For example "Using System.Console". Here "System" is the namespace and "Console" is the class"
Okay that makes sence but what about directives such as "System.IO.Compression".
In the above example would "Compression" be the method?
In visual studio projects why does the IDE add using system; and then using system.console?
Would using system automatically call all the classes in the namespace anyway making the using system.console redundant?
System, System.Console, System.IO, System.IO.Compression are all namespaces.
namespace System
{
class Foo1{}
namespace Console
{
}
namespace IO
{
class Foo2{}
namespace Compression{}
}
}
Compression namespace is nested inside IO, and all nested inside System
If you Using System, you only can access class Foo1(), in the other words, Using... only access class and variable, not the namespace that nested inside
***EDIT: This article defines quite clearly about namespace: https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/dfb3cx8s(v=vs.140).aspx
Related
I'm trying to add a DLL to my MvvmCross.core library project. However the included namespaces cannot be resolved for some reason, when I'm trying to refer the namespaces from one of the ViewModels. In object viewer I can see the included namespaces.
When I refer the same DLL from MvvmCross.Droid project I do not see the problem.
Unfortunate I do not have the source code so I need to refer it as a DLL.
I have tried this both on VS2013 and Xamarin Studio
Is your MvvmCross.core project a portable class library? If it is you won't be able to reference it.
What you can do is create another platform specific project, MyThing.Droid, and reference the .DLL. In the MvvmCross.core project, create an interface, IMyThingService. In MyThing.Droid create, MyThingService that implements IMyThingService and does the stuff you want. Now you can get a reference to IMyThingService and call DoStuff() from the MvvmCross.core project.
You can also use the plugin model provided by MvvmCross to accomplish this.
public class MyThingService : IMyThingService
{
public void DoStuff()
{
}
}
public interface IMyThingService
{
void DoStuff();
}
im using Adobe® Flash® Builder™ 4.6,the problem also exist in previous versions.
for some reason ,i am using
cls = applicationDomain.getDefinition(name) as Class;
to get the object's constructor and then create the instance of my modules class.thus make compile ignore my module classes ,because they are not related from my main class.how to force else classes also compiled into my swf or swc file? i didn't find where i can adjust my compile option.
by now i use this way to solve my problem,at the very beginning of the program entry.
if(1+1==3){
//never be run but do make classes merge into swf files.
new MyModule();
}
i have hundreds of modules like this one,i do hope i can find a way to solve this problem permanently
You can try with this
package
{
public class IncludeClasses
{
import com.abc.db.Database;Database;
import com.abc.logs.RemoteLogTarget; RemoteLogTarget;
import com.abc.logs.LocalLogTarget; LocalLogTarget;
import com.abc.exception.GlobalExceptionHandler; GlobalExceptionHandler;
import com.abc.utils.NetConnectionMonitor;NetConnectionMonitor;
}
}
You need to use the class to get it to compile in the swf.
Not the best method but
private var someVar:someClass;
Using the "new" keyword will cause the run-time to allocate memory for the object so you don't want to use that.
This whole loading modules and compiling classes has a code smell to it.
You would be better off having your classes in the modules implement an interface.
You need at least one strict reference to your class to appear within the project. I use a static variable of type Array to stuff all of the classes I need, and never really reference that array, if I can.
private static var dummy:Array=[OneClass, AnotherClass, Class01, Etc];
You can also do this by setting your compiler flag.
About the application compiler options
See:
include-libraries library [...]
Include only classes that are inheritance dependencies of classes that
are included with the include-classes compiler option.
The default value is false.
This is an advanced option. You might use this compiler option if you
are creating a custom RSL and want to externalize as many classes as
possible. For example:
compc -include-classes mx.collections.ListCollectionView
-include-inheritance-dependencies-only=true
-source-path . -output lcv2 -directory
I'm doing an Windows Phone app where I have a WebApi running in Azure.
I'm using the new "Portable Class Library" (http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/gg597391.aspx) for my "Models" project which is of cause shared between my WebApi project (this is a normale ASp.NET MVC 4 project) and my Windows Phone project.
This works great and the model (POCO) classes are serialized and deserialized just as I want.
Now I want to start storing some of my Models/POCO objects and would like to use EF Code-first for that, but that's kind of a problem as I can't add the EntityFramework assembly to my "Portable Class Library" project, and really I would not like to either as I only need a small part (the attributes) in my Models project.
So, any suggestions to how a approach this the best way?
UPDATE:
Well, it seems like I can actually add the EntityFramework assembly to the project, but that doesn't really help me, as the attributes I need to use lives in System.ComponentModel.DataAnnotations which can't be used on Windows Phone.
Any suggestions still?
Don't use attributes. Use fluent API instead and create separate assembly for persistence (EF) which will reference your model assembly. Persistence assembly will be use used by your WebAPI layer.
I use a modified approach than Mikkel Hempel's, without the need to use pre processing directives.
Create a standard .NET class library, call it Models
Create a partial class representing what you want to be shared
public partial class Person
{
public int Id { get; set; }
public string Name { get; set; }
}
For non-portable code (like DataAnnotations), create another partial class and use Metadata
[MetadataTypeAttribute(typeof(Person.Metadata))]
public partial class Person
{
internal sealed class Metadata
{
private Metadata() { } // Metadata classes shouldn't be instantiated
// Add metadata attributes to perform validation
[Required]
[StringLength(60)]
public string Name;
}
}
Create a Portable Class Library, and add the class from step 2 "As Link"
When I need my domain-project across multiple platforms, I usually:
Create the standard .NET-class library project for the domain code
For each platform I create a platform specific class library
For each platform specific class library I add the files from the standard .NET-class library as links (Add existing files -> As link) and hence they're updated automatically when you edit either the linked file or the original file.
When I add a new file to the .NET-class library, I add it as links to the platform specific class libraries.
Platform specific attributes (i.e. Table and ForeignKey which is a part of the DataAnnotations-assembly) can be opted out using the pre-processor tags. Lets say I have a .NET-class library with a class and a Silverlight-project with the linked file, then I can include the .NET-specific attributes by doing:
#if !SILVERLIGHT
[Table("MyEntityFrameworkTable")]
#endif
public class MyCrossPlatformClass
{
// Blah blah blah
}
and only include the DataAnnotations-assembly in the .NET-class library.
I know it's more work than using the Portable Class Library, but you can't opt out attributes in a PCL like in the example above, since you're only allowed to reference shared assemblies (which again DataAnnotations is not).
I'm using SWIG to generate a Java JNI wrapper for my DLL.
As part of it, I want to generate a custom exception class, but I want to provide the complete Java class implementation for my exception class myself.
I can of course just put my Java class in a separate file, but is it possible to embed such a hand-rolled Java class into a SWIG script?
Unless the class is an inner class of some sort you're pretty much left with writing it as a separate file since that's what it needs to be when you come to compile the Java.
I'm slightly puzzled why you would want to write your own pure Java exception class though - the normal thing to do with SWIG would be derive from std::exception, even if it's through a %inline directive and merge the C++ exception hierarchy with the Java one naturally and for free.
There is a workaround you could use if you really want (although I personally would neverdo it) to generate a pure Java class from the SWIG interface though:
%module test
%nodefaultctor MyException;
%typemap(javabody) MyException %{
// Java stuff goes here (or in javacode typemap)
%}
%typemap(javafinalize) MyException ""
%typemap(javadestruct) MyException ""
struct MyException {};
Which generates:
public class MyException {
// stuff goes here
}
But since that is clearly an ugly hack I'd strongly recommend avoiding it entirely and just writing the class like normal in your source distribution.
I had asked this question
Adding more attributes to LINQ to SQL entity
Now, when I add Browsable attribute to generated entity in designer,it works.But,when I use the MetaDataType approach,and add Browsable attribute in partial class,it does not work
"I added a MetaDataType class, and added browsable attribute to property,but seems to have no effect"
Adding the MetadataTypeAttribute will only be useful when you have written custom code that detects the BrowsableAttribute. The .NET framework doesn't handle MetadataTypeAttribute any differently than any other attribute and doesn't 'merge' your type with the meta data type.
When you have written your own code that detects the BrowsableAttribute, you can change it, so it also detects a MetadataTypeAttribute on a type and if it exists, you can go to the referred metadata class to search for properties decorated with the BrowsableAttribute. When the logic using the BrowsableAttribute has not been written by you (for instance, this is part of the .NET framework, because it is used by the Visual Studio designer), there is no way of getting this to work.
Currently there are only a few parts of the .NET framework that know about the MetadataTypeAttribute. MVC for instance uses it for validation and with .NET 4.0 DataAnnotations (that defines the attribute) also has a validator. Enterprise Library 5.0 (currently in beta) will also detect this attribute for validation.
While more and more applications and part of the framework might be able to handle this attribute, in most situations using it is useless.
I'm using it so that I can allow my Linq-To-SQL classes to also have Json properties to ease deserialization of Json objects:
using Newtonsoft.Json;
using Newtonsoft.Json.Linq;
using System.ComponentModel.DataAnnotations;
[MetadataType(typeof(User_JsonProperties))]
public partial class User
{}
public class User_JsonProperties
{
[JsonProperty("user_id")]
public int UserId { get; set; }
}
Since the other author didn't include source code, I thought I would so that you'd see what it looks like.