I have the following C# code. Here the validations are kept outside the class to satisfy Open - Closed Principle. This is working fine. But the challenge is - the validations are not generic. It is specific to employee class (E.g DateOfBirthRuleForEmployee). How do I make the validations generic for all objects (DateOfBirthRuleForAnyObject).
Note: Make Generic <==> Make Type-Independent
Note: I have NameLengthRuleForEmployee validation also. New validation may come in future.
The idea is to expand on the existing, old, and lacking Inputbox, to allow for:1. A greater variety of types (Integers, doubles, List(Of String), etc.2. Data validation.For example, if the user wants the user to quickly enter an Integer, I want a custom Inputbox form to show up with a TextBox, which only allows Integer input. If he wants the user to choose from a List(Of String), I show a form with a Combobox instead, from which the user can then choose.
In asp.net 2.0 I have several "dropdowns" defined using generics (examples eye color, hair color, etc). The fields are all typical; id, text, etc. All are defined as their own classes which must implement an interface I created called ILookup. However, when I try to return a List<> of this class using:[code]
First off, let me apologize for my wording. I'm a student programmer and code primarily in JAVA so my my lingo may be a little skewed.I have created a method to create text boxes in my program that all have the same properties (ie certain text, size, font, fore color, backcolor,etc.) that looks like this:
I'm sort of repeating the same steps. There's got to be a way to shorten it.I was able to shorten it before by making a generic function to create the radio buttons.This is the before the rewrite
Public Sub LoadPanels(ByVal tblClient As DataTable) Dim count As Integer = 20 Dim tooltip As New ToolTip Dim countName As Integer = 0
We have migrated our Vb6 application to VB.NET using a third party tool. Now we are in a process of Refactoring and introducing object oriented concepts in the application.
In VB6, we were using structures in many places. As a part of introducing object oriented programming,
1. is it a good idea of changing all Structures to Classes? or Is there a concept of "Generic Structure" similar to Generic collections, Generic classes?
2. Can some one guide me any source containing guide lines or best practices for applications that are migrated to VB.NET from VB6 and implementing object oriented programmaing.
Public MustInherit Class Column Public ReadOnly Property ReturnSomethingUseful() As Object Get 'return something useful
[code]....
But this gives the following error:
Public Overrides Function ParseValue(sValue As String) As Boolean' cannot override 'Public Overridable Function ParseValue(sValue As String) As Object' because they differ by their return types.
I accept that you can't do this, but I'd like to be able to preserve the semantics of what I'm. trying to do, which is to have an untyped version that deals with Object, but a typed version in derived classes that knows about the specific type T.
I am trying to construct a generic interface class with generic functions. My goal was to use this to implement multiple worker classes for database interaction that have the same basic functionality. Each class will deal with different object for example, category, product or supplier but unless the the functions in the interface are generic that this won't work.This is the interface code that I have but I don't know if I have done it correctly. [code]
I am trying to create a list of a generic type in vb.net 2.0 framework. This is the generic type definition:
Public Class GenericParamMap(Of T) Public Sub New(ByVal pParamName As String, ByVal pPropValue As T) mParamName = pParamName
[Code]....
The compiler does not allow a "T" in the method's parameter because it's not defined, but I'm not sure how or where to define it. I thought it was okay to have a generic method definition.
I am trying to write a generic method, to avoid code duplication, which will create or activate a Form as an MDI children, based on its type. But I have to lines in error (see comments).
I have been using a pretty slick generic invoke method for UI updating from background threads. I forget where I copied it from (converted it to VB.NET from C#), but here it is: Public Sub InvokeControl(Of T As Control)(ByVal Control As t, ByVal Action As Action(Of t))
In my program I have an interface iGraphable that contains two properties: Abscissa and Ordinate. Then I have an xxxx class (actually more than one) implementing iGraphable and a ListOfxxxx class implementing BindingListView(Of xxxx).To draw graphs I have a Graph class with a property called Data whose type is BindingListView(of iGraphable).Why have I a cast exception when I pass a BindingListView(Of xxxx) to the Data property.
I have the a function that is declared like so: Public Sub Modify(Of SIMType As {New, DAOBase})(ByVal obj As SIMType)
I also have a class called Products which is declared like so:
Public Class Products Inherits DAOBase
So as you can see, if I were to call this function like so:
Modify(Of Products)(new Products())
This would not be an issue. The issue actually arises when I try to cast the object being past in to its real type. For example: both do not work. I get a Value of type SIMTYPE cannot be converted to IMS.Products error. Im assuming this is because I am using generics. Is there a way to adjust my function to allow for a casting operation like I am trying to do? In the end, what I need is a reference of the actual type (Products in this case) to the object.
I have a function called Modify. It is delcared like so:Public Function Modify(Of SIMType As {New, DAOBase})(ByVal obj As DAOBase) As Boolean
You can see that this function is generic. It takes as a paramer a object that is a DAOBase or subclasses of DAOBase.Inside the modify function there is a call like so:
DAOToGP(obj)This is where the polymorphism comes into play. There are four or so subclasses I have created of DAOBase. I have written a DAOToGP() for each of these types. So in the Modify() function, when it calls the DAOToGP(obj), polymorphism should kick in and it should call the correct implementation of DAOToGP() depending on the type that I pass into Modify().
However, I get the following error:Error 20 Overload resolution failed because no accessible 'DAOToGP' can be called without a narrowing conversion:'Public Shared Function DAOToGP(distributor As Distributors) As Microsoft.Dynamics.GP.Vendor': Argument matching parameter 'distributor' narrows from 'SierraLib.DAOBase' to 'IMS.Distributors'.'Public Shared Function DAOToGP(product As Products) As Microsoft.Dynamics.GP.SalesItem': Argument matching parameter 'product' narrows from 'SierraLib.DAOBase' to 'IMS.Products'. C:Usersdvargo.SIERRAWOWIRESDocumentsVisual Studio 2010ProjectsSIMDev_2SIMIMSDVSIMLibGPGPSIMRunnerRunnersRunnerBase.vb 66 39 IMS
I am kind of at a loss here. I am not sure why it cant figure out which function to call.
I'm compiling a VB.Net 2.0 app (created in VS2008) using msbuild, and now I've added a generic return type, it's giving me the following:
Warning: Type library exporter encountered a generic type instance in a signature. Generic code may not be exported to COM.
Having just spent ages removing all of the previous warnings, I don't really want to add a new one. Any idea how to get rid of it (aside from not using generics)?I don't know what details I'd put in the attribute, or what number to put in the project-level ignore list.
I'm trying to reduce code bloat, reduce errors and simplify codebehind by use of generics. In this case I'm applying generics to declaration of persistable properties. Persistance is implemented by My.Settings. Here's the code so far.
What are the situations and their associated benefits of using Generics over Inheritance and vice-versa, and how should they be best combined?I'm going to try to state the motivation for this question as best I can:I have a class as shown below:
[Code]...
Now suppose I have a repository that takes an InformationReturn argument, that has to strore different fields in a DB depending on the type of Info object T is. Is it better to create different repositories each for the type T is; one repository that uses reflection to determine the type; or is there a better way using inheritance capabilities over/with generics?
The codes below are exactly the same, except that one is C# and the other one is VB.Net.C# compiles just fine, but VB.Net throws the warning:
Interface 'System.IObserver(Of Foo)' is ambiguous with another implemented interface 'System.IObserver(Of Bar)' due to the 'In' and 'Out' parameters in 'Interface IObserver(Of In T)'
Why does VB.Net show the warning and not C#? And most important, how can I resolve this problem?
Obs: I'm using .Net Framework 4 with Visual Studio 2010 Ultimate.
I'm not sure if this is possible or not. I have a number of different classes that implement interface IBar, and have constructors that take a couple of values. Rather than create a bunch of almost identical method, is it possible to have a generic method that will create the appropriate constructor?
private function GetFoo(Of T)(byval p1, byval p2) as List(Of IBar) dim list as new List(Of IBar) dim foo as T ' a loop here for different values of x foo = new T(x,p1) list.Add(foo) ' end of loop return list end function
I get: 'New' cannot be used on a type parameter that does not have a 'New' constraint.
I have a VB6 project with about 100 custom collection classes which I want to convert to VB.Net. A typical example would be something like.
Class CAccounts Private m_Accounts As New Collection Public Sub Add(newItem As CAccount) m_Accounts.Add newItem, newItem.IdKey
[code].....
All of the collection classes in the project use this standard approach. However, not all the properties/methods of the collection classes are actually used. Most of the collection are used in "for each" loops. Keyed access using the string key is quite common. Keyed access by index is much less common.
Ideally I'd like to take a standard approach to converting these classes. I don't really want to have to review each collection and it's usage to consider whether I need a List, Dictionary, etc. Some of these collection contain 100,000 objects, and some will only contain 10. However, on the other hand I don't want to cause performance problems by using a more complex structure where a simpler option would do.
Sticking with the old style Collection. So, it would be relatively easy to convert to VB.Net But, I'd rather move to the more modern structures.Have CAccounts Inherit KeyedCollection(Of String, CAccount). Fortunately most of the classes held in the collections do have the key as part of the class (eg CAccount.IdKey above). This seems to work well. However, relatively few classes will access the colelction by numeric index. So, perhaps this is overkill if I only want keyed access by the string key?Have CAccounts Inherit Dictionary(Of String, CAccount) for the classes where I don't need access by numeric index. The problem I have with this is that all the existing "for each" loops are like "for each account in accounts". I don't want to have to change all these occurences to something like "for each account in accounts.Values". Although perhaps I can get round this by changing the default property?Have CAccounts Inherit MyCollection(Of String, CAccount), where MyCollection is my own bespoke collection. This seems a bit too much hard work.
I'm working with some XML representations of data instances.I'm deserializing the objects using .NET serialization but something in my soul is disturbed by having to write classes to represent the XML.[code]
<System.Runtime.CompilerServices.Extension()> _ Function CastAs(Of TSource As TTarget, TTarget)(ByVal array As TSource()) As TTarget() Return Global.System.Array.ConvertAll(array, Function(src As TSource) DirectCast(src, TTarget)) End Function
Public MustInherit Class Entity(Of T As Entity(Of T))
And various classes derived from it. I would like to have another class accept all of the derived objects as a property, but I cannot seeem to find a workable syntax. If it were a parameter of a sub, I could say
Public Sub Foo(T As Entity(Of T))(TheEntity As T)
I can't seem to get that to work for a property:
Public Property E(Of Entity(Of T))() As Entity(Of T)
Gives me "Type parameters cannot be specified on this declaration"
Public Property E() As Entity2008(Of T)
Gives me "Type Parameter T does not inherit from or implement the constraint type ..."Is there an acceptable way to do this or am I stuck with using a Set Sub and a Get Function?
Suppose I have an interface called IParseable(Of TParsed, TUnparsed) which requires two functions:[code]Is there a way that I can restrict TParsed and TUnparsed to be numeric types (for which operations like "*" and "+" are already defined)?The problem is that, when I try to implement my interface and define one of the functions, e.g.:[code]VS throws an error saying the "*" is not defined for TUnparsed. I understand that, since TUnparsed could be anything, but is there a way to restrict my generic such that, say, TUnparsed could only be Double, Integer, Long, etc? To require Control to be a TextBox (or maybe I don't understand that very well either). But, anyway, any idea or am I way off track? Just trying to get a hang of these interface thingies and generic types.
I know this is a stupid question maybe, but what is the naming standard for generics?Of t or Of TEntity or Of..it doesn't really matter?I see IQueryable(Of T) but then DBSet(Of TEntity).
