Search Results

Search found 6205 results on 249 pages for 'linq to nhibernate'.

Page 110/249 | < Previous Page | 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117  | Next Page >

  • How do I serialize/deserialize a NHibernate entity that has references to other objects?

    - by Daniel T.
    I have two NHibernate-managed entities that have a bi-directional one-to-many relationship: public class Storage { public virtual string Name { get; set; } public virtual IList<Box> Boxes { get; set; } } public class Box { public virtual string Box { get; set; } [DoNotSerialize] public virtual Storage ParentStorage { get; set; } } A Storage can contain many Boxes, and a Box always belongs in a Storage. I want to edit a Box's name, so I send it to the client using JSON. Note that I don't serialize ParentStorage because I'm not changing which storage it's in. The client edits the name and sends the Box back as JSON. The server deserializes it back into a Box entity. Problem is, the ParentStorage property is null. When I try to save the Box to the database, it updates the name, but also removes the relationship to the Storage. How do I properly serialize and deserialize an entity like a Box, while keeping the JSON data size to a minimum?

    Read the article

  • Can I set NHibernate's default "OrderBy" to be "CreatedDate" not "Id"?

    - by Chris F
    This is an oddball question I figure. Can I get NHibernate to ask SQL to sort data by CreatedDate by default unless I set an OrderBy in my HQL or Criteria? I'm interested in knowing whether this sort can be accomplished at the DB level to avoid bringing in LINQ. The reason is that I use GUIDs for Ids and when I do something like this: Sheet sheet = sheetRepository.Get(_someGUID); IList<SheetLineItems> lineItems = sheet.LineItems; to fetch all of the lineItems, they come back in whatever arbitrary way that SQL sorts that fetch, which I figure is GUID. At some point I'll add ordinals to my line items, but for now, I just want to use CreatedDate as the sort criteria. I don't want to be forced to do: IList<SheetLineItem> lineItems = sheetLineItemRepository.GetAll(_sheetGUID); and then writing that method to sort by CreatedDate. I figure if everything is just sorted on CreatedDate by default, that would be fine, unless specifically requested otherwise.

    Read the article

  • LINQ to SQL : Too much CPU Usage: What happens when there are multiple users.

    - by soldieraman
    I am using LINQ to SQL and seeing my CPU Usage sky rocketting. See below screenshot. I have three questions What can I do to reduce this CPU Usage. I have done profiling and basically removed everything. Will making every LINQ to SQL statement into a compiled query help? I also find that even with compiled queries simple statements like ByID() can take 3 milliseconds on a server with 3.25GB RAM 3.17GHz - this will just become slower on a less powerful computer. Or will the compiled query get faster the more it is used? The CPU Usage (on the local server goes to 12-15%) for a single user will this multiply with the number of users accessing the server - when the application is put on a live server. i.e. 2 users at a time will mean 15*2 = 30% CPU Usage. If this is the case is my application limited to maximum 4-5 users at a time then. Or doesnt LINQ to SQL .net share some CPU usage.

    Read the article

  • Linq Query Performance , comparing Compiled query vs Non-Compiled.

    - by AG.
    Hello Guys, I was wondering if i extract the common where clause query into a common expression would it make my query much faster, if i have say something like 10 linq queries on a collection with exact same 1st part of the where clause. I have done a small example to explain a bit more . public class Person { public string First { get; set; } public string Last { get; set; } public int Age { get; set; } public String Born { get; set; } public string Living { get; set; } } public sealed class PersonDetails : List<Person> { } PersonDetails d = new PersonDetails(); d.Add(new Person() {Age = 29, Born = "Timbuk Tu", First = "Joe", Last = "Bloggs", Living = "London"}); d.Add(new Person() { Age = 29, Born = "Timbuk Tu", First = "Foo", Last = "Bar", Living = "NewYork" }); Expression<Func<Person, bool>> exp = (a) => a.Age == 29; Func<Person, bool> commonQuery = exp.Compile(); var lx = from y in d where commonQuery.Invoke(y) && y.Living == "London" select y; var bx = from y in d where y.Age == 29 && y.Living == "NewYork" select y; Console.WriteLine("All Details {0}, {1}, {2}, {3}, {4}", lx.Single().Age, lx.Single().First , lx.Single().Last, lx.Single().Living, lx.Single().Born ); Console.WriteLine("All Details {0}, {1}, {2}, {3}, {4}", bx.Single().Age, bx.Single().First, bx.Single().Last, bx.Single().Living, bx.Single().Born); So can some of the guru's here give me some advice if it would be a good practice to write query like var lx = "Linq Expression " or var bx = "Linq Expression" ? Any inputs would be highly appreciated. Thanks, AG

    Read the article

  • Is it possible to update old database from dbml file ? (C#, .Net 4, Linq, SQL Server)

    - by Emil
    Hi all, I began recently a new job, a very interesting project (C#,.Net 4, Linq, VS 2010 and SQL Server). And immediately I got a very exciting challenge: I must implement either a new tool or integrate the logic when program start, or whatever, but what must happen is the following: the customers have previous application and database (full with their specific data). Now a new version is ready and the customer gets the update. In the mean time we made some modification on DB (new table, columns, maybe an old column deleted, or whatever). I’m pretty new in Linq and also SQL databases and my first solution can be: I check the applications/databases version and implement all the changes step by step comparing all tables, columns, keys, constrains, etc. (all this new information I have in my dbml and the old I asked from the existing DB). And I’ll do this each time the version changed. But somehow I feel, this is NOT a smart solution so I look for a general solution of this problem. Is there a way to update customers DB from the dbml file? To create a new one is not a problem (CreateDatabase with DataContext), is there any update/alter database methods? I guess I’m not the only one who search for such a solution (I found nothing in internet – or I looked for bad keywords). How did you solve this problem? I look also for an external tool, but first for a solution with C#, Linq or something similar. For any idea thank you in advance! Best regards, Emil

    Read the article

  • How to avoid loading a LINQ to SQL object twice when editting it on a website.

    - by emzero
    Hi guys I know you are all tired of this Linq-to-Sql questions, but I'm barely starting to use it (never used an ORM before) and I've already find some "ugly" things. I'm pretty used to ASP.NET Webforms old school developing, but I want to leave that behind and learn the new stuff (I've just started to read a ASP.NET MVC book and a .NET 3.5/4.0 one). So here's is one thing I didn't like and I couldn't find a good alternative to it. In most examples of editing a LINQ object I've seen the object is loaded (hitting the db) at first to fill the current values on the form page. Then, the user modify some fields and when the "Save" button is clicked, the object is loaded for second time and then updated. Here's a simplified example of ScottGu NerdDinner site. // // GET: /Dinners/Edit/5 [Authorize] public ActionResult Edit(int id) { Dinner dinner = dinnerRepository.GetDinner(id); return View(new DinnerFormViewModel(dinner)); } // // POST: /Dinners/Edit/5 [AcceptVerbs(HttpVerbs.Post), Authorize] public ActionResult Edit(int id, FormCollection collection) { Dinner dinner = dinnerRepository.GetDinner(id); UpdateModel(dinner); dinnerRepository.Save(); return RedirectToAction("Details", new { id=dinner.DinnerID }); } As you can see the dinner object is loaded two times for every modification. Unless I'm missing something about LINQ to SQL caching the last queried objects or something like that I don't like getting it twice when it should be retrieved only one time, modified and then comitted back to the database. So again, am I really missing something? Or is it really hitting the database twice (in the example above it won't harm, but there could be cases that getting an object or set of objects could be heavy stuff). If so, what alternative do you think is the best to avoid double-loading the object? Thank you so much, Greetings!

    Read the article

  • Using Linq to group a list of objects into a new grouped list of list of objects

    - by Simon G
    Hi, I don't know if this is possible in Linq but here goes... I have an object: public class User { public int UserID { get; set; } public string UserName { get; set; } public int GroupID { get; set; } } I return a list that may look like the following: List<User> userList = new List<User>(); userList.Add( new User { UserID = 1, UserName = "UserOne", GroupID = 1 } ); userList.Add( new User { UserID = 2, UserName = "UserTwo", GroupID = 1 } ); userList.Add( new User { UserID = 3, UserName = "UserThree", GroupID = 2 } ); userList.Add( new User { UserID = 4, UserName = "UserFour", GroupID = 1 } ); userList.Add( new User { UserID = 5, UserName = "UserFive", GroupID = 3 } ); userList.Add( new User { UserID = 6, UserName = "UserSix", GroupID = 3 } ); I want to be able to run a Linq query on the above list that groups all the users by GroupID. So the out pub will be a list of user lists that contains user (if that makes sense?). So the out put would be something like: GroupedUserList UserList UserID = 1, UserName = "UserOne", GroupID = 1 UserID = 2, UserName = "UserTwo", GroupID = 1 UserID = 4, UserName = "UserFour", GroupID = 1 UserList UserID = 3, UserName = "UserThree", GroupID = 2 UserList UserID = 5, UserName = "UserFive", GroupID = 3 UserID = 6, UserName = "UserSix", GroupID = 3 I've tried using the groupby linq clause but this seems to return a list of keys and its not grouped by correctly: var groupedCustomerList = userList.GroupBy( u => u.GroupID ).ToList(); Any help would be much appreciated. Thanks

    Read the article

  • Linq: Why won't Group By work when Querying DataSets?

    - by jrcs3
    While playing with Linq Group By statements using both DataSet and Linq-to-Sql DataContext, I get different results with the following VB.NET 10 code: #If IS_DS = True Then Dim myData = VbDataUtil.getOrdersDS #Else Dim myData = VbDataUtil.GetNwDataContext #End If Dim MyList = From o In myData.Orders Join od In myData.Order_Details On o.OrderID Equals od.OrderID Join e In myData.Employees On o.EmployeeID Equals e.EmployeeID Group By FullOrder = New With { .OrderId = od.OrderID, .EmployeeName = (e.FirstName & " " & e.LastName), .ShipCountry = o.ShipCountry, .OrderDate = o.OrderDate } _ Into Amount = Sum(od.Quantity * od.UnitPrice) Where FullOrder.ShipCountry = "Venezuela" Order By FullOrder.OrderId Select FullOrder.OrderId, FullOrder.OrderDate, FullOrder.EmployeeName, Amount For Each x In MyList Console.WriteLine( String.Format( "{0}; {1:d}; {2}: {3:c}", x.OrderId, x.OrderDate, x.EmployeeName, x.Amount)) Next With Linq2SQL, the grouping works properly, however, the DataSet code doesn't group properly. Here are the functions that I call to create the DataSet and Linq-to-Sql DataContext Public Shared Function getOrdersDS() As NorthwindDS Dim ds As New NorthwindDS Dim ota As New OrdersTableAdapter ota.Fill(ds.Orders) Dim otda As New Order_DetailsTableAdapter otda.Fill(ds.Order_Details) Dim eda As New EmployeesTableAdapter eda.Fill(ds.Employees) Return ds End Function Public Shared Function GetNwDataContext() As NorthwindL2SDataContext Dim s As New My.MySettings Return New NorthwindL2SDataContext(s.NorthwindConnectionString) End Function What am I missing? If it should work, how do I make it work, if it can't work, why not (what interface isn't implemented, etc)?

    Read the article

  • Using ADO.NET Entities LINQ Provider to model complex SQL Queries?

    - by Ivan Zlatanov
    What I find really powerful in ADO.NET Entities or LINQ to SQL, is the ability to model complex queries. I really don't need the mappings that Entities or LINQ to SQL are doing for me - I just need the ability to model complex expressions that can be translated into T-SQL. My question is - am I abusing too much? Can I use the Entity Framework for modeling queries and just that? Should I? I know I can write my own custom LINQ to SQL provider, but that is just not possible to handle in the time spans I have. What is the best approach to model complex T-SQL queries? How do you handle conditional group byes, orders, joins, unions etc in the OOP world? Using StringBuilders for this kind of job feels too ugly and harder to maintain given the possibilities we have with Expression Trees. When I use StringBuilder to model a complex SQL Query I feel kind of guilty! I feel the same way as when I have to hard code any number into my code that is different than 0 or 1. Feeling that makes you ask yourself if there is a better and cleaner way of doing it... I must mention that I am using C# 4.0, but I am not specifically looking for an answer in this language, but rather in the domain of CLR 4.

    Read the article

  • How can one convince a team to use a new technology (LinQ, MVC, etc )?

    - by Atomiton
    Obviously, it's easier to do with some developers, but I'm sure many of us are on teams that prefer the status quo. You know the type. You see some benefit in a piece of new technology and they prefer the tried and true methods. Try, for example, DBA/C# programmer the advantages of using LinQ ( not necessarily LinQ to SQL, just LinQ in general ). For example, When a project requirement is to be cross-platform... instead of thinking about how one can run Windows on a Mac through a VM Machine, introducing the idea of using relatively new Silverlight or creating it in Java ( as an option to look into ). I know most people don't like to be out of their comfort level, so it takes a bit of convincing, and not ALL new technology makes business sense... but how have you convinced your team to look at a new technology? What technologies have you successfully introduced to your workplace? What technologies do you think are hardest to introduce? ( I'm thinking paradigm-shifting ones, like MVC from WebForms... or new languages ) What strategies do you employ to make these new technologies appealing?

    Read the article

  • Linq. Help me tune this!

    - by dtrick
    I have a linq query that is causing some timeout issues. Basically, I have a query that is returning the top 100 results from a table that has approximately 500,000 records. Here is the query: using (var dc = CreateContext()) { var accounts = string.IsNullOrEmpty(searchText) ? dc.Genealogy_Accounts .Where(a => a.Genealogy_AccountClass.Searchable) .OrderByDescending(a => a.ID) .Take(100) : dc.Genealogy_Accounts .Where(a => (a.Code.StartsWith(searchText) || a.Name.StartsWith(searchText)) && a.Genealogy_AccountClass.Searchable) .OrderBy(a => a.Code) .Take(100); return accounts.Select(a => } } Oddly enough it is the first linq query that is causing the timeout. I thought that by doing a 'Take' we wouldn't need to scan all 500k of records. However, that must be what is happening. I'm guessing that the join to find what is 'searchable' is causing the issue. I'm not able to denormalize the tables... so I'm wondering if there is a way to rewrite the linq query to get it to return quicker... or if I should just write this query as a Stored Procedure (and if so, what might it look like). Thanks.

    Read the article

  • Hash Function Added To The PredicateEqualityComparer

    - by Paulo Morgado
    Sometime ago I wrote a predicate equality comparer to be used with LINQ’s Distinct operator. The Distinct operator uses an instance of an internal Set class to maintain the collection of distinct elements in the source collection which in turn checks the hash code of each element (by calling the GetHashCode method of the equality comparer) and only if there’s already an element with the same hash code in the collection calls the Equals method of the comparer to disambiguate. At the time I provided only the possibility to specify the comparison predicate, but, in some cases, comparing a hash code instead of calling the provided comparer predicate can be a significant performance improvement, I’ve added the possibility to had a hash function to the predicate equality comparer. You can get the updated code from the PauloMorgado.Linq project on CodePlex,

    Read the article

  • How can I provide values for non-grouped columns in NHibernate?

    - by ddc0660
    I have a criteria query: Session.CreateCriteria<Sell043Report>() .SetProjection(.ProjectionList() .Add(LambdaProjection.GroupProperty<Sell043Report>(r => r.location)) .Add(LambdaProjection.GroupProperty<Sell043Report>(r => r.agent)) .Add(LambdaProjection.GroupProperty<Sell043Report>(r => r.cusip)) .Add(LambdaProjection.GroupProperty<Sell043Report>(r => r.SettlementDate)) .Add(LambdaProjection.GroupProperty<Sell043Report>(r => r.salePrice)) .Add(LambdaProjection.GroupProperty<Sell043Report>(r => r.foreignFx)) .Add(LambdaProjection.GroupProperty<Sell043Report>(r => r.batchNumber)) .Add(LambdaProjection.GroupProperty<Sell043Report>(r => r.origSaleDate)) .Add(LambdaProjection.GroupProperty<Sell043Report>(r => r.planName)) .Add(LambdaProjection.GroupProperty<Sell043Report>(r => r.dateTimeAdded)) .Add(LambdaProjection.Sum<Sell043Report>(r => r.shares)) .Add(LambdaProjection.Sum<Sell043Report>(r => r.netMoney)) .Add(LambdaProjection.Sum<Sell043Report>(r => r.grossMoney)) .Add(LambdaProjection.Sum<Sell043Report>(r => r.taxWithheld)) .Add(LambdaProjection.Sum<Sell043Report>(r => r.fees))) .List<Sell043Report>(); that generates the following SQL: SELECT this_.location as y0_, this_.agent as y1_, this_.cusip as y2_, this_.SettlementDate as y3_, this_.salePrice as y4_, this_.foreignFx as y5_, this_.batchNumber as y6_, this_.origSaleDate as y7_, this_.planName as y8_, this_.dateTimeAdded as y9_, sum(this_.shares) as y10_, sum(this_.netMoney) as y11_, sum(this_.grossMoney) as y12_, sum(this_.taxWithheld) as y13_, sum(this_.fees) as y14_ FROM MIS_IPS_Sell043Report this_ GROUP BY this_.location, this_.agent, this_.cusip, this_.SettlementDate, this_.salePrice, this_.foreignFx, this_.batchNumber, this_.origSaleDate, this_.planName, this_.dateTimeAdded however the Sell043Report table has additional columns than those listed in the SELECT statement so I'm receiving this error when attempting to get a list of Sell043Reports: System.ArgumentException: The value "System.Object[]" is not of type "xyz.Sell043Report" and cannot be used in this generic collection. I suspect the problem is that I'm not selecting all of the columns for a Sell043Report and so it doesn't know how to map the dataset to the object. I'm trying to achieve something like this: SELECT this_.location as y0_, this_.agent as y1_, this_.cusip as y2_, this_.SettlementDate as y3_, this_.salePrice as y4_, this_.foreignFx as y5_, this_.batchNumber as y6_, this_.origSaleDate as y7_, this_.planName as y8_, this_.dateTimeAdded as y9_, sum(this_.shares) as y10_, sum(this_.netMoney) as y11_, sum(this_.grossMoney) as y12_, sum(this_.taxWithheld) as y13_, sum(this_.fees) as y14_, '' as Address1, '' as Address2 // etc FROM MIS_IPS_Sell043Report this_ GROUP BY this_.location, this_.agent, this_.cusip, this_.SettlementDate, this_.salePrice, this_.foreignFx, this_.batchNumber, this_.origSaleDate, this_.planName, this_.dateTimeAdded How can I do this using NHibernate?

    Read the article

  • How LINQ to Object statements work

    - by rajbk
    This post goes into detail as to now LINQ statements work when querying a collection of objects. This topic assumes you have an understanding of how generics, delegates, implicitly typed variables, lambda expressions, object/collection initializers, extension methods and the yield statement work. I would also recommend you read my previous two posts: Using Delegates in C# Part 1 Using Delegates in C# Part 2 We will start by writing some methods to filter a collection of data. Assume we have an Employee class like so: 1: public class Employee { 2: public int ID { get; set;} 3: public string FirstName { get; set;} 4: public string LastName {get; set;} 5: public string Country { get; set; } 6: } and a collection of employees like so: 1: var employees = new List<Employee> { 2: new Employee { ID = 1, FirstName = "John", LastName = "Wright", Country = "USA" }, 3: new Employee { ID = 2, FirstName = "Jim", LastName = "Ashlock", Country = "UK" }, 4: new Employee { ID = 3, FirstName = "Jane", LastName = "Jackson", Country = "CHE" }, 5: new Employee { ID = 4, FirstName = "Jill", LastName = "Anderson", Country = "AUS" }, 6: }; Filtering We wish to  find all employees that have an even ID. We could start off by writing a method that takes in a list of employees and returns a filtered list of employees with an even ID. 1: static List<Employee> GetEmployeesWithEvenID(List<Employee> employees) { 2: var filteredEmployees = new List<Employee>(); 3: foreach (Employee emp in employees) { 4: if (emp.ID % 2 == 0) { 5: filteredEmployees.Add(emp); 6: } 7: } 8: return filteredEmployees; 9: } The method can be rewritten to return an IEnumerable<Employee> using the yield return keyword. 1: static IEnumerable<Employee> GetEmployeesWithEvenID(IEnumerable<Employee> employees) { 2: foreach (Employee emp in employees) { 3: if (emp.ID % 2 == 0) { 4: yield return emp; 5: } 6: } 7: } We put these together in a console application. 1: using System; 2: using System.Collections.Generic; 3: //No System.Linq 4:  5: public class Program 6: { 7: [STAThread] 8: static void Main(string[] args) 9: { 10: var employees = new List<Employee> { 11: new Employee { ID = 1, FirstName = "John", LastName = "Wright", Country = "USA" }, 12: new Employee { ID = 2, FirstName = "Jim", LastName = "Ashlock", Country = "UK" }, 13: new Employee { ID = 3, FirstName = "Jane", LastName = "Jackson", Country = "CHE" }, 14: new Employee { ID = 4, FirstName = "Jill", LastName = "Anderson", Country = "AUS" }, 15: }; 16: var filteredEmployees = GetEmployeesWithEvenID(employees); 17:  18: foreach (Employee emp in filteredEmployees) { 19: Console.WriteLine("ID {0} First_Name {1} Last_Name {2} Country {3}", 20: emp.ID, emp.FirstName, emp.LastName, emp.Country); 21: } 22:  23: Console.ReadLine(); 24: } 25: 26: static IEnumerable<Employee> GetEmployeesWithEvenID(IEnumerable<Employee> employees) { 27: foreach (Employee emp in employees) { 28: if (emp.ID % 2 == 0) { 29: yield return emp; 30: } 31: } 32: } 33: } 34:  35: public class Employee { 36: public int ID { get; set;} 37: public string FirstName { get; set;} 38: public string LastName {get; set;} 39: public string Country { get; set; } 40: } Output: ID 2 First_Name Jim Last_Name Ashlock Country UK ID 4 First_Name Jill Last_Name Anderson Country AUS Our filtering method is too specific. Let us change it so that it is capable of doing different types of filtering and lets give our method the name Where ;-) We will add another parameter to our Where method. This additional parameter will be a delegate with the following declaration. public delegate bool Filter(Employee emp); The idea is that the delegate parameter in our Where method will point to a method that contains the logic to do our filtering thereby freeing our Where method from any dependency. The method is shown below: 1: static IEnumerable<Employee> Where(IEnumerable<Employee> employees, Filter filter) { 2: foreach (Employee emp in employees) { 3: if (filter(emp)) { 4: yield return emp; 5: } 6: } 7: } Making the change to our app, we create a new instance of the Filter delegate on line 14 with a target set to the method EmployeeHasEvenId. Running the code will produce the same output. 1: public delegate bool Filter(Employee emp); 2:  3: public class Program 4: { 5: [STAThread] 6: static void Main(string[] args) 7: { 8: var employees = new List<Employee> { 9: new Employee { ID = 1, FirstName = "John", LastName = "Wright", Country = "USA" }, 10: new Employee { ID = 2, FirstName = "Jim", LastName = "Ashlock", Country = "UK" }, 11: new Employee { ID = 3, FirstName = "Jane", LastName = "Jackson", Country = "CHE" }, 12: new Employee { ID = 4, FirstName = "Jill", LastName = "Anderson", Country = "AUS" } 13: }; 14: var filterDelegate = new Filter(EmployeeHasEvenId); 15: var filteredEmployees = Where(employees, filterDelegate); 16:  17: foreach (Employee emp in filteredEmployees) { 18: Console.WriteLine("ID {0} First_Name {1} Last_Name {2} Country {3}", 19: emp.ID, emp.FirstName, emp.LastName, emp.Country); 20: } 21: Console.ReadLine(); 22: } 23: 24: static bool EmployeeHasEvenId(Employee emp) { 25: return emp.ID % 2 == 0; 26: } 27: 28: static IEnumerable<Employee> Where(IEnumerable<Employee> employees, Filter filter) { 29: foreach (Employee emp in employees) { 30: if (filter(emp)) { 31: yield return emp; 32: } 33: } 34: } 35: } 36:  37: public class Employee { 38: public int ID { get; set;} 39: public string FirstName { get; set;} 40: public string LastName {get; set;} 41: public string Country { get; set; } 42: } Lets use lambda expressions to inline the contents of the EmployeeHasEvenId method in place of the method. The next code snippet shows this change (see line 15).  For brevity, the Employee class declaration has been skipped. 1: public delegate bool Filter(Employee emp); 2:  3: public class Program 4: { 5: [STAThread] 6: static void Main(string[] args) 7: { 8: var employees = new List<Employee> { 9: new Employee { ID = 1, FirstName = "John", LastName = "Wright", Country = "USA" }, 10: new Employee { ID = 2, FirstName = "Jim", LastName = "Ashlock", Country = "UK" }, 11: new Employee { ID = 3, FirstName = "Jane", LastName = "Jackson", Country = "CHE" }, 12: new Employee { ID = 4, FirstName = "Jill", LastName = "Anderson", Country = "AUS" } 13: }; 14: var filterDelegate = new Filter(EmployeeHasEvenId); 15: var filteredEmployees = Where(employees, emp => emp.ID % 2 == 0); 16:  17: foreach (Employee emp in filteredEmployees) { 18: Console.WriteLine("ID {0} First_Name {1} Last_Name {2} Country {3}", 19: emp.ID, emp.FirstName, emp.LastName, emp.Country); 20: } 21: Console.ReadLine(); 22: } 23: 24: static bool EmployeeHasEvenId(Employee emp) { 25: return emp.ID % 2 == 0; 26: } 27: 28: static IEnumerable<Employee> Where(IEnumerable<Employee> employees, Filter filter) { 29: foreach (Employee emp in employees) { 30: if (filter(emp)) { 31: yield return emp; 32: } 33: } 34: } 35: } 36:  The output displays the same two employees.  Our Where method is too restricted since it works with a collection of Employees only. Lets change it so that it works with any IEnumerable<T>. In addition, you may recall from my previous post,  that .NET 3.5 comes with a lot of predefined delegates including public delegate TResult Func<T, TResult>(T arg); We will get rid of our Filter delegate and use the one above instead. We apply these two changes to our code. 1: public class Program 2: { 3: [STAThread] 4: static void Main(string[] args) 5: { 6: var employees = new List<Employee> { 7: new Employee { ID = 1, FirstName = "John", LastName = "Wright", Country = "USA" }, 8: new Employee { ID = 2, FirstName = "Jim", LastName = "Ashlock", Country = "UK" }, 9: new Employee { ID = 3, FirstName = "Jane", LastName = "Jackson", Country = "CHE" }, 10: new Employee { ID = 4, FirstName = "Jill", LastName = "Anderson", Country = "AUS" } 11: }; 12:  13: var filteredEmployees = Where(employees, emp => emp.ID % 2 == 0); 14:  15: foreach (Employee emp in filteredEmployees) { 16: Console.WriteLine("ID {0} First_Name {1} Last_Name {2} Country {3}", 17: emp.ID, emp.FirstName, emp.LastName, emp.Country); 18: } 19: Console.ReadLine(); 20: } 21: 22: static IEnumerable<T> Where<T>(IEnumerable<T> source, Func<T, bool> filter) { 23: foreach (var x in source) { 24: if (filter(x)) { 25: yield return x; 26: } 27: } 28: } 29: } We have successfully implemented a way to filter any IEnumerable<T> based on a  filter criteria. Projection Now lets enumerate on the items in the IEnumerable<Employee> we got from the Where method and copy them into a new IEnumerable<EmployeeFormatted>. The EmployeeFormatted class will only have a FullName and ID property. 1: public class EmployeeFormatted { 2: public int ID { get; set; } 3: public string FullName {get; set;} 4: } We could “project” our existing IEnumerable<Employee> into a new collection of IEnumerable<EmployeeFormatted> with the help of a new method. We will call this method Select ;-) 1: static IEnumerable<EmployeeFormatted> Select(IEnumerable<Employee> employees) { 2: foreach (var emp in employees) { 3: yield return new EmployeeFormatted { 4: ID = emp.ID, 5: FullName = emp.LastName + ", " + emp.FirstName 6: }; 7: } 8: } The changes are applied to our app. 1: public class Program 2: { 3: [STAThread] 4: static void Main(string[] args) 5: { 6: var employees = new List<Employee> { 7: new Employee { ID = 1, FirstName = "John", LastName = "Wright", Country = "USA" }, 8: new Employee { ID = 2, FirstName = "Jim", LastName = "Ashlock", Country = "UK" }, 9: new Employee { ID = 3, FirstName = "Jane", LastName = "Jackson", Country = "CHE" }, 10: new Employee { ID = 4, FirstName = "Jill", LastName = "Anderson", Country = "AUS" } 11: }; 12:  13: var filteredEmployees = Where(employees, emp => emp.ID % 2 == 0); 14: var formattedEmployees = Select(filteredEmployees); 15:  16: foreach (EmployeeFormatted emp in formattedEmployees) { 17: Console.WriteLine("ID {0} Full_Name {1}", 18: emp.ID, emp.FullName); 19: } 20: Console.ReadLine(); 21: } 22:  23: static IEnumerable<T> Where<T>(IEnumerable<T> source, Func<T, bool> filter) { 24: foreach (var x in source) { 25: if (filter(x)) { 26: yield return x; 27: } 28: } 29: } 30: 31: static IEnumerable<EmployeeFormatted> Select(IEnumerable<Employee> employees) { 32: foreach (var emp in employees) { 33: yield return new EmployeeFormatted { 34: ID = emp.ID, 35: FullName = emp.LastName + ", " + emp.FirstName 36: }; 37: } 38: } 39: } 40:  41: public class Employee { 42: public int ID { get; set;} 43: public string FirstName { get; set;} 44: public string LastName {get; set;} 45: public string Country { get; set; } 46: } 47:  48: public class EmployeeFormatted { 49: public int ID { get; set; } 50: public string FullName {get; set;} 51: } Output: ID 2 Full_Name Ashlock, Jim ID 4 Full_Name Anderson, Jill We have successfully selected employees who have an even ID and then shaped our data with the help of the Select method so that the final result is an IEnumerable<EmployeeFormatted>.  Lets make our Select method more generic so that the user is given the freedom to shape what the output would look like. We can do this, like before, with lambda expressions. Our Select method is changed to accept a delegate as shown below. TSource will be the type of data that comes in and TResult will be the type the user chooses (shape of data) as returned from the selector delegate. 1:  2: static IEnumerable<TResult> Select<TSource, TResult>(IEnumerable<TSource> source, Func<TSource, TResult> selector) { 3: foreach (var x in source) { 4: yield return selector(x); 5: } 6: } We see the new changes to our app. On line 15, we use lambda expression to specify the shape of the data. In this case the shape will be of type EmployeeFormatted. 1:  2: public class Program 3: { 4: [STAThread] 5: static void Main(string[] args) 6: { 7: var employees = new List<Employee> { 8: new Employee { ID = 1, FirstName = "John", LastName = "Wright", Country = "USA" }, 9: new Employee { ID = 2, FirstName = "Jim", LastName = "Ashlock", Country = "UK" }, 10: new Employee { ID = 3, FirstName = "Jane", LastName = "Jackson", Country = "CHE" }, 11: new Employee { ID = 4, FirstName = "Jill", LastName = "Anderson", Country = "AUS" } 12: }; 13:  14: var filteredEmployees = Where(employees, emp => emp.ID % 2 == 0); 15: var formattedEmployees = Select(filteredEmployees, (emp) => 16: new EmployeeFormatted { 17: ID = emp.ID, 18: FullName = emp.LastName + ", " + emp.FirstName 19: }); 20:  21: foreach (EmployeeFormatted emp in formattedEmployees) { 22: Console.WriteLine("ID {0} Full_Name {1}", 23: emp.ID, emp.FullName); 24: } 25: Console.ReadLine(); 26: } 27: 28: static IEnumerable<T> Where<T>(IEnumerable<T> source, Func<T, bool> filter) { 29: foreach (var x in source) { 30: if (filter(x)) { 31: yield return x; 32: } 33: } 34: } 35: 36: static IEnumerable<TResult> Select<TSource, TResult>(IEnumerable<TSource> source, Func<TSource, TResult> selector) { 37: foreach (var x in source) { 38: yield return selector(x); 39: } 40: } 41: } The code outputs the same result as before. On line 14 we filter our data and on line 15 we project our data. What if we wanted to be more expressive and concise? We could combine both line 14 and 15 into one line as shown below. Assuming you had to perform several operations like this on our collection, you would end up with some very unreadable code! 1: var formattedEmployees = Select(Where(employees, emp => emp.ID % 2 == 0), (emp) => 2: new EmployeeFormatted { 3: ID = emp.ID, 4: FullName = emp.LastName + ", " + emp.FirstName 5: }); A cleaner way to write this would be to give the appearance that the Select and Where methods were part of the IEnumerable<T>. This is exactly what extension methods give us. Extension methods have to be defined in a static class. Let us make the Select and Where extension methods on IEnumerable<T> 1: public static class MyExtensionMethods { 2: static IEnumerable<T> Where<T>(this IEnumerable<T> source, Func<T, bool> filter) { 3: foreach (var x in source) { 4: if (filter(x)) { 5: yield return x; 6: } 7: } 8: } 9: 10: static IEnumerable<TResult> Select<TSource, TResult>(this IEnumerable<TSource> source, Func<TSource, TResult> selector) { 11: foreach (var x in source) { 12: yield return selector(x); 13: } 14: } 15: } The creation of the extension method makes the syntax much cleaner as shown below. We can write as many extension methods as we want and keep on chaining them using this technique. 1: var formattedEmployees = employees 2: .Where(emp => emp.ID % 2 == 0) 3: .Select (emp => new EmployeeFormatted { ID = emp.ID, FullName = emp.LastName + ", " + emp.FirstName }); Making these changes and running our code produces the same result. 1: using System; 2: using System.Collections.Generic; 3:  4: public class Program 5: { 6: [STAThread] 7: static void Main(string[] args) 8: { 9: var employees = new List<Employee> { 10: new Employee { ID = 1, FirstName = "John", LastName = "Wright", Country = "USA" }, 11: new Employee { ID = 2, FirstName = "Jim", LastName = "Ashlock", Country = "UK" }, 12: new Employee { ID = 3, FirstName = "Jane", LastName = "Jackson", Country = "CHE" }, 13: new Employee { ID = 4, FirstName = "Jill", LastName = "Anderson", Country = "AUS" } 14: }; 15:  16: var formattedEmployees = employees 17: .Where(emp => emp.ID % 2 == 0) 18: .Select (emp => 19: new EmployeeFormatted { 20: ID = emp.ID, 21: FullName = emp.LastName + ", " + emp.FirstName 22: } 23: ); 24:  25: foreach (EmployeeFormatted emp in formattedEmployees) { 26: Console.WriteLine("ID {0} Full_Name {1}", 27: emp.ID, emp.FullName); 28: } 29: Console.ReadLine(); 30: } 31: } 32:  33: public static class MyExtensionMethods { 34: static IEnumerable<T> Where<T>(this IEnumerable<T> source, Func<T, bool> filter) { 35: foreach (var x in source) { 36: if (filter(x)) { 37: yield return x; 38: } 39: } 40: } 41: 42: static IEnumerable<TResult> Select<TSource, TResult>(this IEnumerable<TSource> source, Func<TSource, TResult> selector) { 43: foreach (var x in source) { 44: yield return selector(x); 45: } 46: } 47: } 48:  49: public class Employee { 50: public int ID { get; set;} 51: public string FirstName { get; set;} 52: public string LastName {get; set;} 53: public string Country { get; set; } 54: } 55:  56: public class EmployeeFormatted { 57: public int ID { get; set; } 58: public string FullName {get; set;} 59: } Let’s change our code to return a collection of anonymous types and get rid of the EmployeeFormatted type. We see that the code produces the same output. 1: using System; 2: using System.Collections.Generic; 3:  4: public class Program 5: { 6: [STAThread] 7: static void Main(string[] args) 8: { 9: var employees = new List<Employee> { 10: new Employee { ID = 1, FirstName = "John", LastName = "Wright", Country = "USA" }, 11: new Employee { ID = 2, FirstName = "Jim", LastName = "Ashlock", Country = "UK" }, 12: new Employee { ID = 3, FirstName = "Jane", LastName = "Jackson", Country = "CHE" }, 13: new Employee { ID = 4, FirstName = "Jill", LastName = "Anderson", Country = "AUS" } 14: }; 15:  16: var formattedEmployees = employees 17: .Where(emp => emp.ID % 2 == 0) 18: .Select (emp => 19: new { 20: ID = emp.ID, 21: FullName = emp.LastName + ", " + emp.FirstName 22: } 23: ); 24:  25: foreach (var emp in formattedEmployees) { 26: Console.WriteLine("ID {0} Full_Name {1}", 27: emp.ID, emp.FullName); 28: } 29: Console.ReadLine(); 30: } 31: } 32:  33: public static class MyExtensionMethods { 34: public static IEnumerable<T> Where<T>(this IEnumerable<T> source, Func<T, bool> filter) { 35: foreach (var x in source) { 36: if (filter(x)) { 37: yield return x; 38: } 39: } 40: } 41: 42: public static IEnumerable<TResult> Select<TSource, TResult>(this IEnumerable<TSource> source, Func<TSource, TResult> selector) { 43: foreach (var x in source) { 44: yield return selector(x); 45: } 46: } 47: } 48:  49: public class Employee { 50: public int ID { get; set;} 51: public string FirstName { get; set;} 52: public string LastName {get; set;} 53: public string Country { get; set; } 54: } To be more expressive, C# allows us to write our extension method calls as a query expression. Line 16 can be rewritten a query expression like so: 1: var formattedEmployees = from emp in employees 2: where emp.ID % 2 == 0 3: select new { 4: ID = emp.ID, 5: FullName = emp.LastName + ", " + emp.FirstName 6: }; When the compiler encounters an expression like the above, it simply rewrites it as calls to our extension methods.  So far we have been using our extension methods. The System.Linq namespace contains several extension methods for objects that implement the IEnumerable<T>. You can see a listing of these methods in the Enumerable class in the System.Linq namespace. Let’s get rid of our extension methods (which I purposefully wrote to be of the same signature as the ones in the Enumerable class) and use the ones provided in the Enumerable class. Our final code is shown below: 1: using System; 2: using System.Collections.Generic; 3: using System.Linq; //Added 4:  5: public class Program 6: { 7: [STAThread] 8: static void Main(string[] args) 9: { 10: var employees = new List<Employee> { 11: new Employee { ID = 1, FirstName = "John", LastName = "Wright", Country = "USA" }, 12: new Employee { ID = 2, FirstName = "Jim", LastName = "Ashlock", Country = "UK" }, 13: new Employee { ID = 3, FirstName = "Jane", LastName = "Jackson", Country = "CHE" }, 14: new Employee { ID = 4, FirstName = "Jill", LastName = "Anderson", Country = "AUS" } 15: }; 16:  17: var formattedEmployees = from emp in employees 18: where emp.ID % 2 == 0 19: select new { 20: ID = emp.ID, 21: FullName = emp.LastName + ", " + emp.FirstName 22: }; 23:  24: foreach (var emp in formattedEmployees) { 25: Console.WriteLine("ID {0} Full_Name {1}", 26: emp.ID, emp.FullName); 27: } 28: Console.ReadLine(); 29: } 30: } 31:  32: public class Employee { 33: public int ID { get; set;} 34: public string FirstName { get; set;} 35: public string LastName {get; set;} 36: public string Country { get; set; } 37: } 38:  39: public class EmployeeFormatted { 40: public int ID { get; set; } 41: public string FullName {get; set;} 42: } This post has shown you a basic overview of LINQ to Objects work by showning you how an expression is converted to a sequence of calls to extension methods when working directly with objects. It gets more interesting when working with LINQ to SQL where an expression tree is constructed – an in memory data representation of the expression. The C# compiler compiles these expressions into code that builds an expression tree at runtime. The provider can then traverse the expression tree and generate the appropriate SQL query. You can read more about expression trees in this MSDN article.

    Read the article

  • How do I update with a newly-created detached entity using NHibernate?

    - by Daniel T.
    Explanation: Let's say I have an object graph that's nested several levels deep and each entity has a bi-directional relationship with each other. A -> B -> C -> D -> E Or in other words, A has a collection of B and B has a reference back to A, and B has a collection of C and C has a reference back to B, etc... Now let's say I want to edit some data for an instance ofC. In Winforms, I would use something like this: var instanceOfC; using (var session = SessionFactory.OpenSession()) { // get the instance of C with Id = 3 instanceOfC = session.Linq<C>().Where(x => x.Id == 3); } SendToUIAndLetUserUpdateData(instanceOfC); using (var session = SessionFactory.OpenSession()) { // re-attach the detached entity and update it session.Update(instanceOfC); } In plain English, we grab a persistent instance out of the database, detach it, give it to the UI layer for editing, then re-attach it and save it back to the database. Problem: This works fine for Winform applications because we're using the same entity all throughout, the only difference being that it goes from persistent to detached to persistent again. The problem occurs when I'm using a web service and a browser, sending over JSON data. In this case, the data that comes back is no longer a detached entity, but rather a transient one that just happens to have the same ID as the persistent one. If I use this entity to update, it will wipe out the relationship to B and D unless I sent the entire object graph over to the UI and got it back in one piece. Question: My question is, how do I serialize detached entities over the web, receive them back, and save them, while preserving any relationships that I didn't explicitly change? I know about ISession.SaveOrUpdateCopy and ISession.Merge() (they seem to do the same thing?), but this will still wipe out the relationships if I don't explicitly set them. I could copy the fields from the transient entity to the persistent entity one by one, but this doesn't work too well when it comes to relationships and I'd have to handle version comparisons manually.

    Read the article

  • linq where clause and count result in null exception.

    - by nestling
    The code below works unless p.School.SchoolName turns out to be null, in which case it results in a NullReferenceException. if (ExistingUsers.Where(p => p.StudentID == item.StaffID && p.School.SchoolName == item.SchoolID).Count() > 0) { // Do stuff. } ExistingUsers is a list of users: public List<User> ExistingUsers; Here is the relevant portion of the stacktrace: System.NullReferenceException: Object reference not set to an instance of an object. at System.Linq.Enumerable.WhereListIterator1.MoveNext() at System.Linq.Enumerable.Count[TSource](IEnumerable1 source) How should I handle this where clause? Thanks very much in advance.

    Read the article

  • Linq to SQL and SQL Server Compact Error: "There was an error parsing the query."

    - by Jeremy
    I created a SQL server compact database (MyDatabase.sdf), and populated it with some data. I then ran SQLMetal.exe and generated a linq to sql class (MyDatabase.mdf) Now I'm trying to select all records from a table with a relatively straightforward select, and I get the error: "There was an error parsing the query. [ Token line number = 3,Token line offset = 67,Token in error = MAX]" Here is my select code: public IEnumerable ListItems() { MyDatabase db_m = new MyDatabase("c:\mydatabase.sdf"); return this.db_m.TestTable.Select(test = new Item() { .... } } I've read that Linq to SQL works with Sql Compact, is there some other configuration I need to do?

    Read the article

  • How do you use the LINQ to SQL designer to generate accessor methods for subclasses?

    - by Pricey
    Above is the LINQ to SQL designer view for my data context. Below is the relevant code: public System.Data.Linq.Table<ActivityBase> ActivityBases { get { return this.GetTable<ActivityBase>(); } } ... [Table(Name="dbo.Activities")] [InheritanceMapping(Code="1", Type=typeof(ActivityBase), IsDefault=true)] [InheritanceMapping(Code="2", Type=typeof(Project))] [InheritanceMapping(Code="3", Type=typeof(ProjectActivity))] [InheritanceMapping(Code="5", Type=typeof(Task))] [InheritanceMapping(Code="4", Type=typeof(Activity))] public abstract partial class ActivityBase : INotifyPropertyChanging, INotifyPropertyChanged { ... Is there a way to generate accessor methods for the subclasses as shown in the inheritance mapping above (Project, Task, etc...) without doing it manually? I added them manually but then a change in the designer overwrites any manual changes. Am i doing this wrong? should I not be making accessors for the sub classes? filtering from ActivityBase seems worse to me. Thanks for any help on this.

    Read the article

  • Using LINQ to query database through a proxy server of some kind?

    - by Mustafakidd
    Hey All Sorry for using (perhaps) the wrong lingo, but my question may be clearer if you view this diagram as you read it. http://dl.dropbox.com/u/13256/DIAGRAM.PNG Our client is requiring us to adhere to the server configuration (poorly) diagrammed in the above image. The web server is accessible over port 80 and is where our web application is hosted - a second firewall permits this web server to access a second server which in turn is the only server permitted to access the database server. My question is: How do I deploy a web application that uses LINQ-to-SQL in this environment? Is there a way to proxy my LINQ queries through the app server so that the database connection goes through that server? This is uncharted territory for me, as we always have had access to the DB server directly from our web server in the past. Any help is appreciated. Thanks Mustafa

    Read the article

  • How to make linq master detail query for 0..n relationship?

    - by JK
    Given a classic DB structure of Orders has zero or more OrderLines and OrderLine has exactly one Product, how do I write a linq query to express this? The output would be OrderNumber - OrderLine - Product Name Order-1 null null // (this order has no lines) Order-2 1 Red widget I tried this query but is not getting the orders with no lines var model = (from po in Orders from line in po.OrderLines select new { OrderNumber = po.Id, OrderLine = line.LineNumber, ProductName = line.Product.ProductDescription, } ) I think that the 2nd from is limiting the query to only those that have OrderLines, but I dont know another way to express it. LINQ is very non-obvious if you ask me!

    Read the article

  • How do you implement caching in Linq to SQL?

    - by Glenn Slaven
    We've just started using LINQ to SQL at work for our DAL & we haven't really come up with a standard for out caching model. Previously we had being using a base 'DAL' class that implemented a cache manager property that all our DAL classes inherited from, but now we don't have that. I'm wondering if anyone has come up with a 'standard' approach to caching LINQ to SQL results? We're working in a web environment (IIS) if that makes a difference. I know this may well end up being a subjective question, but I still think the info would be valuable. EDIT: To clarify, I'm not talking about caching an individual result, I'm after more of an architecture solution, as in how do you set up caching so that all your link methods use the same caching architecture.

    Read the article

  • Quaere - Anyone using it yet? (LINQ to Objects for Java)

    - by Marty Pitt
    Hi there I'm a .NET guy originally, working in Java recently, and finding I'm really missing LINQ to Objects, specifically for performing filtering against collections. A few people here on Stack Overflow have answered the "LINQ for Java?" question with a single word : Quaere However, on the site it clearly states "Pre-Beta", and there's been no commits to their code for over a year, so I'm guessing the project is pretty much dead. Is anyone actually using this, and / or have any experience with it? The second most common answer appears to be "use Google Collections". Is this the most appropriate Java way? Cheers Marty

    Read the article

  • .Remove(object) on a List<T> returned from LINQ to SQL compiled query won't delete the Object right

    - by soldieraman
    I am returning two lists from the database using LINQ to SQL compiled query. While looping the first list I remove duplicates from the second list as I dont want to process already existing objects again. eg. //oldCustomers is a List returned by my Compiled Linq to SQL Statmenet that I have added a .ToList() at the end to //Same goes for newCustomers for (Customer oC in oldCustomers) { //Do some processing newCustomers.Remove(newCusomters.Find(nC=> nC.CustomerID == oC.CusomterID)); } for (Cusomter nC in newCustomers) { //Do some processing } DataContext.SubmitChanges() I expect this to only save the changes that have been made to the customers in my processing and not Remove or Delete any of my customers from the database. Correct? I have tried it and it works fine - but I am trying to know if there is any rare case it might actually get removed

    Read the article

  • Update specific rows in LINQ to SQL result set.

    - by davemackey
    I have a page with a form on it and needs a range of dates. Thus I've placed a number of textboxes on the page into which users can type dates. When the user clicks the save button I want to trigger a LINQ update to the SQL Server...all the rows already exist, so I'm just updating existing data. How can I do this? For example, lets say my table looks like this: Column Names: Description dateValue Column Values: Birthdate 1/1/1990 Anniversary 1/10/1992 Death 1/1/1993 I want to do something like this: hupdate.Description("Birthdate").dateValue = TextBox1.Text hupdate.Description("Anniversary").dateValue = TextBox2.Text hupdate.Description("Death").dateValue = TextBox3.Text hconfig.SubmitChanges() Is there a way to do this with LINQ?

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117  | Next Page >