How do I make a 'createobject'?
Any useful links/tutorials (or comment) about how to make a 'creatobject' would be nice.
You need to create a COM object that expose IDispatch https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/desktop/ms221608(v=vs.85).aspx, and register your class in the registry to make it possible to create an instance by name with createobject.
Which programming language/platform/tools are you using?
Related
I'm trying to use Zenject in Unity. I have an interface and several implementations of it.
I want to inject with ID but also that the implementation will have the tick interface since it's not a MonoBehaviour.
So I have an IAttacker interface and a MeleeAttackImpl implementation.
Container.Bind<IAttacker>().WithId(AttackerTypeEnum.MELEEE).To<MeleeAttackImpl>().AsTransient();
I want to add
Container.BindInterfacesTo<MeleeAttackImpl>().AsTransient();
But it creates 2 different objects instead of instances that have the Tick interface and bind them to IAttacker.
If you want to bind an interface to a determined implementation, why do you use two bindings?
If you want only one instance of the object I would try:
Container.BindInterfacesAndSelfTo<MeleeAttackImpl>().AsSingle();
or:
Container.Bind<IAttacker>().To<MeleeAttackImpl>().AsSingle();
As Single() In the case you need the same instance provided from the container along the app (like a singleton).
From the documentation:
"AsTransient - Will not re-use the instance at all. Every time ContractType is requested, the DiContainer will execute the given construction method again."
Many times intance is created in the binding itself. So maybe from the two binding two instances are created, one from each binding.
In case you need to create instances dynamically with all their dependencies resolved, what you need a is Factory.
Good day! I am new to using Unreal Engine 4 and I have a few questions about how exactly blueprints work. From my understanding of it, every blueprint works like a class. By that I mean one blueprint is much like one class in an OOP programming language.
Please educate me as to - if my assumption is correct or wrong. If wrong, then maybe you could help me achieve what I want in a different method/perspective. I am willing to learn and accept suggestions.
If at some point my understanding is correct - that blueprints are actually individual classes - I would really appreciate it if you could (please) guide as to where to go and how to implement a design that I want to create. This is from a programmers perspective (PHP OOP Programming). Forgive the approach, I'm just using PHP to logically express how I want the class to work. Plus, it is the only OOP programming I know atm.
I want to create a class named: Items. class Item {}
This class is going to handle everything item related, thus we will have to give it a lot of properties/variable. (Below is just an example; Again I'm using PHP as an example.)
class Item {
var $id;
var $name;
var $description;
var $type;
var $subType;
var $mesh;
var $materials;
}
3.) I would like to initiate this class by having two variables as its construct arguments. (We will require itemID and itemType). This is because I will use these two variables to retrieve the item's data which is already available in a data table. I will use those data in the table to populate the class properties/variables. (I'm not sure if I said that right. I hope you understood my point anyway.)
class Item {
var $id;
var $name;
var $description;
var $type;
var $subType;
var $mesh;
var $materials;
function _construct($cons_itemID, $cons_itemType) {
/*-- Start getting the item Data here based on what item and type provided. Then, push that data into the class properties/variables. We will use individual methods/functions to fill other properties/variables later. --*/
}
}
4.) Basically with that design I could easily pass on an item ID to the class and then get the item's name, description, mesh, materials and etc using pointers.
Example:
$weapon = new Item('10001','Weapon');
$weaponMesh = $weapon->getMesh();
$armor = new Item('12345','Armor');
$armorName = $armor->getName();
I'm just having a lot of trouble working with blueprint and achieve this method or even something similar to it. I'm not trying to avoid C++, I would love to learn it but I just don't have the time freedom right now.
Few things I have tried to make it work:
Casting / Casting to class (But I couldn't figure out what the target object will be and how was I going to add input arguments into the class that way? There isn't any input there that I could use.)
Spawn Actor (This one is very promising, I need to dig in deeper into this)
Blueprint Macros? Blueprint Interfaces? (I'm just lost.)
For all those who will help or answer. Thank you!
~ Chris
So far as I know, yes, we can assume that each blueprint can be viewed as class. (Moreover, since UE 4.12 (in UE 4.11 that functionality is marked as experimental I think) you can check Compile blueprints under Project settings -> Packaging. That will create native class for each blueprint.)
You can create either Blueprint or C++ class based on Object (UObject in C++). Then you can specify all properties (or variables in UE editor terminology). In BP you have small advantage: you can mark some properties as Visible at spawn (they must be Public and Visible). So when you are creating new instance of that class, you can explicitly pass values to that properties.
And in BP Construct event, that properties are correctly filled, thus you can set another properties values based on given ID and Type.
In C++ class having different arguments than FObjectInitializer is not possible, thus you don't have that values in time when constructor is executed. But it is not so hard to achieve same functionality, you can find example here: https://answers.unrealengine.com/questions/156055/passing-arguments-to-constructors-in-ue4.html.
Something about list of what you had tried:
Spawn actor - derive from actor only if you intend to have that BP in scene. Actors are subjects to game updates and rendering, so having actor only as data container is very wrong.
BP Macro is same as BP Function except function will be called just like function (so executing necesary actions by function call conventions) and macro will replace it's implementation in place, where you are calling that macro. More exhausting explanation here.
If I would implement your code, I'd do it like I said and then I'll have that class as property in some component and that component would be attached to some actor, which would be placed in scene.
I have splitted my application into two main areas.
Part(A)
PartStashContainer(B)
The content of A should be set based on what user wants.
So basically i can have 1..N classes which could be used in Class URI of Part in application model.
I don't know if i should replace the whole Part(A) with new dynamically created Part(C) which has content i want, or i should somehow to modify the existing Part (call setContributionURI, or setObject methods on Part object?).
It does make more sense to me to modify the existing Part, because it is defined in Application model and therefore already describing the location where the content should be.
Possible solutions:
Modify the Part object so it "reload" its content based on new setup (But how? Can setContributionURI or setObject methods help?)
Remove the old Part and add dynamically on same place in Application model the new Part (using EModelService and EPartService).
other solution??
If you want to reuse the Part then do something like:
MPart part = find or inject your part
MyClass myClass = (MyClass)part.getObject();
... call a method of MyClass to change the contents
MyClass is the class you specify for the object in the application model. You should add a method to that to let you change the contents.
Don't try to call setObject, this is really only for use by Eclipse. I don't think setContributionURI would do anything after the part is created (but I am not sure).
If you want to use different classes for the different data then you really should use different Parts.
Is there any way to create a fake from a System.Type object in FakeItEasy? Similar to:
var instance = A.Fake(type);
I try to write a fake container for AutoFac that automatically return fakes for all resolved types. I have looked in the code for FakeItEasy and all methods that support this is behind internal classes but I have found the interface IFakeObjectContainer that looks pretty interesting, but the implementations still need registration of objects that is the thing that I want to come around.
As of FakeItEasy 2.1.0 (but do consider upgrading to the latest release for more features and better bugfixes), you can create a fake from a Type like so:
using FakeItEasy.Sdk;
…
object fake = Create.Fake(type);
If you must use an earlier release, you could use some reflection based approach to create a method info for the A.Fake() method. (since it's about auto mocking this shouldn't be a problem really).
This is best done using a registration handler. You should look into how AutofacContrib.Moq implements its MoqRegistrationHandler. You'll see that it is actually using the generic method MockRepository.Create to make fake instances. Creating a similar handler for FakeItEasy should be quite simple.
I have an object instance, and I want to end up with a MEF catalog that contains that object instance, exported as a specific interface type. How can I do this?
TypeCatalog doesn't seem workable here, because (a) it creates a new instance instead of using an existing one, and (b) it requires the type to have an [Export] attribute. In my case, the instance comes from MEF's metadata system, so MEF creates the underlying type and I can't add attributes to it.
As far as I can tell, the usual advice is, if you've got an existing instance, you should add it to the container (e.g. via CompositionBatch), not to the catalog. But when I add this instance, I'm also adding an entire AssemblyCatalog worth of types, all in the same operation. I'll also want to be able to remove all of these types later. It makes more sense to me to bundle everything into an AggregateCatalog. That way, I can add both the assembly and the instance in one atomic operation, and I can remove them all again the same way.
For example:
// Bootstrapper code to initialize MEF:
public void Configure() {
_selectedGameCatalog = new AggregateCatalog();
var globalCatalog = new AggregateCatalog(_selectedGameCatalog);
_container = new CompositionContainer(globalCatalog);
// ... more MEF initialization ...
}
// Sometime later, I want to add more stuff to the MEF ecosystem:
public void SelectGame(Lazy<Game, IGameMetadata> entry) {
var newCatalog = new AggregateCatalog();
// Make the assembly available to import:
newCatalog.Catalogs.Add(new AssemblyCatalog(entry.Value.GetType().Assembly));
// I also want the metadata to be available to import:
IGameMetadata metadata = entry.Metadata;
newCatalog.Catalogs.Add(MakeCatalogFromInstance<IGameMetadata>(metadata));
// Replace whatever game was selected before:
_selectedGameCatalog.Catalogs.Clear();
_selectedGameCatalog.Catalogs.Add(newCatalog);
}
The part I don't know how to do is "MakeCatalogFromInstance". How can I create a catalog that contains an existing instance (registered as a specific type)?
Or, alternatively, if I'm going about this all wrong, is there a better way to plug an entire catalog and an existing instance all into MEF at the same time, with the ability to unplug them all again later and replace them with something else?
I think it's probably best to add the types to the catalog and then add the instance to the container.
Catalogs contain part definitions. Part definitions are used to create parts. (The types for this are ComposablePartDefinition and ComposablePart.) So you could theoretically write your own catalog and a part definition that always returned a part corresponding to the instance when CreatePart was called. But catalogs weren't really designed to be used this way.
For prosperity...
MEF devivides the chores of what type info is to be used (catalog) from the actual running object instances (container). To me it is a logical descicion, especially when you setup a more complex MEF environment in your application.
If you want the ability to 'change' containers on the fly, I would suggest you try to use hierarchical containers. The root catalog/container is filled with static types and any of the child containers can be filled with each specific set of meta types you need for your game.
Hope it helps,
Marc