I'm trying to create Web Services with Eclipse (Java Runtime 7 (also tried 8) Tomcat 7 (also tried 8).Web Service with parameter "byte[]" and return value "byte[]" works fine.Web Service with parameter "myOwnClass" and return value "myOwnClass" works also fine.But if I have a "byte[]" element in "myOwnClass" and I run my Client test program I get the following error:
AxisFault
faultCode: {http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/soap/envelope/}Server.userException
faultSubcode:
faultString: java.lang.NumberFormatException: For input string: "MTExMTExMTExMQ=="
Why? I don't have any numeric element (such as int ...) in my class members!?
I have a wsdl file and already generated a java class in it. However I can't find a setter method in it. I tried invoking the getter method but it returns a null. How can I set a value in that property?
package core; import java.util.ArrayList; import org.lwjgl.input.Keyboard; public class Input{ public static final int num_key = 78; private static ArrayList<Integer> currrentkeys = new ArrayList<Integer>(); private static ArrayList<Integer> downkeys= new ArrayList<Integer>(); private static ArrayList<Integer> upkeys = new ArrayList<Integer>();
Where should I keep a collection of instances of my custom class? In the class itself in a static variable?
class Item { int quantity; static ArrayList<Item> list = new ArrayList<Item>(); Item(int q) { quantity = q; list.add(this); } // Some methods and whatnot. }
Is it fine like this or should I implement the collection elsewhere? What say you?
Is there an advantage in using byte instead of int beyond the space savings? In my program, I'll never need close to the max value of a byte, let alone int, so it seems like a waste to make my primitives ints.
I need to send a byte array across a network. I know how to do this. (server->client)
byte[] myArray = new byte[]{0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9}; DataOutputStream.write(myArray);
... and I know how to receive it.
byte[] myArray = new byte[10]; DataInputStream.read(myArray);
When I send over one of these arrays, it ends up stopping storing values in the array when only about half the array is received, even though the array is sent from the server all at once. This results in the receiver's array, in this case, being something like {1,2,3,4,0,0,0,0,0,0}.
I can easily solve this - and already have - by simply adding a loop onto it and waiting for the bytes to all be received, as the method returns the amount of bytes actually read.
I am simply wondering if there is a better solution to this, as the current solution isn't that elegant. Did I do something wrong to cause only a part of the array to be sent first? Would it be better to use DataInputStream.readByte() to read off the bytes one by one rather than an array at once, and then store them in an array afterward? Would this cause a performance decrease as each byte is read individually? (I'm sending an array of several million bytes)
I am new to Android. I have byte array of size 10. I am passing the Decimal values (131 - 140) to byte array. But while printing I get Negative (-) values with decreasing order .
How can I get same value as positive values?
Or How can I store positive value e.g. 131 as byte array element.
Please not my requirement is array must be ByteArray only
I have a checksum function that is suppose to read IPV4 packet and return a short integer value. The IPV4 packets are stored in a byte array. I am having trouble storing the first 8 bits and second 8 bits of the short integer into the byte arrays especially when they have leading 1s. For example, if my checksum returns 5571 (binary = 0001 0101 1100 0011) The first 8 bits is suppose to represent 195 but when I try to assign a larger integer type to a btye the information gets sign extended. The 195 turns into -61. I tried using bit addition like array[10] = array[10] & 0xff, but the result remains the same.
public static short checksum(byte [] a, int length) { short sum = 0; long data; int i = 0; while(length > 1) { data = (((a[i] << 8) & 0xff00) | ((a[i + 1]) & 0xff)); sum += data;
I am reading a book on Java and we are at a point where it is explaining type conversion in expressions. One of the examples shared has a byte being multiplied by itself and then assigned back to itself ...
byte b; b = 10; b = (byte) (b * b);
this is all good and dandy (that is, the code functions properly).
However, I am confused why I need to typecast here! Without the cast, the compiler screams, "Type mismatch: cannot convert from int to byte." Yet I haven't converted to an int?? It appears there was an implicit conversion.
The final value, 100, is clearly within byte's range of -127 to +127 isn't it? So I am lost as to what is the issue here.
I have a msg object that contains an ArrayList<Integer> collection. However, in order to send the elements in the array over the udp socket, it needs to be sent as a byte[] array. So why am I using ArrayList<Integer> over byte array in first place? Well when I receive data from socket from embedded c program, I need to get an unsigned representation of the data, and thus I need to store it in integers, since bytes in Java are unsigned and unsigned chars in c that are greater than 127 will yield incorrect values in java. But when I send an ack back over the socket, I need to send the data back as bytes. So I convert the ArrayList<Integer> to a byte array:
Java Code: byte[] data = msg.toByteArray(); DatagramPacket response = new DatagramPacket(data, data.length, packet.getAddress(), packet.getPort()); public class Gprs { ... public byte[] toByteArray(){
[Code] ....
The problem is I get an "Cannot cast from Integer to byte" when trying to cast the integer to byte: data[i] = (byte)m_data.get(i);
okay so it says that java int short and byte variables are the same thing. They take whole numbers. But what is the point of byte and short to even exist if int covers it all? Is the short and byte just for fun?
byte b = 100; it works (implicit conversion of implicit int literal 100 to byte.
But if you have a methodvoid bla(byte b){}
And want to invoke it with a literal (which is an int by default):bla(8) then there is no implicit conversion.
Is the byte b = 100; just an exception in Java? And is it the rule that one has to explicitely cast (narrow) integer literals when passing to smaller-than-int types?
I've a small question relating to type promotion I can't find an answer for on the web. Basically in your code if you have :
byte b = 0; b = b + 1;
The compiler will complain about the result being an int which cannot be assigned to a byte. That I understand, as b on the right hand side of the expression is promoted to an int and the result of the addition is an int. However the following does compile :
byte b = 0; b++;
Does the post increment not carry out the post increment as "give me the value of b and then add 1 to b" where I would have expected 'add 1 to b' to do the same integer promotion as the previous example ? The compiler will also allow the following
I'm trying to save a picture from byte arrays using RandomAccessFile. The file appears but doesn't open (like its corrupted).
I'm using the bittorent protocol which gives a SHA-1 hash that I compare all the bytes with to verify the data. All the bytes pass the hash check and all the hashes are checked. So I'm pretty sure I'm getting all the bytes correctly.
Is there anything I can do that could tell what's going wrong?
public RUBTClient(final TorrentInfo2 tInfo, final String outFileName) { ... this.outFileName = outFileName; File destined = new File(outFileName); try { destined_file = new RandomAccessFile(destined, "rw"); destined_file.setLength(tInfo.file_length); } catch (FileNotFoundException e1) {
I and a friend are working with a project to create a file system, who manages a secondary memory simulated as a byte array in Java. We want the file system to be a hierarchical tree structure like in UNIX.
We have come quite far, but the paths are not handled correct. I seem to have mistaken the relative folder ./ for the root folder, but it should mean "working directory folder", ie, where I stand now. That is, if I stand in /dir1 as my "working directory" and make mkdir ./dir2 then should dir2 end up as subfolder in dir1. But with me it appears in the root.
