Search Results

Search found 41934 results on 1678 pages for 'outlook object model'.

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 116/1678 | < Previous Page | 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123  | Next Page >

  • Trouble Emitting Object Array using Reflection.Emit

    - by JoeGeeky
    I am trying to Emit what I thought would be a simple object array that would result in code similar to the below example object[] parameters = new object[] { a, b, }; When I write the above code in C# using VS, I get the following IL. As expected this works. .locals init ( [0] object[] parameters, [1] object[] CS$0$0000) However, when I try and Emit IL directly, I only ever get a one index init array. Can someone help tell me where I've gone wrong here? Here is the Emit code I'm using: int arraySize = 2; LocalBuilder paramValues = ilGenerator.DeclareLocal(typeof(object[])); paramValues.SetLocalSymInfo("parameters"); ilGenerator.Emit(OpCodes.Ldc_I4_S, arraySize); ilGenerator.Emit(OpCodes.Newarr, typeof(object)); ilGenerator.Emit(OpCodes.Stloc, paramValues); Here is the resulting IL: .locals init ( [0] object[] objArray) The rest of the resulting IL is identical between the two solutions, but for some reason the .locals init is different.

    Read the article

  • Dynamic model choice field in django formset using multiple select elements

    - by Aryeh Leib Taurog
    I posted this question on the django-users list, but haven't had a reply there yet. I have models that look something like this: class ProductGroup(models.Model): name = models.CharField(max_length=10, primary_key=True) def __unicode__(self): return self.name class ProductRun(models.Model): date = models.DateField(primary_key=True) def __unicode__(self): return self.date.isoformat() class CatalogItem(models.Model): cid = models.CharField(max_length=25, primary_key=True) group = models.ForeignKey(ProductGroup) run = models.ForeignKey(ProductRun) pnumber = models.IntegerField() def __unicode__(self): return self.cid class Meta: unique_together = ('group', 'run', 'pnumber') class Transaction(models.Model): timestamp = models.DateTimeField() user = models.ForeignKey(User) item = models.ForeignKey(CatalogItem) quantity = models.IntegerField() price = models.FloatField() Let's say there are about 10 ProductGroups and 10-20 relevant ProductRuns at any given time. Each group has 20-200 distinct product numbers (pnumber), so there are at least a few thousand CatalogItems. I am working on formsets for the Transaction model. Instead of a single select menu with the several thousand CatalogItems for the ForeignKey field, I want to substitute three drop-down menus, for group, run, and pnumber, which uniquely identify the CatalogItem. I'd also like to limit the choices in the second two drop-downs to those runs and pnumbers which are available for the currently selected product group (I can update them via AJAX if the user changes the product group, but it's important that the initial page load as described without relying on AJAX). What's the best way to do this? As a point of departure, here's what I've tried/considered so far: My first approach was to exclude the item foreign key field from the form, add the substitute dropdowns by overriding the add_fields method of the formset, and then extract the data and populate the fields manually on the model instances before saving them. It's straightforward and pretty simple, but it's not very reusable and I don't think it is the right way to do this. My second approach was to create a new field which inherits both MultiValueField and ModelChoiceField, and a corresponding MultiWidget subclass. This seems like the right approach. As Malcolm Tredinnick put it in a django-users discussion, "the 'smarts' of a field lie in the Field class." The problem I'm having is when/where to fetch the lists of choices from the db. The code I have now does it in the Field's __init__, but that means I have to know which ProductGroup I'm dealing with before I can even define the Form class, since I have to instantiate the Field when I define the form. So I have a factory function which I call at the last minute from my view--after I know what CatalogItems I have and which product group they're in--to create form/formset classes and instantiate them. It works, but I wonder if there's a better way. After all, the field should be able to determine the correct choices much later on, once it knows its current value. Another problem is that my implementation limits the entire formset to transactions relating to (CatalogItems from) a single ProductGroup. A third possibility I'm entertaining is to put it all in the Widget class. Once I have the related model instance, or the cid, or whatever the widget is given, I can get the ProductGroup and construct the drop-downs. This would solve the issues with my second approach, but doesn't seem like the right approach.

    Read the article

  • Django - Better evaluation of relationship at the model level

    - by Brant
    Here's a simple relational pair of models. class Shelf(models.Model): name = models.CharField(max_length=100) def has_books(self): if Book.objects.filter(shelf=self): return True else: return False class Book(models.Model): shelf = models.ForeignKey(Shelf) name = models.CharField(max_length=100) Is there a better (or alternative) way to write the "has_book" method? I'm not a fan of the double database hit but I want to do this at the model level.

    Read the article

  • Learning MVC - Maintaining model state

    - by GenericTypeTea
    First of all, I'm very new to MVC. Bought the books, but not got the T-Shirt yet. I've put together my first little application, but I'm looking at the way I'm maintaining my model and I don't think it looks right. My form contains the following: <% using (Html.BeginForm("Reconfigured", null, FormMethod.Post, new { id = "configurationForm" })) { %> <%= Html.DropDownList("selectedCompany", new SelectList(Model.Companies, Model.SelectedCompany), new { onchange = "$('#configurationForm').submit()" })%> <%= Html.DropDownList("selectedDepartment", new SelectList(Model.Departments, Model.SelectedDepartment), new { onchange = "$('#configurationForm').submit()" })%> <%=Html.TextArea("comment", Model.Comment) %> <%} %> My controller has the following: public ActionResult Index(string company, string department, string comment) { TestModel form = new TestModel(); form.Departments = _someRepository.GetList(); form.Companies = _someRepository.GetList(); form.Comment = comment; form.SelectedCompany = company; form.SelectedDepartment = department; return View(form); } [HttpPost] public ActionResult Reconfigured(string selectedCompany, string selectedDepartment, string comment) { return RedirectToAction("Index", new { company = selectedCompany, department = selectedDepartment, comment = comment}); } And finally, this is my route: routes.MapRoute( "Default", "{controller}/{company}/{department}", new { controller = "CompanyController", action = "Index", company="", department="" } ); Now, every time I change DropDownList value, all my values are maintained. I end up with a URL like the following after the Reconfigure action is called: http://localhost/Main/Index/Company/Sales?comment=Foo%20Bar Ideally I'd like the URL to remain as: http://localhost/Main/Index My routing object is probably wrong. This can't be the right way? It seems totally wrong to me as for each extra field I add, I have to add the property into the Index() method? I had a look at this answer where the form is passed through TempData. This is obviously an improvement, but it's not strongly typed? Is there a way to do something similar but have it strongly typed? This may be a simple-enough question, but the curse of 10 years of WinForms/WebForms makes this MVC malarky hard to get your head 'round.

    Read the article

  • Logging from symfony's model layer

    - by naag
    I'm currently working on a project with symfony 1.4 and Doctrine 1.2. I'm looking for a proper way to do logging from the model layer. In some model classes I use the record hook postSave() to create a ZIP file using exec() (since PHP zip doesn't provide for storage method 'Stored'). To be sure that everythings works fine I check the return code and log an error if something goes wrong. My first naive approach was to do it like this: if ($returnCode != 0) { sfContext::getInstance()->getLogger()->debug(...); } As you know, this doesn't work so well because sfContext belongs to the controller layer and shouldn't be used from the model layer. My next try was to use the model's constructor to pass in an sfLogger instance, but this doesn't work due to Doctrine 1.2 reserving the constructor for internal use (Doctrine 1.2 Documentation). I'm looking forward for your suggestions!

    Read the article

  • Can can I reference extended methods/params without having to cast from the base class object return

    - by Greg
    Hi, Is there away to not have a "cast" the top.First().Value() return to "Node", but rather have it automatically assume this (as opposed to NodeBase), so I then see extended attributes for the class I define in Node? That is is there a way to say: top.Nodes.First().Value.Path; as opposed to now having to go: ((Node)top.Nodes.First().Value).Path) thanks [TestMethod()] public void CreateNoteTest() { var top = new Topology(); Node node = top.CreateNode("a"); node.Path = "testpath"; Assert.AreEqual("testpath", ((Node)top.Nodes.First().Value).Path); // *** HERE *** } class Topology : TopologyBase<string, Node, Relationship> { } class Node : NodeBase<string> { public string Path { get; set; } } public class NodeBase<T> { public T Key { get; set; } public NodeBase() { } public NodeBase(T key) { Key = key; } } public class TopologyBase<TKey, TNode, TRelationship> where TNode : NodeBase<TKey>, new() where TRelationship : RelationshipBase<TKey>, new() { // Properties public Dictionary<TKey, NodeBase<TKey>> Nodes { get; private set; } public List<RelationshipBase<TKey>> Relationships { get; private set; } }

    Read the article

  • [CakePHP] Can not Bake table model, controller and view

    - by user198003
    I developed small CakePHP application, and now I want to add one more table (in fact, model/controller/view) into system, named notes. I had already created a table of course. But when I run command cake bake model, I do not get table Notes on the list. I can add it manually, but after that I get some errors when running cake bake controller and cake bake view. Can you give me some clue why I have those problems, and how to add that new model?

    Read the article

  • Check if Django model field choices exists

    - by Justin Lucas
    I'm attempting to check if a value exists in the choices tuple set for a model field. For example lets say I have a Model like this: class Vote(models.Model): VOTE_TYPE = ( (1, "Up"), (-1, "Down"), ) value = models.SmallIntegerField(max_length=1, choices=VOTE_TYPES) Now lets say in a view I have a variable new_value = 'Up' that I would like to use as the value field in a new Vote. How can I first check to see if the value of that variable exists in the VOTE_TYPE tuple? Thank you.

    Read the article

  • Ember model is gone when I use the renderTemplate hook

    - by Mickael Caruso
    I have a single template - editPerson.hbs <form role="form"> FirstName: {{input type="text" value=model.firstName }} <br/> LastName: {{input type="text" value=model.lastName }} </form> I want to render this template when the user wants to edit an existing person or create a new person. So, I set up routes: App.Router.map(function(){ this.route("createPerson", { path: "/person/new" }); this.route("editPerson", { path: "/person/:id}); // other routes not show for brevity }); So, I define two routes - one for create and one for edit: App.CreatePersonRoute = Ember.Route.extend({ renderTemplate: function(){ this.render("editPerson", { controller: "editPerson" }); }, model: function(){ return {firstName: "John", lastName: "Smith" }; } }); App.EditPersonRoute = Ember.Route.extend({ model: function(id){ return {firstName: "John Existing", lastName: "Smith Existing" }; } }); So, I hard-code the models. I'm concerned about the createPerson route. I'm telling it to render the editPersonTemplate and to use the editPerson controller (which I don't show because I don't think it matters - but I made one, though.) When I use renderTemplate, I lose the model John Smith, which in turn, won't display on the editTemplate on the web page. Why? I "fixed" this by creating a separate and identical (to editPerson.hbs) createPerson.hbs, and removing the renderTemplate hook in the CreatePerson. It works as expected, but I find it somewhat troubling to have a separate and identical template for the edit and create cases. I looked everywhere for how to properly do this, and I found no answers.

    Read the article

  • Kohana PHP - Multiple apps with shared model

    - by Josamoto
    I'm using Kohana 3 to create a website that has two applications, an admin application and the actual site frontend. I have separated my folders to have the two applications separated, so the hierarchy looks as follows: /applications /admin /classes /controller /... /site /classes /controller /.... My question is, how I need to go about creating a shared /model folder. Essentially, both the admin and site itself operates on the same data, so the database layer and business logic remains more or less the same. So to me, it makes sense to have a single model folder, sitting outside of the two application folders. Is it possible to achieve the following hierarchy: /applications /model --> Where model sits in a neatly generic location, accessible to all applications /admin /classes /controller /... /site /classes /controller /.... Thanks in advance!

    Read the article

  • Why might the Large Object Heap grow rather than throw an exception?

    - by Unsliced
    In a previous question I asked possible programatic ways of maximising the largest block allocatable on the LOH. I'm still seeing the problems, but now I'm trying to get my head around why the LOH seems to grow and shrink in size, yet I'm still seeing OutOfMemoryExceptions that tally with what others have reported as being due to LOH fragmentation. Why might one call to, for example, StringBuilder.EnsureCapacity throw an OutOfMemoryException for me, but another call from somewhere else result in the LOH expanding in size (according to the performance counters, it is growing and shrinking)?

    Read the article

  • Javascript static method intheritance

    - by Matteo Pagliazzi
    I want to create a javascript class/object that allow me to have various method: Model class Model.all() » static method Model.find() » static method Model delete() » instance method Model save() » instance method Model.create() » static that returns a new Model instance For static method I can define them using: Model.staticMethod(){ method } while for instance method is better to use: function Model(){ this.instanceMethod = function(){} } and then create a new instance or using prototype? var m = function Model(){ } m.prototype.method() = function(){ } Now let's say that I want to create a new class based on Model, how to inherit not only its prototypes but also its static methods?

    Read the article

  • Methods and properties in scheme - is object oriented programming possible in scheme?

    - by incrediman
    I will use a simple example to illustrate my question. In Java, C, or any other OOP language, I could create a pie class in a way similar to this: class Apple{ public String flavor; public int pieces; private int tastiness; public goodness(){ return tastiness*pieces; } } What's the best way to do that with Scheme? I suppose I could do with something like this: (define make-pie (lambda (flavor pieces tastiness) (list flavor pieces tastiness))) (define pie-goodness (lambda (pie) (* (list-ref pie 1) (list-ref pie 2)))) (pie-goodness (make-pie 'cherry 2 5)) ;output: 10 ...where cherry is the flavor, 2 is the pieces, and 5 is the tastiness. However then there's no type-safety or visibility, and everything's just shoved in an unlabeled list. How can I improve that? Sidenote: The make-pie procedure expects 3 arguments. If I want to make some of them optional (like I'd be able to in curly-brace languages like Java or C), is it good practice to just take the arguments in as a list (that is treat the arguments as a list - not require one argument which is a list) and deal with them that way?

    Read the article

  • Is there any reason for an object pool to not be treated as a singleton?

    - by Chris Charabaruk
    I don't necessarily mean implemented using the singleton pattern, but rather, only having and using one instance of a pool. I don't like the idea of having just one pool (or one per pooled type). However, I can't really come up with any concrete situations where there's an advantage to multiple pools for mutable types, at least not any where a single pool can function just as well. What advantages are there to having multiple pools over a singleton pool?

    Read the article

  • Single Responsibility Principle vs Anemic Domain Model anti-pattern

    - by Niall Connaughton
    I'm in a project that takes the Single Responsibility Principle pretty seriously. We have a lot of small classes and things are quite simple. However, we have an anemic domain model - there is no behaviour in any of our model classes, they are just property bags. This isn't a complaint about our design - it actually seems to work quite well During design reviews, SRP is brought out whenever new behaviour is added to the system, and so new behaviour typically ends up in a new class. This keeps things very easily unit testable, but I am perplexed sometimes because it feels like pulling behaviour out of the place where it's relevant. I'm trying to improve my understanding of how to apply SRP properly. It seems to me that SRP is in opposition to adding business modelling behaviour that shares the same context to one object, because the object inevitably ends up either doing more than one related thing, or doing one thing but knowing multiple business rules that change the shape of its outputs. If that is so, then it feels like the end result is an Anemic Domain Model, which is certainly the case in our project. Yet the Anemic Domain Model is an anti-pattern. Can these two ideas coexist? EDIT: A couple of context related links: SRP - http://www.objectmentor.com/resources/articles/srp.pdf Anemic Domain Model - http://martinfowler.com/bliki/AnemicDomainModel.html I'm not the kind of developer who just likes to find a prophet and follow what they say as gospel. So I don't provide links to these as a way of stating "these are the rules", just as a source of definition of the two concepts.

    Read the article

  • Limit the model data fields serialized by Web API based on the return type Interface

    - by Stevo3000
    We're updating our architecture to use a single object model for desktop, web and mobile that can be used in the MVVM pattern. I would like to be able to limit the data fields that are serialized through Web API by using interfaces on the controllers. This is required because the model objects for mobile are stored in HTML5 local storage so don't carry optional data while a thin desktop client would be able to store (and work with) more data. To achieve this a model will implement the different interfaces that define which data fields should be serialized and there will be a controller specific to the interface. The problem is that the Web API always serializes every field in the model even if it is not part of the interface being returned. How can we only serialize fields in the returned interface?

    Read the article

  • Domain model: should things like Logging, Audit, Persistence be in it

    - by hom.tanks
    I'm having a hard time convincing our architect that a Domain model should only have the essential elements of the business domain on it. Things like the fact that a class is persistable, that it needs logging and auditing and that it has a RESTful URI should not drive the domain model. They can be added later on, by using interfaces. Ours is a healthcare information management system. At the very coarse level, its a system where users login and access their healthcare information. They can share this information with others and be custodian for others' information (think Roles). But because of a few sound bytes that caught on early like "Everything should be a REST resource" the model now has a top level class called Resource that every other class extends from. I'm trying to make him see that the domain model should have well defined concepts like User Account, HealthDocument, UserRole etc which are distinct entities of the business , with specific associations between them. Clubbing everything under Resource class lets our model be inflexible besides being potentially incorrect. But he wants me to show him why its a bad idea to do it his way. I don't know how to articulate that properly but all my OO instincts tell me that its just not right. Any thoughts?

    Read the article

  • Binding a Value from a View-Model to the View-Model of a child User Control in Silverlight?

    - by andrej351
    Hi there, So i have a UserControl for one of my Views and have another 'child' UserControl inside that. The outer 'parent' UserControl has a Collection on its View-Model and a Grid control on it to display a list of Items. I want to place another UserControl inside this UserControl to display a form representing the details of one Item. The outer / parent UserControl's View-Model already has a property on it to hold the currently selected Item and i would like to bind this to a DependancyProperty on the inner / child UserControl. I would then like to bind that DependancyProperty to a property on the child UserControl's View-Model. I can then set the DependancyProperty once in XAML with a binding expression and have the child UserControl do all its work in its View-Model like it should. The code i have looks like this.. Parent UserControl: <UserControl x:Class="ItemsListView" xmlns="http://schemas.microsoft.com/winfx/2006/xaml/presentation" xmlns:x="http://schemas.microsoft.com/winfx/2006/xaml" DataContext="{Binding Source={StaticResource ServiceLocator}, Path=ItemsListViewModel}"> <!-- Grid Control here... --> <ItemDetailsView Item="{Binding Source={StaticResource ServiceLocator}, Path=ItemsListViewModel.SelectedItem}" /> </UserControl> Child UserControl: <UserControl x:Class="ItemDetailsView" xmlns="http://schemas.microsoft.com/winfx/2006/xaml/presentation" xmlns:x="http://schemas.microsoft.com/winfx/2006/xaml" DataContext="{Binding Source={StaticResource ServiceLocator}, Path=ItemDetailsViewModel}" ItemDetailsView.Item="{Binding Source={StaticResource ServiceLocator}, Path=ItemDetailsViewModel.Item, Mode=TwoWay}"> <!-- Form controls here... --> </UserControl> The selected Item is bound to the DependancyProperty fine. However from the DependancyProperty to the child View-Model does not. I've used this sort of apporach in a WPF app without problems. It appears to be a situation where there are two concurrent bindings which need to work but with the same target for two sources. Why won't the second (in the child UserControl) binding work?? Is there a way to acheive the behaviour I'm after?? Cheers.

    Read the article

  • How do I create a dynamic data transfer object dynamically from ADO.net model

    - by Richard
    I have a pretty simple database with 5 tables, PK's and relationships setup, etc. I also have an ASP.net MVC3 project I'm using to create simple web services to feed JSON/XML to a mobile app using post/get. To access my data I'm using an ADO.net entity model class to handle generation of the entities, etc. Due to issues with serialization/circular references created by the auto-generated relations from ADO.net entity model, I've been forced to create "Data transfer objects" to strip out the relations and data that doesn't need to be transferred. Question 1: is there an easier way to create DTOs using the entity framework itself? IE, specify only the entity properties I want to convert to Jsonresults? I don't wish to use any 3rd party frameworks if I can help it. Question 2: A side question for Entity Framework, say I create an ADO.net entity model in one project within a solution. Because that model relies on the connection to the database specified in project A, can project B somehow use that model with a similar connection? Both projects are in the same solution. Thanks!

    Read the article

  • How can I get contentWindow for an Object element in IE7

    - by Scott Leis
    I have a HTML object element like this: <object title="Search results as XML" standby="Loading XML document..." type="text/xml" data="/__CA25761100195585.nsf/WebPrintListingXML?OpenAgent&date1=01/06/2009" width="100%" height="100%" border="0" name="resultIFrame" id="resultIFrame" Error: could not embed search results. </object I also have this javascript function (alert() calls added for debugging): function getFrameByName(fParent,fName) { var fArray=fParent.frames; if (!fName) return; if (fArray) { if (fArray.length) { for (var i=0; i<fArray.length; i++) { alert('loop '+i); if (fArray[i]) { if (fArray[i].name==fName) return fArray[i]; } } } } var tmp=document.getElementsByName(fName); if (tmp[0]) { alert('returning '+tmp[0]); if (!(tmp[0].contentWindow)) alert('contentWindow is null'); return tmp[0].contentWindow; } } And finally, this button is meant to print the content of the Object element: <input type="button" value="Print" name="printBtn" onclick="getFrameByName(window,'resultIFrame').print();" The button works perfectly in Firefox. Opera is good enough, though it prints the main document instead of just the object. IE7 gives the following error details: Line: 57 Char: 1 Error: 'undefined' is null or not an object Line 57 is where the button's "input" tag starts in the HTML source. Thanks to the alert('contentWindow is null') call in the JS function, I know that the object I'm getting in IE has no contentWindow property. I have tried changing the object tag to an iframe tag. This changes the JS behaviour, but causes other issues such as the height attribute being ignored and the content not displaying. Sticking with an object tag, how can I get this Object's window in IE7?

    Read the article

  • Rails, search item in different model?

    - by Danny McClelland
    Hi Everyone, I have a kase model which I am using a simple search form in. The problem I am having is some kases are linked to companies through a company model, and people through a people model. At the moment my search (in Kase model) looks like this: # SEARCH FACILITY def self.search(search) search_condition = "%" + search + "%" find(:all, :conditions => ['jobno LIKE ? OR casesubject LIKE ? OR transport LIKE ? OR goods LIKE ? OR comments LIKE ? OR invoicenumber LIKE ? OR netamount LIKE ? OR clientref LIKE ? OR kase_status LIKE ? OR lyingatlocationaddresscity LIKE ?', search_condition, search_condition, search_condition, search_condition, search_condition, search_condition, search_condition, search_condition, search_condition, search_condition]) end What I am trying to work out, is what condition can I add to allow a search by Company or Person to show the cases they are linked to. @kase.company.companyname and company.companyname don't work :( Is this possible? Thanks, Danny

    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 | 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123  | Next Page >