josh Smith As Braveheart once said, "You can take our freedom but you'll never take our Hobnobs!" - Martin Hughes.
My blog | My articles | MoXAML PowerToys | Onyx
|
|
|
|
|
I wasn't even thinking when I posted that.
|
|
|
|
|
No - it was useful to add as a clarification. If it helps the OP learn more about generics and constraints, it's all to the good.
"WPF has many lovers. It's a veritable porn star!" - Josh Smith As Braveheart once said, "You can take our freedom but you'll never take our Hobnobs!" - Martin Hughes.
My blog | My articles | MoXAML PowerToys | Onyx
|
|
|
|
|
Ok so I'm looking to get my knowledge and skills up to par and I've started a small project to get my head around a few things but I've already found something that is confusing me. I've posted a very stripped down version for simplicity.
I am intending to run a method(runApple) from a derived class(Apple) that will set default values.
My Base.cs page contains;
public class FruitBase
{
private string _Name;
public FruitBase()
{
}
public string Name
{
get { return _Name; }
set { _Name = value; }
}
}
public class Apple: FruitBase
{
public Apple()
{
}
public void runApple()
{
Apple a = new Apple();
a.Name = "Apple";
}
}
And my Default.aspx page has the function below that is fired on a button press:
public void Start(object sender, EventArgs e)
{
Apple a1 = new Apple();
a1.runApple();
txtOuput.Text = a1.Name;
}
Now when debugging I step into the code at the a1.runApple(); line which takes me to the set section of the FruitBases public property Name. Whilst in there the value updates the string so that it equals "Apple", however as soon as the cursor returns to the runApple methods closing curly brace all the Name values return to Null.
I know that I can set the value within the Start() method by doing a1.Name = "Apple" but i want to build up lots of different properties so it makes sense to run them all at once from the runApple method. The intention is to scale this up to have many more FruitBase fields and many more derived classes with relevant defaults eg banana, grape, orange etc.
I realise this is a very basic isse but we all have to start somewhere right? Thanks for your time.
modified on Wednesday, June 30, 2010 12:18 PM
|
|
|
|
|
Did you mean for runApple() to do this.Name = "Apple"; instead of operating on a new instance of Apple?
/ravi
|
|
|
|
|
You're absolutely right Ravi, thank you so much. I knew it would be something simple, its so easy when you know how!
Thanks alot
|
|
|
|
|
NP! We've all been there.
/ravi
|
|
|
|
|
You changed the _Name field of a temporary object that is immediately lost.
Solution: delete all of "Apple a = new Apple(); a."
You want to change the name of the thing itself, right? But now you make a second apple, change its name, and then throw it away.
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks Harold, you have clarified what Ravi referred to when he suggested the 'this' keyword.
I realise now instead of working with the class I'm in I'm creating a new instance which is then disposed of when I leave the method.
Once again its easy when you know how!
Thanks for your time
|
|
|
|
|
|
Can you edit you post and put the code between it in <pre> </pre> tags please, this will make it more readable:
public void Start(object sender, EventArgs e)
{
Apple a1 = new Apple();
a1.runApple();
txtOuput.Text = a1.Name;
}
The problem is that the RunApple method creates a new instance of Apple, change it to this instead:
public void runApple()
{
Name = "Apple";
}
This sets the name property of the instance of Apple it is running in.
A Few other points, fieldnames should start in lowercase e.g. string _name and method names should start uppercase e.g. RunApple. Finally, RunApple isn't a good name, Initialise Might be better, or better yet move Name = "Apple"; into the Apple constructor.
Dalek Dave: There are many words that some find offensive, Homosexuality, Alcoholism, Religion, Visual Basic, Manchester United, Butter.
Pete o'Hanlon: If it wasn't insulting tools, I'd say you were dumber than a bag of spanners.
|
|
|
|
|
Done. i will remember the pre tags in future, thanks
|
|
|
|
|
I think the other answers have addressed the answer to your question. However, based on my experience, I think I can guess your goal for this particular thought exercise and that is that each fruit would return it's correct name. For this you can delve into some more complicated OO concepts that will give you the result.
public abstract class Fruit{
protected abstract string GetFruitName();
public string Name{
get{
return GetFruitName();
}
}
}
public class Apple : Fruit{
protected override string GetFruitName(){
return "Apple";
}
}
|
|
|
|
|
Just wondering - why wouldn't you do that "directly" by making the property virtual (and overriding it) ? What's the benefit of doing it like this?
|
|
|
|
|
Actually guys you are both kind of on the right track.
The purpose is eventually to have a virtual method eg GetDefaults, then instead of analysing the type of objec or being specific I can pass a fruitbase object into the virtual method and it should implicitly choose the correct fruit class.
Thats what i'm building up to in an attempt to understand the virtual keyword.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
