Search Results

Search found 40386 results on 1616 pages for 'object design'.

facebook twitter digg google delicious technorati stumbleupon myspace wordpress linkedin gmail igoogle windows live tumblr viadeo yahoo buzz yahoo mail yahoo bookmarks favorites email print

Page 115/1616 | < Previous Page | 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122  | Next Page >

  • Website Design Should Always Be SEO Based!

    SEO technique invariably helps in achieving a high ranking amongst the various search engines and visitors manage to find your website with the minimum of effort. In fact this is the foremost method of locating any website on the Internet.

    Read the article

  • Website Design Development With SEO in Focus

    As a business owner when you decide to go online and have your website developed, search engine optimization is one of the last thing that comes into the mind. But website development is not just about designing a site & making it live on the internet, you want the website to bring in business for you and work as a place to showcase your products and services.

    Read the article

  • How to Associate Web Design With Search Engine Optimization

    Permanent one way link building is an important means of search engine optimization as the basic idea behind optimization is to establish link popularity. Meta tag optimization has also given adequate boost to many companies although this technique cannot be adopted by novices and requires the guidance of an established SEO firm. SEO is a huge business and one of the most offered service packages on the World Wide Web.

    Read the article

  • Importance of SEO in Web Design

    In today's unstable economy, every business needs an online presence to excel out and to get more profits. Your website will serve as a salesperson which will help you to make your business with ease, with less efforts and works for you around the clock.

    Read the article

  • Top 5 SEO WordPress Plugins For Your Website Design

    If you have browsed through the plugin section of your WordPress admin panel, you'll know there are thousands of useful plugins to help improve your site front end and back end. Here we're going to look at the tools that can help you with your SEO, we all know Google loves WordPress, but how can we get even more out of our blog?

    Read the article

  • Stairway to Database Design - STEP 1: Data Elements

    Before you start to think about your database schema or tables, you need to consider your data: The type of data it is, the scale you use for values. It needs to be unique, precise and unambiguous. Then you need to name it in such a way that it can be generally understood. Joe Celko explains...

    Read the article

  • The Myths of Website SEO Page Design

    Many so called self confessed experts will tell you that you need to use certain entries in your Title, Description, alts, keywords and other places. Make sure that you have enough H1 and H2 tags and use bold a few times.

    Read the article

  • c#: Design advice. Using DataTable or List<MyObject> for a generic rule checker

    - by Andrew White
    Hi, I have about 100,000 lines of generic data. Columns/Properties of this data are user definable and are of the usual data types (string, int, double, date). There will be about 50 columns/properties. I have 2 needs: To be able to calculate new columns/properties using an expression e.g. Column3 = Column1 * Column2. Ultimately I would like to be able to use external data using a callback, e.g. Column3 = Column1 * GetTemperature The expression is relatively simple, maths operations, sum, count & IF are the only necessary functions. To be able to filter/group the data and perform aggregations e.g. Sum(Data.Column1) Where(Data.Column2 == "blah") As far as I can see I have two options: 1. Using a DataTable. = Point 1 above is achieved by using DataColumn.Expression = Point 2 above is acheived by using DataTable.DefaultView.RowFilter & C# code 2. Using a List of generic Objects each with a Dictionary< string, object to store the values. = Point 1 could be achieved by something like NCalc = Point 2 is achieved using LINQ DataTable: Pros: DataColumn.Expression is inbuilt Cons: RowFilter & coding c# is not as "nice" as LINQ, DataColumn.Expression does not support callbacks(?) = workaround could be to get & replace external value when creating the calculated column GenericList: Pros: LINQ syntax, NCalc supports callbacks Cons: Implementing NCalc/generic calc engine Based on the above I would think a GenericList approach would win, but something I have not factored in is the performance which for some reason I think would be better with a datatable. Does anyone have a gut feeling / experience with LINQ vs. DataTable performance? How about NCalc? As I said there are about 100,000 rows of data, with 50 columns, of which maybe 20 are calculated. In total about 50 rules will be run against the data, so in total there will be 5 million row/object scans. Would really appreciate any insights. Thx. ps. Of course using a database + SQL & Views etc. would be the easiest solution, but for various reasons can't be implemented.

    Read the article

  • What are good design practices when working with Entity Framework

    - by AD
    This will apply mostly for an asp.net application where the data is not accessed via soa. Meaning that you get access to the objects loaded from the framework, not Transfer Objects, although some recommendation still apply. This is a community post, so please add to it as you see fit. Applies to: Entity Framework 1.0 shipped with Visual Studio 2008 sp1. Why pick EF in the first place? Considering it is a young technology with plenty of problems (see below), it may be a hard sell to get on the EF bandwagon for your project. However, it is the technology Microsoft is pushing (at the expense of Linq2Sql, which is a subset of EF). In addition, you may not be satisfied with NHibernate or other solutions out there. Whatever the reasons, there are people out there (including me) working with EF and life is not bad.make you think. EF and inheritance The first big subject is inheritance. EF does support mapping for inherited classes that are persisted in 2 ways: table per class and table the hierarchy. The modeling is easy and there are no programming issues with that part. (The following applies to table per class model as I don't have experience with table per hierarchy, which is, anyway, limited.) The real problem comes when you are trying to run queries that include one or many objects that are part of an inheritance tree: the generated sql is incredibly awful, takes a long time to get parsed by the EF and takes a long time to execute as well. This is a real show stopper. Enough that EF should probably not be used with inheritance or as little as possible. Here is an example of how bad it was. My EF model had ~30 classes, ~10 of which were part of an inheritance tree. On running a query to get one item from the Base class, something as simple as Base.Get(id), the generated SQL was over 50,000 characters. Then when you are trying to return some Associations, it degenerates even more, going as far as throwing SQL exceptions about not being able to query more than 256 tables at once. Ok, this is bad, EF concept is to allow you to create your object structure without (or with as little as possible) consideration on the actual database implementation of your table. It completely fails at this. So, recommendations? Avoid inheritance if you can, the performance will be so much better. Use it sparingly where you have to. In my opinion, this makes EF a glorified sql-generation tool for querying, but there are still advantages to using it. And ways to implement mechanism that are similar to inheritance. Bypassing inheritance with Interfaces First thing to know with trying to get some kind of inheritance going with EF is that you cannot assign a non-EF-modeled class a base class. Don't even try it, it will get overwritten by the modeler. So what to do? You can use interfaces to enforce that classes implement some functionality. For example here is a IEntity interface that allow you to define Associations between EF entities where you don't know at design time what the type of the entity would be. public enum EntityTypes{ Unknown = -1, Dog = 0, Cat } public interface IEntity { int EntityID { get; } string Name { get; } Type EntityType { get; } } public partial class Dog : IEntity { // implement EntityID and Name which could actually be fields // from your EF model Type EntityType{ get{ return EntityTypes.Dog; } } } Using this IEntity, you can then work with undefined associations in other classes // lets take a class that you defined in your model. // that class has a mapping to the columns: PetID, PetType public partial class Person { public IEntity GetPet() { return IEntityController.Get(PetID,PetType); } } which makes use of some extension functions: public class IEntityController { static public IEntity Get(int id, EntityTypes type) { switch (type) { case EntityTypes.Dog: return Dog.Get(id); case EntityTypes.Cat: return Cat.Get(id); default: throw new Exception("Invalid EntityType"); } } } Not as neat as having plain inheritance, particularly considering you have to store the PetType in an extra database field, but considering the performance gains, I would not look back. It also cannot model one-to-many, many-to-many relationship, but with creative uses of 'Union' it could be made to work. Finally, it creates the side effet of loading data in a property/function of the object, which you need to be careful about. Using a clear naming convention like GetXYZ() helps in that regards. Compiled Queries Entity Framework performance is not as good as direct database access with ADO (obviously) or Linq2SQL. There are ways to improve it however, one of which is compiling your queries. The performance of a compiled query is similar to Linq2Sql. What is a compiled query? It is simply a query for which you tell the framework to keep the parsed tree in memory so it doesn't need to be regenerated the next time you run it. So the next run, you will save the time it takes to parse the tree. Do not discount that as it is a very costly operation that gets even worse with more complex queries. There are 2 ways to compile a query: creating an ObjectQuery with EntitySQL and using CompiledQuery.Compile() function. (Note that by using an EntityDataSource in your page, you will in fact be using ObjectQuery with EntitySQL, so that gets compiled and cached). An aside here in case you don't know what EntitySQL is. It is a string-based way of writing queries against the EF. Here is an example: "select value dog from Entities.DogSet as dog where dog.ID = @ID". The syntax is pretty similar to SQL syntax. You can also do pretty complex object manipulation, which is well explained [here][1]. Ok, so here is how to do it using ObjectQuery< string query = "select value dog " + "from Entities.DogSet as dog " + "where dog.ID = @ID"; ObjectQuery<Dog> oQuery = new ObjectQuery<Dog>(query, EntityContext.Instance)); oQuery.Parameters.Add(new ObjectParameter("ID", id)); oQuery.EnablePlanCaching = true; return oQuery.FirstOrDefault(); The first time you run this query, the framework will generate the expression tree and keep it in memory. So the next time it gets executed, you will save on that costly step. In that example EnablePlanCaching = true, which is unnecessary since that is the default option. The other way to compile a query for later use is the CompiledQuery.Compile method. This uses a delegate: static readonly Func<Entities, int, Dog> query_GetDog = CompiledQuery.Compile<Entities, int, Dog>((ctx, id) => ctx.DogSet.FirstOrDefault(it => it.ID == id)); or using linq static readonly Func<Entities, int, Dog> query_GetDog = CompiledQuery.Compile<Entities, int, Dog>((ctx, id) => (from dog in ctx.DogSet where dog.ID == id select dog).FirstOrDefault()); to call the query: query_GetDog.Invoke( YourContext, id ); The advantage of CompiledQuery is that the syntax of your query is checked at compile time, where as EntitySQL is not. However, there are other consideration... Includes Lets say you want to have the data for the dog owner to be returned by the query to avoid making 2 calls to the database. Easy to do, right? EntitySQL string query = "select value dog " + "from Entities.DogSet as dog " + "where dog.ID = @ID"; ObjectQuery<Dog> oQuery = new ObjectQuery<Dog>(query, EntityContext.Instance)).Include("Owner"); oQuery.Parameters.Add(new ObjectParameter("ID", id)); oQuery.EnablePlanCaching = true; return oQuery.FirstOrDefault(); CompiledQuery static readonly Func<Entities, int, Dog> query_GetDog = CompiledQuery.Compile<Entities, int, Dog>((ctx, id) => (from dog in ctx.DogSet.Include("Owner") where dog.ID == id select dog).FirstOrDefault()); Now, what if you want to have the Include parametrized? What I mean is that you want to have a single Get() function that is called from different pages that care about different relationships for the dog. One cares about the Owner, another about his FavoriteFood, another about his FavotireToy and so on. Basicly, you want to tell the query which associations to load. It is easy to do with EntitySQL public Dog Get(int id, string include) { string query = "select value dog " + "from Entities.DogSet as dog " + "where dog.ID = @ID"; ObjectQuery<Dog> oQuery = new ObjectQuery<Dog>(query, EntityContext.Instance)) .IncludeMany(include); oQuery.Parameters.Add(new ObjectParameter("ID", id)); oQuery.EnablePlanCaching = true; return oQuery.FirstOrDefault(); } The include simply uses the passed string. Easy enough. Note that it is possible to improve on the Include(string) function (that accepts only a single path) with an IncludeMany(string) that will let you pass a string of comma-separated associations to load. Look further in the extension section for this function. If we try to do it with CompiledQuery however, we run into numerous problems: The obvious static readonly Func<Entities, int, string, Dog> query_GetDog = CompiledQuery.Compile<Entities, int, string, Dog>((ctx, id, include) => (from dog in ctx.DogSet.Include(include) where dog.ID == id select dog).FirstOrDefault()); will choke when called with: query_GetDog.Invoke( YourContext, id, "Owner,FavoriteFood" ); Because, as mentionned above, Include() only wants to see a single path in the string and here we are giving it 2: "Owner" and "FavoriteFood" (which is not to be confused with "Owner.FavoriteFood"!). Then, let's use IncludeMany(), which is an extension function static readonly Func<Entities, int, string, Dog> query_GetDog = CompiledQuery.Compile<Entities, int, string, Dog>((ctx, id, include) => (from dog in ctx.DogSet.IncludeMany(include) where dog.ID == id select dog).FirstOrDefault()); Wrong again, this time it is because the EF cannot parse IncludeMany because it is not part of the functions that is recognizes: it is an extension. Ok, so you want to pass an arbitrary number of paths to your function and Includes() only takes a single one. What to do? You could decide that you will never ever need more than, say 20 Includes, and pass each separated strings in a struct to CompiledQuery. But now the query looks like this: from dog in ctx.DogSet.Include(include1).Include(include2).Include(include3) .Include(include4).Include(include5).Include(include6) .[...].Include(include19).Include(include20) where dog.ID == id select dog which is awful as well. Ok, then, but wait a minute. Can't we return an ObjectQuery< with CompiledQuery? Then set the includes on that? Well, that what I would have thought so as well: static readonly Func<Entities, int, ObjectQuery<Dog>> query_GetDog = CompiledQuery.Compile<Entities, int, string, ObjectQuery<Dog>>((ctx, id) => (ObjectQuery<Dog>)(from dog in ctx.DogSet where dog.ID == id select dog)); public Dog GetDog( int id, string include ) { ObjectQuery<Dog> oQuery = query_GetDog(id); oQuery = oQuery.IncludeMany(include); return oQuery.FirstOrDefault; } That should have worked, except that when you call IncludeMany (or Include, Where, OrderBy...) you invalidate the cached compiled query because it is an entirely new one now! So, the expression tree needs to be reparsed and you get that performance hit again. So what is the solution? You simply cannot use CompiledQueries with parametrized Includes. Use EntitySQL instead. This doesn't mean that there aren't uses for CompiledQueries. It is great for localized queries that will always be called in the same context. Ideally CompiledQuery should always be used because the syntax is checked at compile time, but due to limitation, that's not possible. An example of use would be: you may want to have a page that queries which two dogs have the same favorite food, which is a bit narrow for a BusinessLayer function, so you put it in your page and know exactly what type of includes are required. Passing more than 3 parameters to a CompiledQuery Func is limited to 5 parameters, of which the last one is the return type and the first one is your Entities object from the model. So that leaves you with 3 parameters. A pitance, but it can be improved on very easily. public struct MyParams { public string param1; public int param2; public DateTime param3; } static readonly Func<Entities, MyParams, IEnumerable<Dog>> query_GetDog = CompiledQuery.Compile<Entities, MyParams, IEnumerable<Dog>>((ctx, myParams) => from dog in ctx.DogSet where dog.Age == myParams.param2 && dog.Name == myParams.param1 and dog.BirthDate > myParams.param3 select dog); public List<Dog> GetSomeDogs( int age, string Name, DateTime birthDate ) { MyParams myParams = new MyParams(); myParams.param1 = name; myParams.param2 = age; myParams.param3 = birthDate; return query_GetDog(YourContext,myParams).ToList(); } Return Types (this does not apply to EntitySQL queries as they aren't compiled at the same time during execution as the CompiledQuery method) Working with Linq, you usually don't force the execution of the query until the very last moment, in case some other functions downstream wants to change the query in some way: static readonly Func<Entities, int, string, IEnumerable<Dog>> query_GetDog = CompiledQuery.Compile<Entities, int, string, IEnumerable<Dog>>((ctx, age, name) => from dog in ctx.DogSet where dog.Age == age && dog.Name == name select dog); public IEnumerable<Dog> GetSomeDogs( int age, string name ) { return query_GetDog(YourContext,age,name); } public void DataBindStuff() { IEnumerable<Dog> dogs = GetSomeDogs(4,"Bud"); // but I want the dogs ordered by BirthDate gridView.DataSource = dogs.OrderBy( it => it.BirthDate ); } What is going to happen here? By still playing with the original ObjectQuery (that is the actual return type of the Linq statement, which implements IEnumerable), it will invalidate the compiled query and be force to re-parse. So, the rule of thumb is to return a List< of objects instead. static readonly Func<Entities, int, string, IEnumerable<Dog>> query_GetDog = CompiledQuery.Compile<Entities, int, string, IEnumerable<Dog>>((ctx, age, name) => from dog in ctx.DogSet where dog.Age == age && dog.Name == name select dog); public List<Dog> GetSomeDogs( int age, string name ) { return query_GetDog(YourContext,age,name).ToList(); //<== change here } public void DataBindStuff() { List<Dog> dogs = GetSomeDogs(4,"Bud"); // but I want the dogs ordered by BirthDate gridView.DataSource = dogs.OrderBy( it => it.BirthDate ); } When you call ToList(), the query gets executed as per the compiled query and then, later, the OrderBy is executed against the objects in memory. It may be a little bit slower, but I'm not even sure. One sure thing is that you have no worries about mis-handling the ObjectQuery and invalidating the compiled query plan. Once again, that is not a blanket statement. ToList() is a defensive programming trick, but if you have a valid reason not to use ToList(), go ahead. There are many cases in which you would want to refine the query before executing it. Performance What is the performance impact of compiling a query? It can actually be fairly large. A rule of thumb is that compiling and caching the query for reuse takes at least double the time of simply executing it without caching. For complex queries (read inherirante), I have seen upwards to 10 seconds. So, the first time a pre-compiled query gets called, you get a performance hit. After that first hit, performance is noticeably better than the same non-pre-compiled query. Practically the same as Linq2Sql When you load a page with pre-compiled queries the first time you will get a hit. It will load in maybe 5-15 seconds (obviously more than one pre-compiled queries will end up being called), while subsequent loads will take less than 300ms. Dramatic difference, and it is up to you to decide if it is ok for your first user to take a hit or you want a script to call your pages to force a compilation of the queries. Can this query be cached? { Dog dog = from dog in YourContext.DogSet where dog.ID == id select dog; } No, ad-hoc Linq queries are not cached and you will incur the cost of generating the tree every single time you call it. Parametrized Queries Most search capabilities involve heavily parametrized queries. There are even libraries available that will let you build a parametrized query out of lamba expressions. The problem is that you cannot use pre-compiled queries with those. One way around that is to map out all the possible criteria in the query and flag which one you want to use: public struct MyParams { public string name; public bool checkName; public int age; public bool checkAge; } static readonly Func<Entities, MyParams, IEnumerable<Dog>> query_GetDog = CompiledQuery.Compile<Entities, MyParams, IEnumerable<Dog>>((ctx, myParams) => from dog in ctx.DogSet where (myParams.checkAge == true && dog.Age == myParams.age) && (myParams.checkName == true && dog.Name == myParams.name ) select dog); protected List<Dog> GetSomeDogs() { MyParams myParams = new MyParams(); myParams.name = "Bud"; myParams.checkName = true; myParams.age = 0; myParams.checkAge = false; return query_GetDog(YourContext,myParams).ToList(); } The advantage here is that you get all the benifits of a pre-compiled quert. The disadvantages are that you most likely will end up with a where clause that is pretty difficult to maintain, that you will incur a bigger penalty for pre-compiling the query and that each query you run is not as efficient as it could be (particularly with joins thrown in). Another way is to build an EntitySQL query piece by piece, like we all did with SQL. protected List<Dod> GetSomeDogs( string name, int age) { string query = "select value dog from Entities.DogSet where 1 = 1 "; if( !String.IsNullOrEmpty(name) ) query = query + " and dog.Name == @Name "; if( age > 0 ) query = query + " and dog.Age == @Age "; ObjectQuery<Dog> oQuery = new ObjectQuery<Dog>( query, YourContext ); if( !String.IsNullOrEmpty(name) ) oQuery.Parameters.Add( new ObjectParameter( "Name", name ) ); if( age > 0 ) oQuery.Parameters.Add( new ObjectParameter( "Age", age ) ); return oQuery.ToList(); } Here the problems are: - there is no syntax checking during compilation - each different combination of parameters generate a different query which will need to be pre-compiled when it is first run. In this case, there are only 4 different possible queries (no params, age-only, name-only and both params), but you can see that there can be way more with a normal world search. - Noone likes to concatenate strings! Another option is to query a large subset of the data and then narrow it down in memory. This is particularly useful if you are working with a definite subset of the data, like all the dogs in a city. You know there are a lot but you also know there aren't that many... so your CityDog search page can load all the dogs for the city in memory, which is a single pre-compiled query and then refine the results protected List<Dod> GetSomeDogs( string name, int age, string city) { string query = "select value dog from Entities.DogSet where dog.Owner.Address.City == @City "; ObjectQuery<Dog> oQuery = new ObjectQuery<Dog>( query, YourContext ); oQuery.Parameters.Add( new ObjectParameter( "City", city ) ); List<Dog> dogs = oQuery.ToList(); if( !String.IsNullOrEmpty(name) ) dogs = dogs.Where( it => it.Name == name ); if( age > 0 ) dogs = dogs.Where( it => it.Age == age ); return dogs; } It is particularly useful when you start displaying all the data then allow for filtering. Problems: - Could lead to serious data transfer if you are not careful about your subset. - You can only filter on the data that you returned. It means that if you don't return the Dog.Owner association, you will not be able to filter on the Dog.Owner.Name So what is the best solution? There isn't any. You need to pick the solution that works best for you and your problem: - Use lambda-based query building when you don't care about pre-compiling your queries. - Use fully-defined pre-compiled Linq query when your object structure is not too complex. - Use EntitySQL/string concatenation when the structure could be complex and when the possible number of different resulting queries are small (which means fewer pre-compilation hits). - Use in-memory filtering when you are working with a smallish subset of the data or when you had to fetch all of the data on the data at first anyway (if the performance is fine with all the data, then filtering in memory will not cause any time to be spent in the db). Singleton access The best way to deal with your context and entities accross all your pages is to use the singleton pattern: public sealed class YourContext { private const string instanceKey = "On3GoModelKey"; YourContext(){} public static YourEntities Instance { get { HttpContext context = HttpContext.Current; if( context == null ) return Nested.instance; if (context.Items[instanceKey] == null) { On3GoEntities entity = new On3GoEntities(); context.Items[instanceKey] = entity; } return (YourEntities)context.Items[instanceKey]; } } class Nested { // Explicit static constructor to tell C# compiler // not to mark type as beforefieldinit static Nested() { } internal static readonly YourEntities instance = new YourEntities(); } } NoTracking, is it worth it? When executing a query, you can tell the framework to track the objects it will return or not. What does it mean? With tracking enabled (the default option), the framework will track what is going on with the object (has it been modified? Created? Deleted?) and will also link objects together, when further queries are made from the database, which is what is of interest here. For example, lets assume that Dog with ID == 2 has an owner which ID == 10. Dog dog = (from dog in YourContext.DogSet where dog.ID == 2 select dog).FirstOrDefault(); //dog.OwnerReference.IsLoaded == false; Person owner = (from o in YourContext.PersonSet where o.ID == 10 select dog).FirstOrDefault(); //dog.OwnerReference.IsLoaded == true; If we were to do the same with no tracking, the result would be different. ObjectQuery<Dog> oDogQuery = (ObjectQuery<Dog>) (from dog in YourContext.DogSet where dog.ID == 2 select dog); oDogQuery.MergeOption = MergeOption.NoTracking; Dog dog = oDogQuery.FirstOrDefault(); //dog.OwnerReference.IsLoaded == false; ObjectQuery<Person> oPersonQuery = (ObjectQuery<Person>) (from o in YourContext.PersonSet where o.ID == 10 select o); oPersonQuery.MergeOption = MergeOption.NoTracking; Owner owner = oPersonQuery.FirstOrDefault(); //dog.OwnerReference.IsLoaded == false; Tracking is very useful and in a perfect world without performance issue, it would always be on. But in this world, there is a price for it, in terms of performance. So, should you use NoTracking to speed things up? It depends on what you are planning to use the data for. Is there any chance that the data your query with NoTracking can be used to make update/insert/delete in the database? If so, don't use NoTracking because associations are not tracked and will causes exceptions to be thrown. In a page where there are absolutly no updates to the database, you can use NoTracking. Mixing tracking and NoTracking is possible, but it requires you to be extra careful with updates/inserts/deletes. The problem is that if you mix then you risk having the framework trying to Attach() a NoTracking object to the context where another copy of the same object exist with tracking on. Basicly, what I am saying is that Dog dog1 = (from dog in YourContext.DogSet where dog.ID == 2).FirstOrDefault(); ObjectQuery<Dog> oDogQuery = (ObjectQuery<Dog>) (from dog in YourContext.DogSet where dog.ID == 2 select dog); oDogQuery.MergeOption = MergeOption.NoTracking; Dog dog2 = oDogQuery.FirstOrDefault(); dog1 and dog2 are 2 different objects, one tracked and one not. Using the detached object in an update/insert will force an Attach() that will say "Wait a minute, I do already have an object here with the same database key. Fail". And when you Attach() one object, all of its hierarchy gets attached as well, causing problems everywhere. Be extra careful. How much faster is it with NoTracking It depends on the queries. Some are much more succeptible to tracking than other. I don't have a fast an easy rule for it, but it helps. So I should use NoTracking everywhere then? Not exactly. There are some advantages to tracking object. The first one is that the object is cached, so subsequent call for that object will not hit the database. That cache is only valid for the lifetime of the YourEntities object, which, if you use the singleton code above, is the same as the page lifetime. One page request == one YourEntity object. So for multiple calls for the same object, it will load only once per page request. (Other caching mechanism could extend that). What happens when you are using NoTracking and try to load the same object multiple times? The database will be queried each time, so there is an impact there. How often do/should you call for the same object during a single page request? As little as possible of course, but it does happens. Also remember the piece above about having the associations connected automatically for your? You don't have that with NoTracking, so if you load your data in multiple batches, you will not have a link to between them: ObjectQuery<Dog> oDogQuery = (ObjectQuery<Dog>)(from dog in YourContext.DogSet select dog); oDogQuery.MergeOption = MergeOption.NoTracking; List<Dog> dogs = oDogQuery.ToList(); ObjectQuery<Person> oPersonQuery = (ObjectQuery<Person>)(from o in YourContext.PersonSet select o); oPersonQuery.MergeOption = MergeOption.NoTracking; List<Person> owners = oPersonQuery.ToList(); In this case, no dog will have its .Owner property set. Some things to keep in mind when you are trying to optimize the performance. No lazy loading, what am I to do? This can be seen as a blessing in disguise. Of course it is annoying to load everything manually. However, it decreases the number of calls to the db and forces you to think about when you should load data. The more you can load in one database call the better. That was always true, but it is enforced now with this 'feature' of EF. Of course, you can call if( !ObjectReference.IsLoaded ) ObjectReference.Load(); if you want to, but a better practice is to force the framework to load the objects you know you will need in one shot. This is where the discussion about parametrized Includes begins to make sense. Lets say you have you Dog object public class Dog { public Dog Get(int id) { return YourContext.DogSet.FirstOrDefault(it => it.ID == id ); } } This is the type of function you work with all the time. It gets called from all over the place and once you have that Dog object, you will do very different things to it in different functions. First, it should be pre-compiled, because you will call that very often. Second, each different pages will want to have access to a different subset of the Dog data. Some will want the Owner, some the FavoriteToy, etc. Of course, you could call Load() for each reference you need anytime you need one. But that will generate a call to the database each time. Bad idea. So instead, each page will ask for the data it wants to see when it first request for the Dog object: static public Dog Get(int id) { return GetDog(entity,"");} static public Dog Get(int id, string includePath) { string query = "select value o " + " from YourEntities.DogSet as o " +

    Read the article

  • How to check if JavaScript object is JSON

    - by Wei Hao
    I have a nested JSON object that I need to loop through, and the value of each key could be a String, JSON array or another JSON object. Depending on the type of object, I need to carry out different operations. Is there any way I can check the type of the object to see if it is a String, JSON object or JSON array? I tried using typeof and instanceof but both didn't seem to work, as typeof will return an object for both JSON object and array, and instanceof gives an error when I do obj instanceof JSON. To be more specific, after parsing the JSON into a JS object, is there any way I can check if it is a normal string, or an object with keys and values (from a JSON object), or an array (from a JSON array)? For example: JSON var data = {"hi": {"hello": ["hi1","hi2"] }, "hey":"words" } JavaScript var jsonObj = JSON.parse(data); var level1 = jsonObj.hi; var text = jsonObj.hey; var arr = level1.hello; //how to check if level1 was formerly a JSON object? //how to check if arr was formerly a JSON array? //how to check if text is a string?

    Read the article

  • Help with Java Generics: Cannot use "Object" as argument for "? extends Object"

    - by AniDev
    Hello, I have the following code: import java.util.*; public class SellTransaction extends Transaction { private Map<String,? extends Object> origValueMap; public SellTransaction(Map<String,? extends Object> valueMap) { super(Transaction.Type.Sell); assignValues(valueMap); this.origValueMap=valueMap; } public SellTransaction[] splitTransaction(double splitAtQuantity) { Map<String,? extends Object> valueMapPart1=origValueMap; valueMapPart1.put(nameMappings[3],(Object)new Double(splitAtQuantity)); Map<String,? extends Object> valueMapPart2=origValueMap; valueMapPart2.put(nameMappings[3],((Double)origValueMap.get(nameMappings[3]))-splitAtQuantity); return new SellTransaction[] {new SellTransaction(valueMapPart1),new SellTransaction(valueMapPart2)}; } } The code fails to compile when I call valueMapPart1.put and valueMapPart2.put, with the error: The method put(String, capture#5-of ? extends Object) in the type Map is not applicable for the arguments (String, Object) I have read on the Internet about generics and wildcards and captures, but I still don't understand what is going wrong. My understanding is that the value of the Map's can be any class that extends Object, which I think might be redundant, because all classes extend Object. And I cannot change the generics to something like ? super Object, because the Map is supplied by some library. So why is this not compiling? Also, if I try to cast valueMap to Map<String,Object>, the compiler gives me that 'Unchecked conversion' warning. Thanks!

    Read the article

  • Is it true that in most Object Oriented Programming Languages, an "i" in an instance method always r

    - by Jian Lin
    In the following code: <script type="text/javascript"> var i = 10; function Circle(radius) { this.r = radius; this.i = radius; } Circle.i = 123; Circle.prototype.area = function() { alert(i); } var c = new Circle(1); var a = c.area(); </script> What is being alerted? The answer is at the end of this question. I found that the i in the alert call either refers to any local (if any), or the global variable. There is no way that it can be the instance variable or the class variable even when there is no local and no global defined. To refer to the instance variable i, we need this.i, and to the class variable i, we need Circle.i. Is this actually true for almost all Object oriented programming languages? Any exception? Are there cases that when there is no local and no global, it will look up the instance variable and then the class variable scope? (or in this case, are those called scope?) the answer is: 10 is being alerted.

    Read the article

  • Convert enumerated records to php object

    - by Matt H
    I have a table containing a bunch of records like this: +-----------+--------+----------+ | extension | fwd_to | type | +-----------+--------+----------+ | 800 | 11111 | noanswer | | 800 | 12345 | uncond | | 800 | 22222 | unavail | | 800 | 54321 | busy | | 801 | 123 | uncond | +-----------+--------+----------+ etc The query looks like this: select fwd_to, type from forwards where extension='800'; Now I get back an array containing objects which look like the following when printed with Kohana::debug: (object) stdClass Object ( [fwd_to] => 11111 [type] => noanswer ) (object) stdClass Object ( [fwd_to] => 12345 [type] => uncond ) (object) stdClass Object ( [fwd_to] => 22222 [type] => unavail ) (object) stdClass Object ( [fwd_to] => 54321 [type] => busy ) What I'd like to do is convert this to an object of this form: (object) stdClass Object ( [busy] => 54321 [uncond] => 12345 [unavail] => 22222 [noanswer] => 11111 ) The reason being I want to then call json_encode on it. This will allow me to use jquery populate to populate a form. Is there a suggested way I can do this nicely? I'm fairly new to PHP and I'm sure this is easy but it's eluding me at the moment.

    Read the article

  • Database design problem: intermediate table between 2 tables may end up with too many results.

    - by SK.
    I have to design a database to handle forms. Basically, a form needs to go through (exactly) 7 people, one by one. Each person can either agree or decline a form. If one declines, the chain stops and the following people don't even get notified that there is a form. Right now I have thought of those 3 tables: FORM, PERSON, and RESPONSE inbetween. However, my first solution sounds too heavy because each form could have up to 7 responses. Here we are with the table inbetween. That means that each successful form has 7 rows in the table RESPONSE. Here we have the responding information directly inside the form. It looks ugly but at least keeps everything as singular as possible. On the bad side I can't track the response dates, but I don't think it is crucial for that matter. What is your opinion on this? I feel like both of them are wrong and I don't know how to fix that. If that matters, I'll be using Oracle 9.

    Read the article

  • Database design and foreign keys: Where should they be added in related tables?

    - by Carvell Fenton
    I have a relatively simple subset of tables in my database for tracking something called sessions. These are academic sessions (think offerings of a particular program). The tables to represent a sessions information are: sessions session_terms session_subjects session_mark_item_info session_marks All of these tables have their own primary keys, and are like a tree, in that sessions have terms, terms have subjects, subjects have mark items, etc. So each on would have at least its "parent's" foreign key. My question is, design wise is it a good idea to include the sessions primary key in the other tables as a foreign key to easily select related session items, or is that too much redundency? If I include the session foreign key (or all parent foreign keys from tables up the heirarchy) in all the tables, I can easily select all the marks for a session. As an example, something like SELECT mark FROM session_marks WHERE sessionID=... If I don't, then I would have to combine selects with something like WHERE something IN (SELECT... Which approach is "more correct" or efficient? Thanks in advance!

    Read the article

  • How to design authentication in a thick client, to be fail safe?

    - by Jay
    Here's a use case: I have a desktop application (built using Eclipse RCP) which on start, pops open a dialog box with 'UserName' and 'Password' fields in it. Once the end user, inputs his UserName and Password, a server is contacted (a spring remote-servlet, with the client side being a spring httpclient: similar to the approaches here.), and authentication is performed on the server side. A few questions related to the above mentioned scenario: If said this authentication service were to go down, what would be the best way to handle further proceedings? Authentication is something that I cannot do away with. Would running the desktop client in a "limited" mode be a good idea? For instance, important features/menus/views will be disabled, rest of the application will be accessible? Should I have a back up authentication service running on a different machine, working as a backup? What are the general best-practices in this scenario? I remember reading about google gears and how it would let you edit and do stuff offline - should something like this be designed? Please let me know your design/architectural comments/suggestions. Appreciate your help.

    Read the article

  • Scalability 101: How can I design a scalable web application using PHP?

    - by Legend
    I am building a web-application and have a couple of quick questions. From what I learnt, one should not worry about scalability when initially building the app and should only start worrying when the traffic increases. However, this being my first web-application, I am not quite sure if I should take an approach where I design things in an ad-hoc manner and later "fix" them. I have been reading stories about how people start off with an app that gets millions of users in a week or two. Not that I will face the same situation but I can't help but wonder, how do these people do it? Currently, I bought a shared hosting account on Lunarpages and that got me started in building and testing the application. However, I am interested in learning how to build the same application in a scalable-manner using the cloud, for instance, Amazon's EC2. From my understanding, I can see a couple of components: There is a load balancer that first receives requests and then decides where to route each request This request is then handled by a server replica that then processes the request and updates (if required) the database and sends back the response to the client If a similar request comes in, then a caching mechanism like memcached kicks into picture and returns objects from the cache A blackbox that handles database replication Specifically, I am trying to do the following: Setting up a load balancer (my homework revealed that HAProxy is one such load balancer) Setting up replication so that databases can be synchronized Using memcached Configuring Apache to work with multiple web servers Partitioning application to use Amazon EC2 and Amazon S3 (my application is something that will need great deal of storage) Finally, how can I avoid burning myself when using Amazon services? Because this is just a learning phase, I can probably do with 2-3 servers with a simple load balancer and replication but until I want to avoid paying loads of money accidentally. I am able to find resources on individual topics but am unable to find something that starts off from the big picture. Can someone please help me get started?

    Read the article

  • Please guide this self-taught Web Developer.

    - by ChickenPuke
    One of the major regrets in life is that I didn't do something with my introversion. I didn't manage to get past the first year of college because of that. I have chosen the path where there are no video games and other time sinks, all I have is the internet to quench my thirst of learning the ins and outs of the field of Web Developing/Designing. Though currently, I'm taking a Web Design Associate course at one of the best Computer Arts and this is the last month of the class. Even though I'm still a sapling, I love this field so much. So basically, At school I'm learning web design while at home I'm teaching myself web-developing. First thing first, returning to college seems impossible at the moment because of some financial problems. I'm pretty comfortable with CSS and HTML and I'm into PHP/MySQL at the moment. Could you please provide me a web-development Curriculum to follow. And do I need to learn about the theories behind? And I think I'm still young(I'm 18 at the time of writing). Is it a good thing or bad thing for choosing this path? I'm glad with my decision but in all honesty, I'm worrying about my future and employment because I'm an undergrad, coming from a country where companies are degree b!tches, it saddens me so. Thank you. (My questions are the bold parts. )

    Read the article

  • So Singletons are bad, then what?

    - by Bobby Tables
    There has been a lot of discussion lately about the problems with using (and overusing) Singletons. I've been one of those people earlier in my career too. I can see what the problem is now, and yet, there are still many cases where I can't see a nice alternative - and not many of the anti-Singleton discussions really provide one. Here is a real example from a major recent project I was involved in: The application was a thick client with many separate screens and components which uses huge amounts of data from a server state which isn't updated too often. This data was basically cached in a Singleton "manager" object - the dreaded "global state". The idea was to have this one place in the app which keeps the data stored and synced, and then any new screens that are opened can just query most of what they need from there, without making repetitive requests for various supporting data from the server. Constantly requesting to the server would take too much bandwidth - and I'm talking thousands of dollars extra Internet bills per week, so that was unacceptable. Is there any other approach that could be appropriate here than basically having this kind of global data manager cache object? This object doesn't officially have to be a "Singleton" of course, but it does conceptually make sense to be one. What is a nice clean alternative here?

    Read the article

facebook twitter digg google delicious technorati stumbleupon myspace wordpress linkedin gmail igoogle windows live tumblr viadeo yahoo buzz yahoo mail yahoo bookmarks favorites email print

< Previous Page | 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122  | Next Page >