Why does intellesense show shared members? e.g:Dim x as doublex.epsi 'Epsilon will show up as a valid member in intellesenseIs there a way to change this behavior?
I was looking on the interweb to see if there were any good examples on how to initialize shared members within a class while still initializing instance variables.[code]How do I initialize both instance and shared members without re-initializing the shared members every time an object is created from a class?
I have faced with a situation in VB.NET and C# (.NET2) with the visibility of the static/shared members. It seems to me a little strange in VB.NET:
public class A { private static A instance; public static A Instance { get { return instance; } } public string Name { get { } }} [Code] ..... Shared member behaves like a class public one I can repeat it to infinite..
I'm writing a WCF-Service and I split up my service class to multiple partial class files, so every ServiceContract-Implementation gets its own file. I have one file however that should contain e.g. members that are used by every partial class file such as a logger. The service is hosted with IIS 7 if this matters in any way.
[Code]....
The code compiles fine, but at runtime I get an BC30451: The name m_Log is not declared Error (Don't know the exact words for it. I get a german message ;) ). I don't think it has something to do with the type of m_Log or a depending assembly because I get the same error if i try this with a String. What am I doing wrong? How can I make this work? Edit: I was trying the same thing in a simple console application without any problems. :(
I took over an ASP.NET application and have found this throughout several classes in the application. The programmers before defined several shared/static variables that act as "complex enums" throughout the application. As a fairly new programmer, it doesn't look like best practice.
Here is an example: Public Shared SecureCommentsWrite As New Task("Secure Comments Write") Public Shared SecureCommentsRead As New Task("Secure Comments Read") Public Shared EditEmergencyContact As New Task("Edit Emergency Contact") Public Shared DisplayPersonalReferences As New Task("Display Personal References") Public Shared EditPersonalReferences As New Task("Edit Personal References")
The constructor takes the description, then loads the ID key from the database using a stored procedure (the database is SQL Server.) This seems like a good idea since we deploy this application to multiple databases and want to ensure that we load the ID key that's in that database in case it changes. However, since there are literally hundreds of these in the application, the first load takes a while.
So I did tons and tons of work trying to make an interface for a common set of classes. The idea was to make an interface that each class could use within the set, but ultimately each class is different. Turns out interfaces do not like shared members. What I tried:
Public Interface ISomeInterface Shared Property Meta() as Object End Interface Public Class A Implements ISomeInterface
[Code]...
Obviously, had I done my homework on this, I would have known that shared members can't be use in interfaces. Should I just leave the individual classes completely responsible for handling its shared members? Is there another way to keep coupling down to a minimum with shared members? Theres about 20 something or so classes that will implement a single interface.
I was looking on the interweb to see if there were any good examples on how to initialize shared members within a class while still initializing instance variables. I did find an expression that might fit to the answer:
[code]...
How do I initialize both instance and shared members without re-initializing the shared members every time an object is created from a class? Thanks!
I've read that modules are basically shared classes. For a module though, you can call a method directly without prefixing the module name. So I can do this: methodTest("abc", mod1Enum.enum2)But for a class with shared members I have to fully qualify the method call, and in this case fully qualify the enum:[code]In our conversion from VB6 to .NET the need to fully qualify all calls like this might be an argument for us to bring our VB6 modules over as modules instead of converting them to classes.
At the moment I'm trying to create a kind of model in vb.net which can be used to create/fetch database entrys.
I created a main class Model with a shared function to fetch the datasets, e.g. Model.find(). Now I'd like to create Classes which inherit the main Model-Class, e.g. a separate one for users: UserModel.find() => "SELECT * FROM users".
What I need now is to find a way to tell the Class which table it should use. I thought about an abstract String "table" which is a constant in each "child-model", but how could this be implemented as it's not possible to override shared members?
Edit: Maybe this will make it a little clearer what I mean:
Public Class Model Public Shared _controller As Controller Public Shared table As String
[Code].....
So I want a shared method which finds all database entries and gives back an array of instances of its own type, e.g. Model(). That's why I wanted to keep the find-method shared and not bound to an instance.
Im trying to search the entire active directory to look for a group and then see if the current logged on user is listed, then take an action based on that result.So far i have the below code which doesnt return the users who are members of the group MyTestGroup. Could anyone assist or guide me to see how i achieve this?
I migrate between C++ and VB.NET in my coding ventures... which leads to the occasional confusion about when something is by value or by reference in VB.NET.Let's say for example that I have an array of MyObject which is populated with a bunch of objects.
dim MyArr(5000) of MyObject. let's say that the information from this array travels throughout various data structures:
dim MyList as new List(of MyObject) for i as integer = 0 to 5000 step 1000 Mylist.add(MyArr(i)) next
Under the above scenario, I believe everything is by reference. If I extract an entry from "MyTable" and modify its MyObject Members, I think that the original in MyArr will be modified.However, I have run into situations where I thought something was by reference, and it was by value. Are items always added to containers by reference, or are they sometimes added by value?
I'm having some headaches using Structures and functions that return Nothing in VB.NET. [Code] In the previous code, when I return Nothing as result of Foo function I'd expect that st is Nothing. But this is not what happens. Then I found in MSDN documentation: Assigning Nothing to a variable sets it to the default value for its declared type. If that type contains variable members, they are all set to their default values.
So I discovered that when I assign Nothing to a structure, all its members are set to their default values, instead of the structure itself.
Also, I tried to make st a Nullable type by declaring: Dim st As Nullable(Of Test) = Foo()
but, still I can't check if st is Nothing by using: If st Is Nothing Then
or If st.Equals(Nothing) Then
So, questions:
1 - Is it possible to assign Nothing to the structure and not to its members? 2 - How can I check if a return structure value is Nothing?
According to a mspress book (MCTS for Exam 70-536 .NET 2.0): You might have version compatibility issues if you ever attempt to deserialize an object that has been serialized by an earlier version of your application. Specifically, if you add a member to a custom class and attempt to deserialize an object that lacks that member, the runtime will throw an exception. In other words, if you add a member to a class in version 3.1 of your application, it will not be able to deserialize an object created by version 3.0 of your application.
Now... As curious as I am I went and created a project, serialized a class, added a new member and attempted to deserialize the class to the new object. To my surprise it worked and the newly created member was set to null by default (even if it had another default value).
i have to develop API in .Net 4.0 which can be used in VB 6.0,i know how to use this and currently i am using my this API in VB successfully.but Stuck at one place,i have collection class and i have to expose it to VB with having functionality of List class of .Net.[code]i know that generic is not supported in VB, but i think with this declaration in VB 6.0 it creates interface class for class B as IList.but in VB using object creation of class B it doesn't provides me members of LIST in intellesense like (Add,Remove of List Class)
When I pass an an object 'MyObject' which implements 'IMyInterface' to a method parameter declared as IMyInterface, I understand that this method parameter 'sees MyObject through the eyes of its interface'.
I have an EggSac object which contains references to >100 000 Egg objects. Some variables in the Eggs have to be maintained to be consistent with EggSac, so I want to make these only changeable by EggSac. However EggSac passes references to its Eggs all over the application, so if I use public methods then any other code could modify the secure parts of the Eggs by accident.
What's a proper OO way to make sure only the EggSac object can call the "secure" methods of the Eggs, but still make the "safe" methods available to everyone?
My idea is to split Egg's class into a base class containing only safe methods and a derived class containing the secure methods that only EggSac should have access to. Then EggSac has members of the type of the derived class, but it casts them to their base class whenever something else wants one.
For my ToDo list I have these data: Activity, date, start time, end time.I have 2 listboxes. The first listbox stores the activity and date.The 2nd listbox stores activity,date, start time and end time.With a button I can hide/show the 2nd listbox.
I have a Data class whichs hold 70 class members to save me a hole lot time and effort not having to type all the properties for hand I'm wondering if there is a simple tool i VS2010 that I can use to auotgenerat the "property stubbs"
I have a Combobox in a Windows form that has a DateTime value as the Display Member and the Room Number as the Value member. When the user makes a selection in the combobox, a textbox is populated with the corresponding room number. There are some instances in the combobox where there are identical Display Member values. When a user selects one of the duplicate values and moves the mouse cursor away from the combobox, the combobox always defaults to the first of the duplicate items.
Example:
Here are the values that are currently populated in the combobox:
Display Member Value Member 02/25/2010 9:00AM 1 02/25/2010 9:00AM 2
If the second listing in the combobox is selected (the item with the value member of 2), and then the user clicks away from the combobox, the value default to Value Member 1.
Is there anyway to keep duplicate display members in a combobox while keeping the proper value member selected?
I am noticing i am not seeing all public members when i should an example:
Imports System.DataImports System.Data.CommonImports System.Data.SqlClientImports System.Data.OdbcImports System.Data.OleDbImports System.Data.OracleClientImports System.Configuration Dim builder As New SqlConnectionStringBuilder (NOT SHOWING) With builder .InitialCatalog =