I'm trying to use websocket in my project.
to do so, I installed the package Microsoft Asp.Net SignalR, which consists of WebSocketHandler abstract class.
i defined a class inheriting WebSocketHandler, but then the compiler complains:
'Microsoft.AspNet.SignalR.WebSockets.WebSocketHandler' does not contain a constructor that takes 0 arguments'.
It seems wierd to me, because the definitioin of WebSocketHandler ctor gets a nullable value, which means the ctor could get no parameter,
the definition looks like this:
protected WebSocketHandler(int? maxIncomingMessageSize);
can anybody tell me what the problem is?
thanks.
It seems wierd to me, because the definitioin of WebSocketHandler ctor gets a nullable value, which means the ctor could get no parameter
No, it doesn't. There's a big difference between receiving a null value for a nullable type, and not receiving a value at all.
If the parameter were optional, that would be a different matter - but it's not. You have to supply an argument convertible to int? in the call. If you want to provide the null value for int?, do so:
var handler = new WebSocketHandler(null);
Or if you want to avoid accidentally using any other single-parameter constructor definitions which may be applicable with a null literal as the argument, you could use:
var handler = new WebSocketHandler((int?) null);
Or:
var handler = new WebSocketHandler(default(int?));
protected member is accessible by derived class instances and there's nothing special about it. Nothing special in the class itself, either # WebSocketHandler.cs.
It just mens you need to pass in a nullable type, it does not mean it can't get any arguments.
int? maxIncomingMessageSize = 0;
var socket = new WebSocketHandler(maxIncomingMessageSize);
In your derived class you could/should define a "constructor that takes 0 arguments".
public class MyHandler : WebSocketHandler
{
// not mandatory
public MyHandler()
:this(null)
{}
// mandatory
public MyHandler(int? maxIncomingMessageSize)
:base(maxIncomingMessageSize)
{}
}
Related
So I am building a complex case here with inheritance and IOC, need to use ActivatorUtilities to inject instances and pass parameters... no matter what I do I get the following error:
System.InvalidOperationException: 'A suitable constructor for type
'blabla.ISimpleTest' could not
be located. Ensure the type is concrete and all parameters of a public
constructor are either registered as services or passed as arguments.
Also ensure no extraneous arguments are provided.'
So in order to discard what could be the problem and ensure there is no constructor issues, I created a very very simple scenario that gives me the same error.
startup.cs
services.AddScoped<ISimpleTest, SimpleTest>();
the class and the interface, very simple here:
public interface ISimpleTest
{
}
public class SimpleTest : ISimpleTest
{
public SimpleTest()
{
}
}
test
var theInstance = ActivatorUtilities.CreateInstance<ISimpleTest>(ServiceProvider);
Additional notes
The ServiceProvider instance is fine (the rest/entire application depends on it).
Tried with and without adding the public constructor(empty params)
Tried also constructor with params, same error.
Tried to specify the params[] parameter, by sending null or empty array, same issue.
Extra test:
Just to confirm it's properly registered, I tried to get the instance using the Service provider, and works without issues:
//No issues this way:
var yyy = ServiceProvider.GetService<ISimpleTest>();
What am I doing here wrong? According to documentations, this should be enough to work
I have a custom class for holding a collection of data.
I use this class throughout my code, and it works without a hitch, except for in one place, when I need to pass the class object to a method. Here is some very basic code to demonstrate what I am seeing.
public class doSomething
static void myMethod(customClass_myItem) {}
public class customClass
public str classMethod() {}
form method
customClass myItem = new customClass();
myItem.classMethod(); //this works, so I know the class is good
doSomething::myMethod(myItem); //Gives error: variable is not of the type CLASS.
I am completely lost here. If I couldn't use the class at all, I would understand, but with it not working when passed to another method.. doesn't make any sense. If I put in a breakpoint, the debugger indicates myItem is a class of the correct type.
Any suggestions?
Thanks
Your myMethod expects an object of class customClass_myItem (or a descendant) not customClass.
If you change your parameter type to object it should work.
static void myMethod(Object o) {}
i am getting error "Object reference not set to an instance of an object." my is here,
public class UserProfession
{
public UserProfession()
{
}
public System.String[] Designation
{
get;
set;
}
}
then i am using it like,
UserProfession.Designation[0] =txt_Search.Text.ToString();
Error i mentioned you hopes for your suggestions .
-Thanks
When you make an assignment to an array property, like this:
UserProfession.Designation[0] =txt_Search.Text.ToString();
what you are actually doing is calling the get section for that property... not the set. This returns the object supported the property... the whole object, and not just the index. Index lookup does not happen until after the object is returned. Once you have that object, accessing an index works in the normal way.
You get this specific exception because you have the expression UserProfession.Designation that should return a reference to an array object, but because you never initialize the array there is nothing there when you then try to find reference the 0th element. At this point the framework discovers that the array (your "object reference") is "not set to an instance of an object"... which is just a fancy way of saying it's null.
In other words, you need to have an already existing array to hold the value you want to assign. That means doing something like this:
Designation = new String[10];
public String[] Designation
{
get;
set;
}
However, notice that we never used the set section? So you can simplify that further, like this:
Designation = new String[10];
public String[] Designation {get;private set;}
This will keep client code from completely swapping an entire array out from under your object, but otherwise will provide the full functionality of an array property. If you provide your own backing store for the array, you could even get rid of the setter entirely with no loss of functionality:
private string[] _designation = new string[10];
public string[] Designation {get {return _designation;} }
But let's add one more wrinkle: your desire to assign the to array before initializing it indicates to me that you likely don't really know how big it will be up front. If that's the case, you probably want a collection of some kind instead of an array. A generic List is a convenient and very compatible replacement for an array. That would look like this:
private List<string> _designation = new List<string>();
public List<string> Designation {get {return _designation;}}
You can still access items in that list by index, just like you would with an array. The only difference you need to worry about right now is how you add new items:
UserProfession.Designation.Add(txt_Search.Text);
Also notice that I removed the .ToString() call. Since your .Text property is almost certainly already a string, calling the .ToString() method is just silly.
You will have to initialize the object, before assigning the value. The initialization should be done just once. I have initialized the array size to ten. You can have your own values here. If you want to resize dynamically, you can use ArrayList
int length = 10;
UserProfession.Designation = new System.String[length];
UserProfession.Designation[0] =txt_Search.Text.ToString();
For more information: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa287601(v=vs.71).aspx
it must initialize the value before we use because, currently, it is null.
you better add the initialization code in the constructor function.
I have a .Net Web Service function that can accept one string.
That function will then serialize that string to JSON, but I only want to serialize it if it's value is not "".
I found these instructions:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa347792.aspx
[DataContract]
public class MyClass
{
[DataMember (EmitDefaultValue=false)]
public string myValue = ""
}
Unfortunatelly I can not hide the myValue from the serialization because "" is not the .Net default value for a string (how dumb is that!)
One of two option ocurred
On the web service have some kind of attribute that sets the "" to null
Have some condition on the class
I would prefer the 1st because it makes the code cleaner but an opinion would be great.
Thanks
You can explicitly set what the default value is (for the purposes of serialization) using the DefaultValueAttribute class:
[DataContract]
public class MyClass
{
[DataMember (EmitDefaultValue=false)]
[DefaultValue("")]
public string myValue = ""
}
I think you have at least a couple of options here. It's extra work but worth it.
You can encapsulate the string in a reference type. Since reference types are null if not present, that lets you know right away if a string was present or not (because the encapsulating reference type would be either non-null or null, if the string is non-empty or not.)
A final option you have is to add an extra complementary variable (perhaps a boolean) that is set on OnDeserializing/OnDeserialized/OnSerializing/OnSerialized and use this to track whether or not something was actually present on the wire. You might, for example, set this complementary variable to true only when you're actually serializing out a non-empty string and similarly
Pardon me if this question has already been asked. HttpContext.Current.Session["key"] returns an object and we would have to cast it to that particular Type before we could use it. I was looking at various implementations of typed sessions
http://www.codeproject.com/KB/aspnet/typedsessionstate.aspx
http://weblogs.asp.net/cstewart/archive/2008/01/09/strongly-typed-session-in-asp-net.aspx
http://geekswithblogs.net/dlussier/archive/2007/12/24/117961.aspx
and I felt that we needed to add some more code (correct me if I was wrong) to the SessionManager if we wanted to add a new Type of object into session, either as a method or as a separate wrapper. I thought we could use generics
public static class SessionManager<T> where T:class
{
public void SetSession(string key,object objToStore)
{
HttpContext.Current.Session[key] = objToStore;
}
public T GetSession(string key)
{
return HttpContext.Current.Session[key] as T;
}
}
Is there any inherent advantage in
using
SessionManager<ClassType>.GetSession("sessionString")
than using
HttpContext.Current.Session["sessionString"] as ClassType
I was also thinking it would be nice
to have something like
SessionManager["sessionString"] = objToStoreInSession,
but found that a static class cannot have an indexer. Is there any other way to achieve this ?
My thought was create a SessionObject which would store the Type and the object, then add this object to Session (using a SessionManager), with the key. When retrieving, cast all objects to SessionObject ,get the type (say t) and the Object (say obj) and cast obj as t and return it.
public class SessionObject { public Type type {get;set;} public Object obj{get;set;} }
this would not work as well (as the return signature would be the same, but the return types will be different).
Is there any other elegant way of saving/retrieving objects in session in a more type safe way
For a very clean, maintainable, and slick way of dealing with Session, look at this post. You'll be surprised how simple it can be.
A downside of the technique is that consuming code needs to be aware of what keys to use for storage and retrieval. This can be error prone, as the key needs to be exactly correct, or else you risk storing in the wrong place, or getting a null value back.
I actually use the strong-typed variation, since I know what I need to have in the session, and can thus set up the wrapping class to suit. I've rather have the extra code in the session class, and not have to worry about the key strings anywhere else.
You can simply use a singleton pattern for your session object. That way you can model your entire session from a single composite structure object. This post refers to what I'm talking about and discusses the Session object as a weakly typed object: http://allthingscs.blogspot.com/2011/03/documenting-software-architectural.html
Actually, if you were looking to type objects, place the type at the method level like:
public T GetValue<T>(string sessionKey)
{
}
Class level is more if you have the same object in session, but session can expand to multiple types. I don't know that I would worry about controlling the session; I would just let it do what it's done for a while, and simply provide a means to extract and save information in a more strongly-typed fashion (at least to the consumer).
Yes, indexes wouldn't work; you could create it as an instance instead, and make it static by:
public class SessionManager
{
private static SessionManager _instance = null;
public static SessionManager Create()
{
if (_instance != null)
return _instance;
//Should use a lock when creating the instance
//create object for _instance
return _instance;
}
public object this[string key] { get { .. } }
}
And so this is the static factory implementation, but it also maintains a single point of contact via a static reference to the session manager class internally. Each method in sessionmanager could wrap the existing ASP.NET session, or use your own internal storage.
I posted a solution on the StackOverflow question is it a good idea to create an enum for the key names of session values?
I think it is really slick and contains very little code to make it happen. It needs .NET 4.5 to be the slickest, but is still possible with older versions.
It allows:
int myInt = SessionVars.MyInt;
SessionVars.MyInt = 3;
to work exactly like:
int myInt = (int)Session["MyInt"];
Session["MyInt"] = 3;