|
I have created two instances of a class in my code but when I assign a value to a property both instances are being updated. I'm sure I must be doing something really obvious wrong, but I can't see what. Please help!
private Campaign objCampaign;<br />
private Campaign origCampaign;<br />
<br />
origCampaign = (Campaign)Session["origCampaign"];<br />
objCampaign = (Campaign) Session["objCampaign"];<br />
<br />
objCampaign.WaveCount = Convert.ToInt32(txtNbrWaves.Text);<br />
<br />
<br />
public class Campaign : IComparable<br />
{<br />
private int _WaveCount;<br />
public int WaveCount<br />
{<br />
get<br />
{<br />
return _WaveCount;<br />
}<br />
set<br />
{<br />
_WaveCount = value;<br />
}<br />
}<br />
}
|
|
|
|
|
I suspect that somewhere along the line objCampaign and origCampaign are being set equal to one another. If they are then the references (tho different) point to the same object in memory. OR something is happening in Session (whatever that is) that breaks your indexer. Why are you indexing on the variable name btw?
Scott P
"Run for your life from any man who tells you that money is evil. That sentence is the leper's bell of an approaching looter." --Ayn Rand
|
|
|
|
|
I think you're right. I have an array of Campaign objects and I am assigning the same item to both objCampaign and origCampaign. I hadn't realised that they would be stored as pointers to the same area of storage rather than having their own discrete areas. Time to think of a different approach!
Thanks for your help.
|
|
|
|
|
If your campaign objects are simple enough, you can make them structs, which would solve the problem since structs are ValueTypes and not ReferenceTypes and get put on the stack and not the managed heap. Otherwise you could make your class clonaeble, but there are some pitfalls that you'll have to watch out for depending on your class members and your clone implementation.
Scott P
"Run for your life from any man who tells you that money is evil. That sentence is the leper's bell of an approaching looter." --Ayn Rand
|
|
|
|
|
I looked into both suggestions but my class was too complicated to use structs and making it cloneable looked like overkill for what I needed. I've solved the problem by adding a copy constructor to the class which creates the new object and copies each property across from the old one.
Thanks again for pointing me in the right direction.
|
|
|
|
|
I've been trying to save the entire request.browser object to my MSSQL 2005 database. I used to save objects to a Firebird database in Java, by putting them in a blob field.
Now however, I can't seem to do it with the C# MSSQL 2005 combination. I've tried an "image" field, aswell as an "binairy(MAX)" field. I've tried serializing it (apparently the object request.browser comes from can't be serialized), and I'm basically all out of ideas.
So my question, good people, anyone ever tried this before, or has some pointers at how I could accomplish this? I'm only trying to put the object in the database, making a new object and copying all the data in there is not an option.
modified on Wednesday, April 23, 2008 12:56 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hello,
i have a problem, i create a class for example for each customer, now i want to held all "customers" so the class of them in a array...
how can i do this?
it must be possible to delete objects, and add them to this array... and is that possible with arrays?
thanks
|
|
|
|
|
Arrays are ok, but better would be Generic List[^]
Read up and use that 
He who makes a beast out of himself gets rid of the pain of being a man
|
|
|
|
|
Have you ever came across some thing like this[^]?
*jaans
|
|
|
|
|
Lol, beat ya to it 
He who makes a beast out of himself gets rid of the pain of being a man
|
|
|
|
|
Try using a generic list. You can do all sorts of things with it.
Scott P
"Run for your life from any man who tells you that money is evil. That sentence is the leper's bell of an approaching looter." --Ayn Rand
|
|
|
|
|
HAHA Everyone jumped on this one 
"Run for your life from any man who tells you that money is evil. That sentence is the leper's bell of an approaching looter." --Ayn Rand
|
|
|
|
|
Hehe yea, I like to promote the use of generic List wherever possible
He who makes a beast out of himself gets rid of the pain of being a man
|
|
|
|
|
Has anyone suggested using a list yet?
My current favourite word is: Bacon!
-SK Genius
|
|
|
|
|
I would suggest a book instead.
If the Lord God Almighty had consulted me before embarking upon the Creation, I would have recommended something simpler.
-- Alfonso the Wise, 13th Century King of Castile.
This is going on my arrogant assumptions. You may have a superb reason why I'm completely wrong.
-- Iain Clarke
|
|
|
|
|
I already have a book. If I buy a second book, should I keep them in an array,
or do you have a better suggestion?
Luc Pattyn [Forum Guidelines] [My Articles]
This month's tips:
- before you ask a question here, search CodeProject, then Google;
- the quality and detail of your question reflects on the effectiveness of the help you are likely to get;
- use PRE tags to preserve formatting when showing multi-line code snippets.
|
|
|
|
|
Luc Pattyn wrote: I already have a book. If I buy a second book, should I keep them in an array,
or do you have a better suggestion?
Is one of those books a Dictionary?
|
|
|
|
|
Pete O'Hanlon wrote: Is one of those books a Dictionary?
I don't read recursive books, they either take too long or suddenly end in
a painful StackOverflowException.
Luc Pattyn [Forum Guidelines] [My Articles]
This month's tips:
- before you ask a question here, search CodeProject, then Google;
- the quality and detail of your question reflects on the effectiveness of the help you are likely to get;
- use PRE tags to preserve formatting when showing multi-line code snippets.
|
|
|
|
|
Luc Pattyn wrote: I don't read recursive books, they either take too long or suddenly end in
a painful StackOverflowException.
Does this result in you performing a core dump?
|
|
|
|
|
No, I don't do core dumps either, analyzing them also puts me in an eternal loop.
Luc Pattyn [Forum Guidelines] [My Articles]
This month's tips:
- before you ask a question here, search CodeProject, then Google;
- the quality and detail of your question reflects on the effectiveness of the help you are likely to get;
- use PRE tags to preserve formatting when showing multi-line code snippets.
|
|
|
|
|
Luc Pattyn wrote: I already have a book. If I buy a second book, should I keep them in an array,
or do you have a better suggestion?
Yes, of course, books should stay into the stacks.
If the Lord God Almighty had consulted me before embarking upon the Creation, I would have recommended something simpler.
-- Alfonso the Wise, 13th Century King of Castile.
This is going on my arrogant assumptions. You may have a superb reason why I'm completely wrong.
-- Iain Clarke
|
|
|
|
|
You can make a LIFO stack in the corner. Or buy some string and make a linked list. Or buy two buckets and make a hash table.
Despite everything, the person most likely to be fooling you next is yourself.
|
|
|
|
|
Buying buckets to store books. That's a novel concept, I'll have to ponder that a while.
However my first book isn't waterproof... So I'll go for the string, bind the books
together, and get rid of the problem. I can store one bucket in the corner (that will come
handy some day), and no need for a stack, so now I have a spare bucket.
Any suggestions how I can keep two buckets in an orderly fashion? an array of buckets? Anyone with a better idea?
Luc Pattyn [Forum Guidelines] [My Articles]
This month's tips:
- before you ask a question here, search CodeProject, then Google;
- the quality and detail of your question reflects on the effectiveness of the help you are likely to get;
- use PRE tags to preserve formatting when showing multi-line code snippets.
|
|
|
|
|
Another idea for storing books would be a table. One book on the table, and one to keep it level.
Or perhaps a tree of some sort. If you already have the string.
Luc Pattyn wrote: Any suggestions how I can keep two buckets in an orderly fashion?
Buckets are usually very stackable, at least when empty.
Otherwise you can just put them in boxes and throw them in a heap.
Despite everything, the person most likely to be fooling you next is yourself.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
