I am using Linq-To-SQL.
I have made one class by inheriting ObservableCollection
This class has one constructor with Datacontext as parameter.
I have calling this construtor from my program and assigning it to the control's ItemSource property.
But I can't get distinct value in it..
public class BindBookIssueDetails : ObservableCollection
{
public BindBookIssueDetails(DataClasses1DataContext dataDC)
{
foreach (Resource_Allocation_View res in dataDC.Resource_Allocation_Views)
{
this.Add(res);
}
}
}
private BindBookIssueDetails bResource;
bResource = new BindBookIssueDetails(db);
_cmbResource.ItemSource=bResource;
So what's the solution?
Plz Help...
I would first suggest taking your query logic out of the constructor of the collection. That's a very unusual place for something like that.
But otherwise, the LINQ function you're looking for is called Distinct.
Related
I'd like to use ES6 public class fields:
class Superclass {
constructor() {
// would like to write modular code that applies to all
// subclasses here, or similarly somewhere in Superclass
this.example++; // does NOT WORK (not intialized)
//e.g. doStuffWith(this.fieldTemplates)
}
}
class Subclass extends Superclass {
example = 0
static fieldTemplates = [
Foo,
function() {this.example++},
etc
]
}
Problem:
ES6 public fields are NOT initialized before the constructors, only before the current constructor. For example, when calling super(), any child field will not yet have been defined, like this.example will not yet exist. Static fields will have already been defined. So for example if one were to execute the code function(){this.example++} with .bind as appropriate, called from the superclass constructor, it would fail.
Workaround:
One workaround would be to put all initialization logic after all ES6 public classes have been properly initialized. For example:
class Subclass extends Superclass {
example = 0
lateConstructor = (function(){
this.example++; // works fine
}).bind(this)()
}
What's the solution?
However, this would involve rewriting every single class. I would like something like this by just defining it in the Superclass.constructor, something magic like Object.defineProperty(this, 'lateConstructor', {some magic}) (Object.defineProperty is allegedly internally how es6 static fields are defined, but I see no such explanation how to achieve this programatically in say the mozilla docs; after using Object.getOwnPropertyDescriptor to inspect my above immediately-.binded-and-evaluated cludge I'm inclined to believe there is no way to define a property descriptor as a thunk; the definition is probably executed after returning from super(), that is probably immediately evaluated and assigned to the class like let exampleValue = eval(...); Object.defineProperty(..{value:exampleValue})). Alternatively I could do something horrible like do setTimeout(this.lateConstructor,0) in the Superclass.constructor but that would break many things and not compose well.
I could perhaps try to just use a hierarchy of Objects everywhere instead, but is there some way to implement some global logic for all subclasses in the parent class? Besides making everything lazy with getters? Thanks for any insight.
References:
Run additional action after constructor -- (problems: this requires wrapping all subclasses)
Can I create a thunk to run after the constructor?
No, that is not possible.
How to run code after class fields are initialized, in a sane way?
Put the code in the constructor of the class that defines those fields.
Is there some way to implement some global logic for all subclasses in the parent class?
Yes: define a method. The subclass can call it from its constructor.
Just thought of a workaround (that is hierarchically composable). To answer my own question, in a somewhat unfulfilling way (people should feel free to post better solutions):
// The following illustrates a way to ensure all public class fields have been defined and initialized
// prior to running 'constructor' code. This is achieved by never calling new directly, but instead just
// running Someclass.make(...). All constructor code is instead written in an init(...) function.
class Superclass {
init(opts) { // 'constructor'
this.toRun(); // custom constructor logic example
}
static make() { // the magic that makes everything work
var R = new this();
R.init(...arguments);
return R;
}
}
class Subclass extends Superclass {
subclassValue = 0 // custom public class field example
init(toAdd, opts) { // 'constructor'
// custom constructor logic example
this.subclassValue += toAdd; // may use THIS before super.init
super.init(opts);
// may do stuff afterwards
}
toRun() { // custom public class method example
console.log('.subclassValue = ', this.subclassValue);
}
}
Demo:
> var obj = Subclass.make(1, {});
.subclassValue = 1
> console.log(obj);
Subclass {
subclassValue: 1
__proto__: Superclass
}
I've got a method that accepts a parameter of type Class, and I want to only accept classes that extend SuperClass. Right now, all I can figure out to do is this, which does a run-time check on an instance:
public function careless(SomeClass:Class):void {
var instance:SomeClass = new SomeClass();
if (instance as SuperClass) {
// great, i guess
} else {
// damn, wish i'd have known this at compile time
}
}
Is there any way to do something like this, so I can be assured that a Class instance extends some super class?
public function careful(SomeClass:[Class extends SuperClass]):void {
var instance:SuperClass = new SomeClass();
// all is good
}
If you are going to instantiate it anyway, why not accept an object instead which allows you to type it to :SuperClass?
careless(SomeClass);
//vs.
careless(new SomeClass);
Not too much of a problem there as far as your code goes.
There are a few differences though:
The object has to be created, because an object is required. If your function does not instantiate the class under some circumstances, this can be a problem. Additional logic to pass either an object or null can bloat the function call.
If you cannot call the constructor outside that function, it won't
work either.
All that is solved by the factory pattern. Pass a factory as the parameter that produces SuperClass objects.
function careful(factory:SuperClassFactory)
Your requirements:
I want to only accept classes that extend SuperClass
and
I need to pass in a Class so that it can be instantiated many times
by other objects later
Can be met by passing in an instance of the class you need, and using the Object.constructor() method.
public function careful(someInstance:SuperClass):void {
//you probably want to store classRef in a member variable
var classRef: Class = someInstance.constructor();
//the following is guaranteed to cast correctly,
//since someInstance will always be a descendant of SuperClass
var myInst:SuperClass = new classRef() as SuperClass;
}
More reading here.
You can't do that in ActionScript 3. In languages like C# you can do something like (forgive me if the syntax is off):
public void Careless<T>() where T : SuperClass
But AS3 does not have 'generics'. Unfortunately the only way I know how to do what you want is the way you have already done.
A pattern that might be more suitable for your use case might be something like:
class SuperClass
{
public static function careless():void
{
var instance:SuperClass = new SuperClass();
// ...
}
}
The only way to have static type checking in ActionScript 3 is to provide an instance of a class.
It is possible but it's expensive. You can use on a Class (not instance) the:
flash.utils.describeType
You then get an XML with a bunch of information including inheritance for that class. Like I said it's an expensive process and probably creating an instance and checking it will be in most cases faster.
Possibly bad practice but I'm not well versed in software design anyway (I'm sure this question would have been asked before but I can't seem to find the right terminology)...Anyhow, it's just another curiosity of mine I'd like to have answered.
So I have worked in a way where I type a base class variable to type Object or Sprite or something similar so that in my subclasses, I can instantiate my custom classes into them and store it. And when I access it, I just cast that variable to ensure I can access the methods.
Take this example, so that you know what I'm talking about:
public class BaseClass
{
protected var the_holder_var:Object;
public function BaseClass()
{
//Whatever abstract implementation here...
}
}
Now, my subclasses of that base class usually use an interface but for simplicity sake, I'll just write it without it.
public class AnExtendedClass extends BaseClass
{
public function AnExtendedClass()
{
//Instantiate my own class into the base class variable
this.the_holder_var = new ACustomClassOfMine();
//Then I can use the 'hackish' getter function below to
//access the var's functions.
this.holder_var.somefunction()
}
private function get holder_var():ACustomClassOfMine
{
return this.the_holder_var as ACustomClassOfMine;
}
}
This works and I'm sure it will make some ppl cringe (I sometimes cringe at it too).
So now, my question, is there a way to recast/retype that base var in my extended subclass?
kinda like this:
public class ExtendedClass extends BaseClass
{
//Not possible I know, but as a reference to see what I'm asking about
//Just want to change the type....
override protected var the_holder_var:ACustomClassOfMine;
public function ExtendedClass()
{
//Then I can forget about having that hackish getter method.
this.the_holder_var = new ACustomClassOfMine();
this.the_holder_var.somefunction();
}
}
I was thinking of typing most of my base class vars that I use as holders as type * and retyping them as I extend the class. (I could use it here too but yeah...)
Thoughts? Comments? Ideas?
I actually think your code (apart from the hypothetical addition at the end) is pretty alright. The practise of adding accessors to solve the type issue you're dealing with is a solid one. I would advise to rename the accessor to show it is a cast, maybe get holderVarAsCustom():ACustomClassOfMine (I'm also not a big fan of the underscores, that's another language's convention), but that's personal preference. What I'd do to solve your last problem is just create a matching setter function:
private function set holderVarAsCustom(value:ACustomClassOfMine):void {
this.the_holder_var = value;
}
This way you can access the correctly typed holder var for both read and write operations with complete type safety:
holderVarAsCustom = new ACustomClassOfMine();
holderVarAsCustom.someFunction();
I would definately advise against dropping the type safety by including arrays and what not, that just makes it unstable.
I must admit that i'm a little confused as to why you want to do this, but here goes. Could you not utilise the fact that Array's can hold different data types. So something like this:
public class BaseClass
{
protected var customStorage:Array;
public function BaseClass()
{
//Whatever abstract implementation here...
}
}
You could then access it with an associative method and a property:
public class AnExtendedClass extends BaseClass
{
private static const myName:String = "myName";
public function AnExtendedClass()
{
//Instantiate my own class into the base class variable
customStorage[myName] = new ACustomClassOfMine();
objectIWant.somefunction()
}
private function get objectIWant():ACustomClassOfMine
{
return ACustomClassOfMine(customStorage[myName]);
}
}
Is that any better?
I would not try to tinker this behaviour, since you can't change the declared type of a variable once declared, no matter how hard you try.
What I do in such cases, I either cast the variable if I use it sparingly or the object it references may change, or I add another variable with the type I want and let the other variable point to the new one. Like this:
public class A {
protected var object:Object;
public function A() {
//Whatever abstract implementation here...
}
}
and
public class B extends A {
protected var other:MyClass;
public function B() {
super();
this.other = new MyClass();
this.object = this.other;
}
}
Having it this way, class A uses the object via the this.object reference, and class B can use the this.other or both. But both references point to the same object. The only issues with this are:
having two references for in the same class to the same object is ugly (so are untyped variables and casts)
if the object one of them may point can change during runtime, you must be really carefull to synchronize these changes
Lets say I have an ActionScript class: MyClass and that class has data in it. Now, lets say I want to iterate over that data using "for each":
var myData:MyClass = new MyClass();
myData.Populate(fromSource);
for each(var item in myData) {
DoSomethingWith(item);
}
Of course, this does nothing, because MyClass is a custom class, and I haven't done anything special to it yet.
What do I need to do to MyClass to make it play nicely with "for each"? Can I hand it an iterator or an enumerator or something?
I believe you need to extend Proxy class and implement nextValue(index:int). It is used by for each.
Ok, I figured it out.
#alxx helped me get to the answer. Here is a complete answer:
public class MyClass extends Proxy
{
override flash_proxy function nextNameIndex (index:int):int {
// This is the command to move to the next item or start over (index == 0)
// return an incremented index when there is data
// return 0 when you are done.
}
override flash_proxy function nextValue(index:int):* {
// This is the command to get the data
// The index that is passed in is the index returned in nextNameIndex
}
}
You should check out the Adobe livedocs page on for each ... in. They have your answer there.
"[for each ... in] Iterates over the items of a collection and executes statement for each item. Introduced as a part of the E4X language extensions, the for each..in statement can be used not only for XML objects, but also for objects and arrays. The for each..in statement iterates only through the dynamic properties of an object, not the fixed properties. A fixed property is a property that is defined as part of a class definition. To use the for each..in statement with an instance of a user-defined class, you must declare the class with the dynamic attribute."
Hi I'm wondering if I can have a packageless () AS3 class call a private method on the main class in the file. For example:
package demo
{
public class MyDemoClass
{
var helper:FriendlyHelperClass = new FriendlyHelperClass(this)
}
private function methodToCall():void
{
...
}
}
public class FriendlyHelperClass
{
public function FriendlyHelperClass(demo:MyDemoClass)
{
demo.methodToCall()
}
}
The call to methodToCall() from FriendlyHelperClass will fail as it is a private member of the MyDemoClass. Is there any way to call the methodToCall() method from the FriendlyHelperClass without extending MyDemoClass.
Basically I'm looking for inner class functionality that Java has or some sort of C++ style friend class.
Short answer : no.
You can never access a private member from outside a class in ActionScript. What you could do is use a namespace instead of a private scope. This would allow to give access to some members to selected classes. This is the closest of a friend class that you will get in AS3.
I'm afraid that is not possible, but if you make the class dynamic, then you can edit it while the program is running, and possibly add some useful functions to it, to access the private functions. I haven't tried it though.
Dynamic classes
Without testing the code, and knowing what your full problem. you can try passing the functions you need into the embedded class as a callback. e.g.,
helper.methodToCallCallback = this.methodToCall;
then inside FriendlyHelperClass:
this.methodToCallCallback();