StackOverflow2013

Note that there are some explanatory texts on larger screens.

plurals

PO
primarykey
Id
515792
data
AcceptedAnswerId
0
AnswerCount
0
ClosedDate
CommentCount
1
CommunityOwnedDate
CreationDate
2009-02-05T12:58:33.720
FavoriteCount
0
LastActivityDate
2009-02-05T12:58:33.720
LastEditDate
LastEditorUserId
0
OwnerUserId
48503
ParentId
515575
PostTypeId
2
Score
0
ViewCount
0
LastEditorDisplayName
text
Body
Generics provide information which only exists at compile-time; at run-time all the information is lost. When compiling code with generics, the compiler will strip out all the generic type information and insert casts as necessary. For example, <pre><code>List<String> list = new ArrayList<String>(); list.add("test"); String s = list.get(0); </code></pre> will end up being compiled as <pre><code>List list = new ArrayList(); list.add("test"); String s = (String) list.get(0); </code></pre> with the compiler automatically adding the cast in the third line. It looks to me like you are trying to use generics for run-time type safety. This is not possible. In the line <pre><code>validator.validate(field, a, target); </code></pre> there is no way for the compiler to know what subtype of <code>Annotation</code> the validator expects. I think the best thing to do is to drop the type variable <code>A</code> and declare your interface as follows: <pre><code>interface AnnotatedFieldValidator { void validate(Field f, Annotation annotation, Object target); Class<? extends Annotation> getSupportedAnnotationClass(); } </code></pre> <code>addValidator</code> would then also lose its parameterised type, i.e. <pre><code>public void addValidator(AnnotatedFieldValidator v) { validators.put(v.getSupportedAnnotationClass(), v); } </code></pre> The downside of this is that you will have to check that your validators are being passed an annotation of a class that they can validate. This is easiest to do in the code that calls the validator, e.g. <pre><code>if (validator.getSupportedAnnotationClass().isInstance(a)) { validator.validate(field, a, target); } else { // wrong type of annotation, throw some exception. } </code></pre>
Tags
Title
singulars
PostAcceptedAnswerId
1. This table or related slice is empty.
PostParentId
1. POlimit map key and value types - more complicated
 singulars
 PostTypePostTypeId
 PTQuestion
PostTypePostTypeId
1. PTAnswer
UserLastEditorUserId
1. This table or related slice is empty.
UserOwnerUserId
1. USLuke Woodward
plurals
PostLinksPostIdRelatedPostId
1. This table or related slice is empty.
PostLinksRelatedPostIdPostId
1. This table or related slice is empty.
PostsAcceptedAnswerId
1. This table or related slice is empty.
PostsParentIdCreationDate
1. This table or related slice is empty.
VotesPostIdCreationDate
1. This table or related slice is empty.
CommentsPostId
1. COYes, there is no way for the compiler to know. This is why I have a method that enforces the coherence (addValidator()). Now that I assume coherence whith this, I should be able to call Class.cast(Object). Your solution still needs to cast the object, which is what I want to avoid.
 singulars
 PostPostId
 PO
 UserUserId
 USGaetan

Querying!

Guidance

A row detail

Detail views are divided into sections. All the information in the data section comes from columns in the selected row. The other sections display data from other, related rows.

Related data can be related in a to-one or a to-many fashion. Captions of data related in a to-many fashion link to a list view showing a filtered view of the table.

Try moving around until you find a non-empty to-many entry and click on the label to get to one. You can move back to the root by clicking on the database name in the header.