setter

问题 I'm using Windsor to do IoC in our .Net project, but I'm having difficulties doing setter injection in code. I believe it comes from the fact that I blanket register my components, since eventually I'm hoping that legacy project will be fully IoC compliant and mostly Unit Tested (sweet dreams!). Here is how I'm registering the DAOs: container .Register(AllTypes.FromAssemblyNamed("MyApp.Business") .Where(Component.IsInNamespace("MyApp.Business.Dao")) .WithService.DefaultInterface()); And here

问题 I am extending a very simple Java interface from an imported library. The interface is so simple that the only methods it declares are getters and setters for a list of properties. My application is written in Groovy, so I'd like to implement this Java interface with a Groovy class. I was under the impression that Groovy created getters and setters by default for any of its classes' properties - can I use these default getters and setters to satisfy the Java interface's requirements? Library

问题 I'm trying to modify a setter on an attribute Mongoid model, but unlike ActiveRecord, I cannot call super to have Mongoid actually set the attribute, as the model is using include Mongoid::Document rather than a subclass of ActiveRecord::Base . I want to be able to do something like this. class User include Mongoid::Document embeds_one :email_account def email_account=(_email_account) ret = super puts "email account updated!" do_something ret end end except, as its not a subclass, yields

问题 class Dog { protected $bark = 'woof!'; public function __get($key) { if (isset($this->$key)) { return $this->$key; } } public function __set($key, $val) { if (isset($this->$key)) { $this->$key = $val; } } } What is the point of using these functions. if i can use $dog = new Dog(); $dog->bark = 'woofy'; echo $dog->bark; Why would I bother declaring 'bark' as protected ? Do the __get() and __set() methods in this case effectively make 'bark' public? 回答1: In this case, they do make $this->bark

问题 When trying to define a setter that accepts a parameter type that can be used to construct a property, thusly: class Buffer(buf: String) {} class Foo { var buffer: Buffer? = null set(value: String) { field = Buffer(value) } } I get the error message: Setter parameter type must be equal to the type of the property So what's meant to be the Kotlin way of doing this? 回答1: As of Kotlin 1.1 it is not possible to overload property setters. The feature request is tracked here: https://youtrack

问题 Getter methods can be used without an explicit receiver unless there is a local variable with the same name: class A; attr_reader :foo end A.new.instance_eval do @foo = :foo p foo end # => :foo This will not hold when there is a local variable with the same name, due to the principle that interpretation as a local variable has priority than as a method call whenever there is an ambiguity. class A; attr_reader :foo end A.new.instance_eval do foo = :bar @foo = :foo p foo end # => :bar However,

问题 Look at the following Grails domain class, which modifies a value within a setter, if the object is saved the first time (if it has no id): class Idtest { String name void setName(String name) { if(!this.id) this.name = name + "TEST" else this.name = name } } If I generate views and controller with generate-all , start the app, and enter "hello" in the generated form, "helloTESTTEST" is saved. The save function looks like this: def save = { def idtestInstance = new Idtest(params) if

问题 In C# you can create getter/setters in a simpler way than other languages: public int FooBar { get; set; } This creates an internal private variable which you can't address directly, with the external property 'FooBar' to access it directly. My question is - how often do you see this abused? It seems like it has a high potential to violate encapsulation best-practices often. Don't get me wrong, I use it as appropriate, and partial variations of it for read-only write-only types of properties,

问题 I use @property to ensure that changes to an objects instance variables are wrapped by methods where I need to. What about when an instance has an variable that logically should not be changed? Eg, if I'm making a class for a Process, each Process instance should have a PID attribute that will frequently be accessed but should not be changed. What's the most Pythonic way to handle someone attempting to modify that instance variable? Simply trust the user not to try and change something they

问题 In scala there is no difference for the user of a class between calling a method or accessing some field/member directly using val x = myclass.myproperty. To be able to control e.g. setting or getting a field, scala let us override the _= method. But is = really a method? I am confused. Let's take the following code: class Car(var miles: Int) var myCar = new Car(10) println(myCar.miles) //prints 10 myCar.miles = 50 println(myCar.miles) //prints 50 Same goes for this code (notice the double