Search Results

Search found 44734 results on 1790 pages for 'model based design'.

Page 144/1790 | < Previous Page | 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151  | Next Page >

  • MVVM View Model DTOs

    - by Burt
    I have a WCF based application that uses the services to access repositories on the server side. I am passing DTOs from the server to the client and was wondering how best to make the DTOs part pf the view model. I have a workign example of just plain properties on the view model but was unsure how to deal with actual DTO objects and any possible conversion between the DTO and the Vview model properties.

    Read the article

  • Making only a part of model field available in Django

    - by Hellnar
    Hello I have a such model: GENDER_CHOICES = ( ('M', 'Male'), ('F', 'Female') ) class Profile(models.Model): user = models.ForeignKey(User) gender = models.CharField(max_length=1, choices=GENDER_CHOICES) class FrontPage(models.Model): female = models.ForeignKey(User,related_name="female") male = models.ForeignKey(User,related_name="male") Once I attempt to add a new FrontPage object via the Admin page, I can select "Female" profiles for the male field of FrontPage, how can I restrict that? Thanks

    Read the article

  • Non-Relational Database Design

    - by Ian Varley
    I'm interested in hearing about design strategies you have used with non-relational "nosql" databases - that is, the (mostly new) class of data stores that don't use traditional relational design or SQL (such as Hypertable, CouchDB, SimpleDB, Google App Engine datastore, Voldemort, Cassandra, SQL Data Services, etc.). They're also often referred to as "key/value stores", and at base they act like giant distributed persistent hash tables. Specifically, I want to learn about the differences in conceptual data design with these new databases. What's easier, what's harder, what can't be done at all? Have you come up with alternate designs that work much better in the non-relational world? Have you hit your head against anything that seems impossible? Have you bridged the gap with any design patterns, e.g. to translate from one to the other? Do you even do explicit data models at all now (e.g. in UML) or have you chucked them entirely in favor of semi-structured / document-oriented data blobs? Do you miss any of the major extra services that RDBMSes provide, like relational integrity, arbitrarily complex transaction support, triggers, etc? I come from a SQL relational DB background, so normalization is in my blood. That said, I get the advantages of non-relational databases for simplicity and scaling, and my gut tells me that there has to be a richer overlap of design capabilities. What have you done? FYI, there have been StackOverflow discussions on similar topics here: the next generation of databases changing schemas to work with Google App Engine choosing a document-oriented database

    Read the article

  • django model Form. Include fields from related models

    - by Tom
    Hi. I have a model, called Student, which has some fields, and a OneToOne relationship with user (django.contrib.auth.User). class Student(models.Model): phone = models.CharField(max_length = 25 ) birthdate = models.DateField(null=True) gender = models.CharField(max_length=1,choices = GENDER_CHOICES) city = models.CharField(max_length = 50) personalInfo = models.TextField() user = models.OneToOneField(User,unique=True) Then, I have a ModelForm for that model class StudentForm (forms.ModelForm): class Meta: model = Student Using the fields attribute in class Meta, i've managed to show only some fields in a template. However, can I indicate which user fields to show? Something as: fields =('personalInfo','user.username') is currently not showing anything. Works with only StudentFields though/ Thanks in advance.

    Read the article

  • How to customize pickle for django model objects

    - by muudscope
    I need to pickle a complex object that refers to django model objects. The standard pickling process stores a denormalized object in the pickle. So if the object changes on the database between pickling and unpickling, the model is now out of date. (I know this is true with in-memory objects too, but the pickling is a convenient time to address it.) So what I'd like is a way to not pickle the full django model object. Instead just store its class and id, and re-fetch the contents from the database on load. Can I specify a custom pickle method for this class? I'm happy to write a wrapper class around the django model to handle the lazy fetching from db, if there's a way to do the pickling.

    Read the article

  • Referencing Entity from external data model - Core Data

    - by Ben Reeves
    I have a external library which includes a core data model, I would like to add a new entity to this model which has a relationship with one of the entities from the library. I know I could modify the original, but is there a way to without needing to pollute the library? I tried just creating a new model with an entity named the same, but that doesn't work: * Terminating app due to uncaught exception 'NSInvalidArgumentException', reason: 'Can't merge models with two different entities named 'Host''

    Read the article

  • Design view disappeared from Interface Builder

    - by skywalker168
    All of a sudden, the visual design window disappeared from my Interface Builder. It is a regular UIView, has some UIImageView, UILabel, and UIButtons on it. When I open IB, I can see the document window (with File's Owner, First Responder and View in it), Library and Inspector, but the visual design window disappeared. Double click on "View" in the document window doesn't do anything. If I go to List mode, I can see all the components on the view, but just can no longer find the visual design window. All other XIB can open just fine, only this XIB lost its design window. First I thought maybe it was hidden somewhere on the screen. Tried all kinds of things, even rebooting the computer, but nothing helped. Can anyone help? Thanks in advance! By the way, I'm running SDK 3.2 Beta 3.

    Read the article

  • Alternate datasource for django model?

    - by slypete
    I'm trying to seamlessly integrate some legacy data into a django application. I would like to know if it's possible to use an alternate datasource for a django model. For example, can I contact a server to populate a list of a model? The server would not be SQL based at all. Instead it uses some proprietary tcp based protocol. Copying the data is not an option, as the legacy application will continue to be used for some time. Would a custom manager allow me to do this? This model should behave just like any other django model. It should even pluggable to the admin interface. What do you think? Thanks, Pete

    Read the article

  • Does Java Spring 3.0 MVC support annotation/attribute based client side validation like Asp.net MVC

    - by Athens
    In Asp.Net MVC 2.0, at least in the beta, you could decoration your model classes with data annotation attributes and enable client side validation that leverages that criteria defined in your model data annotation attibutes. Is there anything similar for Java Spring MVC 3.0? Is it possible to inject a component into the response pipeline that can inspect the model's annotated properties and render client side validation logic to complement the server side validation logic that is invoked prior to the controller handling the request?

    Read the article

  • Model associations

    - by Kalyan M
    I have two models Library and Book. In my Library model, I have an array - book_ids. The primary key of Book model is ID. How do I create a has_many :books relation in my library model? This is a legacy database we are using with rails. Thanks.

    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

  • 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

  • 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

  • [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

  • 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

  • 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

  • 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

  • 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

  • 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

< Previous Page | 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151  | Next Page >