Search Results

Search found 8161 results on 327 pages for 'explicit loading'.

Page 17/327 | < Previous Page | 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24  | Next Page >

  • Fluent NHibernate - Cascade delete a child object when no explicit parent->child relationship exists

    - by John Price
    I've got an application that keeps track of (for the sake of an example) what drinks are available at a given restaurant. My domain model looks like: class Restaurant { public IEnumerable<RestaurantDrink> GetRestaurantDrinks() { ... } //other various properties } class RestaurantDrink { public Restaurant Restaurant { get; set; } public Drink { get; set; } public string DrinkVariety { get; set; } //"fountain drink", "bottled", etc. //other various properties } class Drink { public string Name { get; set; } public string Manufacturer { get; set; } //other various properties } My db schema is (I hope) about what you'd expect; "RestaurantDrinks" is essentially a mapping table between Restaurants and Drinks with some extra properties (like "DrinkVariety" tacked on). Using Fluent NHibernate to set up mappings, I've set up a "HasMany" relationship from Restaurants to RestaurantDrinks that causes the latter to be deleted when its parent Restaurant is deleted. My question is, given that "Drink" does not have any property on it that explicitly references RestaurantDrinks (the relationship only exists in the underlying database), can I set up a mapping that will cause RestaurantDrinks to be deleted if their associated Drink is deleted? Update: I've been trying to set up the mapping from the "RestaurantDrink" end of things using References(x => x.Drink) .Column("DrinkId") .Cascade.All(); But this doesn't seem to work (I still get an FK violation when deleting a Drink).

    Read the article

  • http(/* argument here */) How is this Object (Http) being used without an explicit or implicit meth

    - by Randin
    In the example for coding with Json using Databinder Dispatch Nathan uses an Object (Http) without a method, shown here: import dispatch._ import Http._ Http("http://www.fox.com/dollhouse/" >>> System.out ) How is he doing this? Thank you for all of the answers unfortunatly I was not specific enough... It looks like it is simply passing an argument to a constructor of class or companion object Http. In another example, I've seen another form: http = new Http http(/* argument here */) Is this valid Scala? I guess it must be, because the author is a Scala expert. But it makes no sense to me. Actions are usually performed by invoking methods on objects, whether explicitly as object.doSomething() or implicitly as object = something (using the apply() method underneath the syntactic sugar). All I can think of is that a constructor is being used to do something in addition to constructing an object. In other words, it is having side effects, such as in this case going off and doing something on the web.

    Read the article

  • Any HTTP proxies with explicit, configurable support for request/response buffering and delayed conn

    - by Carlos Carrasco
    When dealing with mobile clients it is very common to have multisecond delays during the transmission of HTTP requests. If you are serving pages or services out of a prefork Apache the child processes will be tied up for seconds serving a single mobile client, even if your app server logic is done in 5ms. I am looking for a HTTP server, balancer or proxy server that supports the following: A request arrives to the proxy. The proxy starts buffering in RAM or in disk the request, including headers and POST/PUT bodies. The proxy DOES NOT open a connection to the backend server. This is probably the most important part. The proxy server stops buffering the request when: A size limit has been reached (say, 4KB), or The request has been received completely, headers and body Only now, with (part of) the request in memory, a connection is opened to the backend and the request is relayed. The backend sends back the response. Again the proxy server starts buffering it immediately (up to a more generous size, say 64KB.) Since the proxy has a big enough buffer the backend response is stored completely in the proxy server in a matter of miliseconds, and the backend process/thread is free to process more requests. The backend connection is immediately closed. The proxy sends back the response to the mobile client, as fast or as slow as it is capable of, without having a connection to the backend tying up resources. I am fairly sure you can do 4-6 with Squid, and nginx appears to support 1-3 (and looks like fairly unique in this respect). My question is: is there any proxy server that empathizes these buffering and not-opening-connections-until-ready capabilities? Maybe there is just a bit of Apache config-fu that makes this buffering behaviour trivial? Any of them that it is not a dinosaur like Squid and that supports a lean single-process, asynchronous, event-based execution model? (Siderant: I would be using nginx but it doesn't support chunked POST bodies, making it useless for serving stuff to mobile clients. Yes cheap 50$ handsets love chunked POSTs... sigh)

    Read the article

  • explicit template instantiations

    - by user323422
    see following code and please clear doubts1. as ABC is template why it not showing error when we put defination of ABC class member function in test.cpp 2.if i put test.cpp code in test.h and remve 2 , then it working fine. // test.h template <typename T> class ABC { public: void foo( T& ); void bar( T& ); }; // test.cpp template <typename T> void ABC<T>::foo( T& ) {} // definition template <typename T> void ABC<T>::bar( T& ) {} // definition template void ABC<char>::foo( char & ); // 1 template class ABC<char>; // 2 // main.cpp #include "test.h" int main() { ABC<char> a; a.foo(); // valid with 1 or 2 a.bar(); // link error if only 1, valid with 2 }

    Read the article

  • explicit copy constructor or implicit parameter by value

    - by R Samuel Klatchko
    I recently read (and unfortunately forgot where), that the best way to write operator= is like this: foo &operator=(foo other) { swap(*this, other); return *this; } instead of this: foo &operator=(const foo &other) { foo copy(other); swap(*this, copy); return *this; } The idea is that if operator= is called with an rvalue, the first version can optimize away construction of a copy. So when called with a rvalue, the first version is faster and when called with an lvalue the two are equivalent. I'm curious as to what other people think about this? Would people avoid the first version because of lack of explicitness? Am I correct that the first version can be better and can never be worse?

    Read the article

  • Explicit disable MySQL query cache in some parts of program

    - by jack
    In a Django project, some cronjob programs are mainly used for administrative or analysis purposes, e.g. generating site usage stats, rotating user activities log, etc. We probably do not hope MySQL to cache queries in those programs to save memory usage and improve query cache efficiency. Is it possible to turn off MySQL query cache explicitly in those programs while keep it enabled for other parts including all views.py?

    Read the article

  • Attaining Explicit and Predictable Ruby on Rails...

    - by Winston
    I need help, how can I learn this framework? Here's what I need to know. Routes, it's expected outcome, the prefix/suffix methods associated with every changes made with it. ActiveRecord, the dynamic generation of methods, the behind the scenes with prefix_ and _suffix methods. The View, how do I know what prefix/suffix methods can be used in the View. Is there's a way to know all those behind-the-scenes actions in console.

    Read the article

  • Get the signed/unsigned variant of an integer template parameter without explicit traits

    - by Blair Holloway
    I am looking to define a template class whose template parameter will always be an integer type. The class will contain two members, one of type T, and the other as the unsigned variant of type T -- i.e. if T == int, then T_Unsigned == unsigned int. My first instinct was to do this: template <typename T> class Range { typedef unsigned T T_Unsigned; // does not compile public: Range(T min, T_Unsigned range); private: T m_min; T_Unsigned m_range; }; But it doesn't work. I then thought about using partial template specialization, like so: template <typename T> struct UnsignedType {}; // deliberately empty template <> struct UnsignedType<int> { typedef unsigned int Type; }; template <typename T> class Range { typedef UnsignedType<T>::Type T_Unsigned; /* ... */ }; This works, so long as you partially specialize UnsignedType for every integer type. It's a little bit of additional copy-paste work (slash judicious use of macros), but serviceable. However, I'm now curious - is there another way of determining the signed-ness of an integer type, and/or using the unsigned variant of a type, without having to manually define a Traits class per-type? Or is this the only way to do it?

    Read the article

  • Spring MVC 3.0: Avoiding explicit JAXBElement<> wrapper in method arg

    - by Keith Myers
    I have the following method and want to avoid having to explicitly show the JAXBElement< syntax. Is there some sort of annotation that would allow the method to appear to accept raw MessageResponse objects but in actuality work the same as shown below? I'm not sure how clear that was so I'll say this: I'm looking for some syntactic sugar :) @ServiceActivator public void handleMessageResponse(JAXBElement<MessageResponse> jaxbResponse) { MessageResponse response = jaxbResponse.getValue(); MessageStatus status = messageStatusDao.getByStoreIdAndMessageId(response.getStoreId(), response.getMessageId()); status.setStatusTimestamp(response.getDate()); status.setStatus("Complete"); }

    Read the article

  • Django Multi-Table Inheritance VS Specifying Explicit OneToOne Relationship in Models

    - by chefsmart
    Hope all this makes sense :) I'll clarify via comments if necessary. Also, I am experimenting using bold text in this question, and will edit it out if I (or you) find it distracting. With that out of the way... Using django.contrib.auth gives us User and Group, among other useful things that I can't do without (like basic messaging). In my app I have several different types of users. A user can be of only one type. That would easily be handled by groups, with a little extra care. However, these different users are related to each other in hierarchies / relationships. Let's take a look at these users: - Principals - "top level" users Administrators - each administrator reports to a Principal Coordinators - each coordinator reports to an Administrator Apart from these there are other user types that are not directly related, but may get related later on. For example, "Company" is another type of user, and can have various "Products", and products may be supervised by a "Coordinator". "Buyer" is another kind of user that may buy products. Now all these users have various other attributes, some of which are common to all types of users and some of which are distinct only to one user type. For example, all types of users have to have an address. On the other hand, only the Principal user belongs to a "BranchOffice". Another point, which was stated above, is that a User can only ever be of one type. The app also needs to keep track of who created and/or modified Principals, Administrators, Coordinators, Companies, Products etc. (So that's two more links to the User model.) In this scenario, is it a good idea to use Django's multi-table inheritance as follows: - from django.contrib.auth.models import User class Principal(User): # # # branchoffice = models.ForeignKey(BranchOffice) landline = models.CharField(blank=True, max_length=20) mobile = models.CharField(blank=True, max_length=20) created_by = models.ForeignKey(User, editable=False, blank=True, related_name="principalcreator") modified_by = models.ForeignKey(User, editable=False, blank=True, related_name="principalmodifier") # # # Or should I go about doing it like this: - class Principal(models.Model): # # # user = models.OneToOneField(User, blank=True) branchoffice = models.ForeignKey(BranchOffice) landline = models.CharField(blank=True, max_length=20) mobile = models.CharField(blank=True, max_length=20) created_by = models.ForeignKey(User, editable=False, blank=True, related_name="principalcreator") modified_by = models.ForeignKey(User, editable=False, blank=True, related_name="principalmodifier") # # # Please keep in mind that there are other user types that are related via foreign keys, for example: - class Administrator(models.Model): # # # principal = models.ForeignKey(Principal, help_text="The supervising principal for this Administrator") user = models.OneToOneField(User, blank=True) province = models.ForeignKey( Province) landline = models.CharField(blank=True, max_length=20) mobile = models.CharField(blank=True, max_length=20) created_by = models.ForeignKey(User, editable=False, blank=True, related_name="administratorcreator") modified_by = models.ForeignKey(User, editable=False, blank=True, related_name="administratormodifier") I am aware that Django does use a one-to-one relationship for multi-table inheritance behind the scenes. I am just not qualified enough to decide which is a more sound approach.

    Read the article

  • gcc problem with explicit template instantiation?

    - by steve jaffe
    It is my understanding that either a declaration or typedef of a specialization ought to cause a template class to be instantiated, but this does not appear to be happening with gcc. E.g. I have a template class, template class Foo {}; I write class Foo<double>; or typedef Foo<double> DoubleFoo; but after compilation the symbol table of the resulting object file does not contain the members of Foo. If I create an instance: Foo<double> aFoo; then of course the symbols are all generated. Has anyone else experienced this and/or have an explanation?

    Read the article

  • Visual Studio 2008 Explicit Reference Error

    - by Alan
    I have a project which references a dll in the same solution (called "Common"). Common has two types of errors with the same names but different namespaces i.e. Common.Login.UserDeleted Common.Imaging.UserDeleted When I type UserDeleted visual studio recognizes both of these and asks for which it is ("ambiguous reference"). I right-click UserDeleted and select one of the two above, yet it then says that the type or reference doesn't exist! It doesn't make any sense. Why is this happening? I can't compile my program until I find a solution to this, thanks

    Read the article

  • Foo f = Foo(); // no matching function for call to 'Foo::Foo(Foo)' ... huh?!

    - by Kyle
    class Foo { public: explicit Foo() {} explicit Foo(Foo&) {} }; Foo d = Foo(); error: no matching function for call to 'Foo::Foo(Foo)' I tried changing Foo(Foo&) to Foo(Foo) as the error suggests, which AFAIK is not a valid constructor, and sure enough I get: error: invalid constructor; you probably meant ‘Foo (const Foo&)’ What gives? How do I resolve this? (This is on GCC by the way)

    Read the article

  • Fluent NHibernate - Delete a related object when no explicit relationship exists in the model

    - by John Price
    I've got an application that keeps track of (for the sake of an example) what drinks are available at a given restaurant. My domain model looks like: class Restaurant { public IEnumerable<RestaurantDrink> GetRestaurantDrinks() { ... } //other various properties } class RestaurantDrink { public Restaurant Restaurant { get; set; } public Drink { get; set; } public string DrinkVariety { get; set; } //"fountain drink", "bottled", etc. //other various properties } class Drink { public string Name { get; set; } public string Manufacturer { get; set; } //other various properties } My db schema is (I hope) about what you'd expect; "RestaurantDrinks" is essentially a mapping table between Restaurants and Drinks with some extra properties (like "DrinkVariety" tacked on). Using Fluent NHibernate to set up mappings, I've set up a "HasMany" relationship from Restaurants to RestaurantDrinks that causes the latter to be deleted when its parent Restaurant is deleted. My question is, given that "Drink" does not have any property on it that explicitly references RestaurantDrinks (the relationship only exists in the underlying database), can I set up a mapping that will cause RestaurantDrinks to be deleted if their associated Drink is deleted?

    Read the article

  • Wanna use StructureMap to store HttpContext/User based explicit instances

    - by René
    Hi I'm having difficulty figuring out how to store an explicitly user generated instance in StructureMap, cached by HttpContext. When I try the code underneath, I even get the first cached instance, which leads to failures when using it for storing user credentials in Asp.Net AuthenticateRequest method. ForRequestedType<TInterface>() .CacheBy(InstanceScope.HttpContext) .TheDefault. Is. Object(instance)); The problem is I can't create a new instance on requesting StructureMap, because I need more other factories for getting rights etc. for the current user. Any ideas?

    Read the article

  • Explicit initialization of struct/class members

    - by Zephon
    struct some_struct{ int a; }; some_struct n = {}; n.a will be 0 after this; I know this braces form of initialization is inherited from C and is supported for compatibility with C programs, but this only compiles with C++, not with the C compiler. I'm using Visual C++ 2005. In C this type of initialization struct some_struct n = {0}; is correct and will zero-initialize all members of a structure. Is the empty pair of braces form of initialization standard? I first saw this form of initialization in a WinAPI tutorial from msdn.

    Read the article

  • reorder XML elements or set an explicit template with XSLT

    - by Sash
    I tried the solution in my previous question (flattening XML to load via SSIS package), however this isn't working. I now know what I need to do, however I need some guidance on how to do it. So say I have the following XML structure: <person id="1"> <name>John</name> <surname>Smith</surname> <age>25</age> <comment> <comment_id>1</comment_id> <comment_text>Hello</comment_text> </comment> <comment> <comment_id>2</comment_id> <comment_text>Hello again!</comment_text> </comment> <somethingelse> <id>1</id> </somethingelse> <comment> <comment_id>3</comment_id> <comment_text>Third Item</comment_text> </comment> </person> <person id="2"> <name>John</name> <surname>Smith</surname> <age>25</age> <somethingelse> <id>1</id> </somethingelse> </person> ... ... If I am to load this into a SSIS package, as an XML source, what I will essentially get is a table created for each element, as opposed to get a structured table output such as person table (name, surname, age) somethingelse table (id) comment table (comment_id, comment_text) What I end up getting is: person table (person_Id <-- internal SSIS id) name table surname table age table person_name table person_surname table person_comment_comment_id table etc... What I found was that if each element and all inner elements are not in the same format and consistency, i will get the above anomaly which makes it rather complex especially if I am dealing with 80 - 100+ columns. Unfortunately I have no way of modifying the system (Lotus Notes) that produces these reports, so I was wondering whether I may be able to explicitly have an XSLT template that will be able to align each person sub elements (and the sub collection elements such as comments ? Unless there is a quicker way to realign all inner elements. Seems that SSIS XML source requires a very consistent XML file in the sense of: if the name element is in position 1, then all subsequent name elements within person parent have to be in position 1. SSIS seems to pickup the inconsistencies if there are certain elements missing from one parent to another, however, if their ordering is not right (A, B, C)(A, B, C)(A,C,B), it will chuck a massive fuss! All help is appreciated! Thank you in advance.

    Read the article

  • Explicit call of Runnable.run

    - by klaudio
    Hi, I have a question. Somebody, who was working on my code before me, created some method and passed Runnable as parameter, more likely: void myMethod(Runnable runnable){ runnable.run(); } Then calling myMethod out of main looks like: public static void main(String args[]) { try { myMethod(new Runnable(){ public void run() { //do something...; }}); } catch (Throwable t) { } } So, to supply parameter to myMethod I need to instantiate object of (in this case anonymous) class implementing Runnable. My question is: is it necessary to use Runnable in this example? Can I use any different interface? I mean I can create new interface with single method i.e. interface MyInterface{ void doThis(); } then change look of myMethod: void myMethod(MyInterface myObject){ myObject.doThis(); } And of course client too: public static void main(String args[]) { try { myMethod(new MyInterface (){ public void doThis() { //do something...; }}); } catch (Throwable t) { } } Or maybe something is about Runnable?!

    Read the article

  • Explicit or implicit execution control statement use

    - by Andrei Rinea
    I sometimes use if (this._currentToolForeColor.HasValue) return this._currentToolForeColor.Value; else throw new InvalidOperationException(); other times I use if (this._currentToolForeColor.HasValue) return this._currentToolForeColor.Value; throw new InvalidOperationException(); The two are equivalent, I know, but I am not sure which is the best and why. This goes even further as you can use other execution-control statements such as brake or continue : while(something) { if(condition) { DoThis(); continue; } else break; } versus while(something) { if(condition) { DoThis(); continue; } break; } EDIT 1 : Yes the loop example(s) suck because they are synthetic (i.e.: made up for this question) unlike the first which is practical.

    Read the article

  • Is it bad practise to initialise fields outside of an explicit constructor

    - by MrTortoise
    So its monday and we are arguing about coding practises. The examples here are a litttle too simple, but the real deal has several constructors. In order to initialise the simple values (eg dates to their min value) I have moved the code out of the constructors and into the field definitions. public class ConstructorExample { string _string = "John"; } public class ConstructorExample2 { string _string; public ConstructorExample2() { _string = "John"; } } How should it be done by the book. I tend to be very case by case and so am maybe a little lax abotu this kind of thing. However i feel that accams razor tells me to move the initialisation out of multiple constructors. Of course I could always move this shared initialisation into a private method. The question is essentially ... is initialising fields where they are defined as opposed to the constructor bad in any way? The argument I am facing is one of error handling, but i do not feel it is relevant as there are no possible exceptions that won't be picked up at compile time.

    Read the article

  • SVN Subversion use explicit cached credentials

    - by Nick
    I am trying to run a SVN command in a script, but the script is launched as a system service that has cached svn username/password credentials. I could always just put the username/password arguments in the command: svn info --username bob --password pass but I'd rather not have my username/password just sitting in a text file. I've discovered that my cached credentails (when run svn normally) end up here: C:\Documents and Settings\bob\Application Data\Subversion\auth\svn.simple\6ef188c2163f1ccc860a690b7ad21a15 Is there any way I could copy this cached credential file to where my script exists and just call that file explicitly?

    Read the article

  • scala implicit or explicit conversion from iterator to iterable

    - by landon9720
    Does Scala provide a built-in class, utility, syntax, or other mechanism for converting (by wrapping) an Iterator with an Iterable? For example, I have an Iterator[Foo] and I need an Iterable[Foo], so currently I am: val foo1: Iterator[Foo] = .... val foo2: Iterable[Foo] = new Iterable[Foo] { def elements = foo1 } This seems ugly and unnecessary. What's a better way?

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24  | Next Page >