Search Results

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

Page 173/1790 | < Previous Page | 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180  | Next Page >

  • Minimizing SQL transaction log file size on developer box running simple recovery model

    - by Anders Rask
    We have alot of SQL servers on development environment where we never take backup of the databases (TFS for code is enough). The (SharePoint) databases are all set to simple recovery model, but the log files, especially for the SharePoint configuration database is growing quite large and filling up our data drive on the SQL server. Since these log files are never used for anything, i would like advice on how to best minimize the size of these log files -or even disable them if possible. I'm not completely sure why the log files grow so large even on simple logging (checked for long running transactions (DBCC OPENTRAN) but found none). I guess the reason for the log files not being truncated is, that we dont take any backups, and hence Checkpoints arent reached. The autogrowth for log files are set to autogrow by 10% restricted to 2 gb, so i guess that is why Checkpoint (70%) arent reached here either. What would be the be best strategy to keep log files small (best case 0) without sacrificing performance (eg VLF fragmentation)?

    Read the article

  • Entity Data Model with Oracle

    - by Sridhar
    Hi, I'm using VS 2008 SP1. I want to create an edmx file using my existing database in Oracle 10g. I tried to add ADO.Net Entity Data Model item, but in the Entity Data Model Wizard, .NET Provider for Oracle does not show up. Can someone suggest a way to connect to existing Oracle database to generate the edmx file? Thanks.

    Read the article

  • network design to segregate public and staff

    - by barb
    My current setup has: a pfsense firewall with 4 NICs and potential for a 5th 1 48 port 3com switch, 1 24 port HP switch, willing to purchase more subnet 1) edge (Windows Server 2003 for vpn through routing and remote access) and subnet 2) LAN with one WS2003 domain controller/dns/wins etc., one WS2008 file server, one WS2003 running Vipre anti-virus and Time Limit Manager which controls client computer use, and about 50 pcs I am looking for a network design for separating clients and staff. I could do two totally isolated subnets, but I'm wondering if there is anything in between so that staff and clients could share some resources such as printers and anti-virus servers, staff could access client resources, but not vice versa. I guess what I'm asking is can you configure subnets and/or vlans like this: 1)edge for vpn 2)services available to all other internal networks 3)staff which can access services and clients 4)clients which can access services but not staff By access/non-access, I mean stronger separation than domain usernames and passwords.

    Read the article

  • Improving as a coder with respect to design.

    - by dmarakaki
    As a soon-to-be computer science graduate, I have to come realization that I have a long way to go when it comes to the overall design of an application. After spending many semesters of programming from the hip I have come to appreciate the mulling over the needs of an application before diving head first into the coding portion. My question is to the intermediate and expert programmers, how can I improve in the area of the design phase of development?

    Read the article

  • asp.net MVC binding specific model results in error for post request

    - by Tomh
    Hi I'm having the following two actions defined in my controller [Authorize] [HttpGet] public ActionResult Edit() { ViewData.Model = HttpContext.User.Identity; return View(); } [Authorize] [HttpPost] public ActionResult Edit(User model) { return View(); } However if I post my editted data to the second action I get the following error: Server Error in '/' Application. An item with the same key has already been added. Description: An unhandled exception occurred during the execution of the current web request. Please review the stack trace for more information about the error and where it originated in the code. Exception Details: System.ArgumentException: An item with the same key has already been added. Source Error: An unhandled exception was generated during the execution of the current web request. Information regarding the origin and location of the exception can be identified using the exception stack trace below. I tried several things like renaming parameters and removing editable fields, but it seems the model type is the problem, what could be wrong? Stack Trace: [ArgumentException: An item with the same key has already been added.] System.ThrowHelper.ThrowArgumentException(ExceptionResource resource) +51 System.Collections.Generic.Dictionary`2.Insert(TKey key, TValue value, Boolean add) +7464444 System.Linq.Enumerable.ToDictionary(IEnumerable`1 source, Func`2 keySelector, Func`2 elementSelector, IEqualityComparer`1 comparer) +270 System.Linq.Enumerable.ToDictionary(IEnumerable`1 source, Func`2 keySelector, IEqualityComparer`1 comparer) +102 System.Web.Mvc.ModelBindingContext.get_PropertyMetadata() +157 System.Web.Mvc.DefaultModelBinder.BindProperty(ControllerContext controllerContext, ModelBindingContext bindingContext, PropertyDescriptor propertyDescriptor) +158 System.Web.Mvc.DefaultModelBinder.BindProperties(ControllerContext controllerContext, ModelBindingContext bindingContext) +90 System.Web.Mvc.DefaultModelBinder.BindComplexElementalModel(ControllerContext controllerContext, ModelBindingContext bindingContext, Object model) +50 System.Web.Mvc.DefaultModelBinder.BindComplexModel(ControllerContext controllerContext, ModelBindingContext bindingContext) +1048 System.Web.Mvc.DefaultModelBinder.BindModel(ControllerContext controllerContext, ModelBindingContext bindingContext) +280 System.Web.Mvc.ControllerActionInvoker.GetParameterValue(ControllerContext controllerContext, ParameterDescriptor parameterDescriptor) +257 System.Web.Mvc.ControllerActionInvoker.GetParameterValues(ControllerContext controllerContext, ActionDescriptor actionDescriptor) +109 System.Web.Mvc.ControllerActionInvoker.InvokeAction(ControllerContext controllerContext, String actionName) +314 System.Web.Mvc.Controller.ExecuteCore() +105 System.Web.Mvc.ControllerBase.Execute(RequestContext requestContext) +39 System.Web.Mvc.ControllerBase.System.Web.Mvc.IController.Execute(RequestContext requestContext) +7 System.Web.Mvc.<>c__DisplayClass8.<BeginProcessRequest>b__4() +34 System.Web.Mvc.Async.<>c__DisplayClass1.<MakeVoidDelegate>b__0() +21 System.Web.Mvc.Async.<>c__DisplayClass8`1.<BeginSynchronous>b__7(IAsyncResult _) +12 System.Web.Mvc.Async.WrappedAsyncResult`1.End() +59 System.Web.Mvc.MvcHandler.EndProcessRequest(IAsyncResult asyncResult) +44 System.Web.Mvc.MvcHandler.System.Web.IHttpAsyncHandler.EndProcessRequest(IAsyncResult result) +7 System.Web.CallHandlerExecutionStep.System.Web.HttpApplication.IExecutionStep.Execute() +8679150 System.Web.HttpApplication.ExecuteStep(IExecutionStep step, Boolean& completedSynchronously) +155

    Read the article

  • Copying contents of a model

    - by Hulk
    If there exists an old data of a model say , query=Emp.objects.filter(pk=profile.id) Is there a easier way to copy the same values into the same model again.. Now that the id will be different so.. I have this requirement. Thanks..

    Read the article

  • The Incremental Architect&acute;s Napkin &ndash; #3 &ndash; Make Evolvability inevitable

    - by Ralf Westphal
    Originally posted on: http://geekswithblogs.net/theArchitectsNapkin/archive/2014/06/04/the-incremental-architectacutes-napkin-ndash-3-ndash-make-evolvability-inevitable.aspxThe easier something to measure the more likely it will be produced. Deviations between what is and what should be can be readily detected. That´s what automated acceptance tests are for. That´s what sprint reviews in Scrum are for. It´s no small wonder our software looks like it looks. It has all the traits whose conformance with requirements can easily be measured. And it´s lacking traits which cannot easily be measured. Evolvability (or Changeability) is such a trait. If an operation is correct, if an operation if fast enough, that can be checked very easily. But whether Evolvability is high or low, that cannot be checked by taking a measure or two. Evolvability might correlate with certain traits, e.g. number of lines of code (LOC) per function or Cyclomatic Complexity or test coverage. But there is no threshold value signalling “evolvability too low”; also Evolvability is hardly tangible for the customer. Nevertheless Evolvability is of great importance - at least in the long run. You can get away without much of it for a short time. Eventually, though, it´s needed like any other requirement. Or even more. Because without Evolvability no other requirement can be implemented. Evolvability is the foundation on which all else is build. Such fundamental importance is in stark contrast with its immeasurability. To compensate this, Evolvability must be put at the very center of software development. It must become the hub around everything else revolves. Since we cannot measure Evolvability, though, we cannot start watching it more. Instead we need to establish practices to keep it high (enough) at all times. Chefs have known that for long. That´s why everybody in a restaurant kitchen is constantly seeing after cleanliness. Hygiene is important as is to have clean tools at standardized locations. Only then the health of the patrons can be guaranteed and production efficiency is constantly high. Still a kitchen´s level of cleanliness is easier to measure than software Evolvability. That´s why important practices like reviews, pair programming, or TDD are not enough, I guess. What we need to keep Evolvability in focus and high is… to continually evolve. Change must not be something to avoid but too embrace. To me that means the whole change cycle from requirement analysis to delivery needs to be gone through more often. Scrum´s sprints of 4, 2 even 1 week are too long. Kanban´s flow of user stories across is too unreliable; it takes as long as it takes. Instead we should fix the cycle time at 2 days max. I call that Spinning. No increment must take longer than from this morning until tomorrow evening to finish. Then it should be acceptance checked by the customer (or his/her representative, e.g. a Product Owner). For me there are several resasons for such a fixed and short cycle time for each increment: Clear expectations Absolute estimates (“This will take X days to complete.”) are near impossible in software development as explained previously. Too much unplanned research and engineering work lurk in every feature. And then pervasive interruptions of work by peers and management. However, the smaller the scope the better our absolute estimates become. That´s because we understand better what really are the requirements and what the solution should look like. But maybe more importantly the shorter the timespan the more we can control how we use our time. So much can happen over the course of a week and longer timespans. But if push comes to shove I can block out all distractions and interruptions for a day or possibly two. That´s why I believe we can give rough absolute estimates on 3 levels: Noon Tonight Tomorrow Think of a meeting with a Product Owner at 8:30 in the morning. If she asks you, how long it will take you to implement a user story or bug fix, you can say, “It´ll be fixed by noon.”, or you can say, “I can manage to implement it until tonight before I leave.”, or you can say, “You´ll get it by tomorrow night at latest.” Yes, I believe all else would be naive. If you´re not confident to get something done by tomorrow night (some 34h from now) you just cannot reliably commit to any timeframe. That means you should not promise anything, you should not even start working on the issue. So when estimating use these four categories: Noon, Tonight, Tomorrow, NoClue - with NoClue meaning the requirement needs to be broken down further so each aspect can be assigned to one of the first three categories. If you like absolute estimates, here you go. But don´t do deep estimates. Don´t estimate dozens of issues; don´t think ahead (“Issue A is a Tonight, then B will be a Tomorrow, after that it´s C as a Noon, finally D is a Tonight - that´s what I´ll do this week.”). Just estimate so Work-in-Progress (WIP) is 1 for everybody - plus a small number of buffer issues. To be blunt: Yes, this makes promises impossible as to what a team will deliver in terms of scope at a certain date in the future. But it will give a Product Owner a clear picture of what to pull for acceptance feedback tonight and tomorrow. Trust through reliability Our trade is lacking trust. Customers don´t trust software companies/departments much. Managers don´t trust developers much. I find that perfectly understandable in the light of what we´re trying to accomplish: delivering software in the face of uncertainty by means of material good production. Customers as well as managers still expect software development to be close to production of houses or cars. But that´s a fundamental misunderstanding. Software development ist development. It´s basically research. As software developers we´re constantly executing experiments to find out what really provides value to users. We don´t know what they need, we just have mediated hypothesises. That´s why we cannot reliably deliver on preposterous demands. So trust is out of the window in no time. If we switch to delivering in short cycles, though, we can regain trust. Because estimates - explicit or implicit - up to 32 hours at most can be satisfied. I´d say: reliability over scope. It´s more important to reliably deliver what was promised then to cover a lot of requirement area. So when in doubt promise less - but deliver without delay. Deliver on scope (Functionality and Quality); but also deliver on Evolvability, i.e. on inner quality according to accepted principles. Always. Trust will be the reward. Less complexity of communication will follow. More goodwill buffer will follow. So don´t wait for some Kanban board to show you, that flow can be improved by scheduling smaller stories. You don´t need to learn that the hard way. Just start with small batch sizes of three different sizes. Fast feedback What has been finished can be checked for acceptance. Why wait for a sprint of several weeks to end? Why let the mental model of the issue and its solution dissipate? If you get final feedback after one or two weeks, you hardly remember what you did and why you did it. Resoning becomes hard. But more importantly youo probably are not in the mood anymore to go back to something you deemed done a long time ago. It´s boring, it´s frustrating to open up that mental box again. Learning is harder the longer it takes from event to feedback. Effort can be wasted between event (finishing an issue) and feedback, because other work might go in the wrong direction based on false premises. Checking finished issues for acceptance is the most important task of a Product Owner. It´s even more important than planning new issues. Because as long as work started is not released (accepted) it´s potential waste. So before starting new work better make sure work already done has value. By putting the emphasis on acceptance rather than planning true pull is established. As long as planning and starting work is more important, it´s a push process. Accept a Noon issue on the same day before leaving. Accept a Tonight issue before leaving today or first thing tomorrow morning. Accept a Tomorrow issue tomorrow night before leaving or early the day after tomorrow. After acceptance the developer(s) can start working on the next issue. Flexibility As if reliability/trust and fast feedback for less waste weren´t enough economic incentive, there is flexibility. After each issue the Product Owner can change course. If on Monday morning feature slices A, B, C, D, E were important and A, B, C were scheduled for acceptance by Monday evening and Tuesday evening, the Product Owner can change her mind at any time. Maybe after A got accepted she asks for continuation with D. But maybe, just maybe, she has gotten a completely different idea by then. Maybe she wants work to continue on F. And after B it´s neither D nor E, but G. And after G it´s D. With Spinning every 32 hours at latest priorities can be changed. And nothing is lost. Because what got accepted is of value. It provides an incremental value to the customer/user. Or it provides internal value to the Product Owner as increased knowledge/decreased uncertainty. I find such reactivity over commitment economically very benefical. Why commit a team to some workload for several weeks? It´s unnecessary at beast, and inflexible and wasteful at worst. If we cannot promise delivery of a certain scope on a certain date - which is what customers/management usually want -, we can at least provide them with unpredecented flexibility in the face of high uncertainty. Where the path is not clear, cannot be clear, make small steps so you´re able to change your course at any time. Premature completion Customers/management are used to premeditating budgets. They want to know exactly how much to pay for a certain amount of requirements. That´s understandable. But it does not match with the nature of software development. We should know that by now. Maybe there´s somewhere in the world some team who can consistently deliver on scope, quality, and time, and budget. Great! Congratulations! I, however, haven´t seen such a team yet. Which does not mean it´s impossible, but I think it´s nothing I can recommend to strive for. Rather I´d say: Don´t try this at home. It might hurt you one way or the other. However, what we can do, is allow customers/management stop work on features at any moment. With spinning every 32 hours a feature can be declared as finished - even though it might not be completed according to initial definition. I think, progress over completion is an important offer software development can make. Why think in terms of completion beyond a promise for the next 32 hours? Isn´t it more important to constantly move forward? Step by step. We´re not running sprints, we´re not running marathons, not even ultra-marathons. We´re in the sport of running forever. That makes it futile to stare at the finishing line. The very concept of a burn-down chart is misleading (in most cases). Whoever can only think in terms of completed requirements shuts out the chance for saving money. The requirements for a features mostly are uncertain. So how does a Product Owner know in the first place, how much is needed. Maybe more than specified is needed - which gets uncovered step by step with each finished increment. Maybe less than specified is needed. After each 4–32 hour increment the Product Owner can do an experient (or invite users to an experiment) if a particular trait of the software system is already good enough. And if so, she can switch the attention to a different aspect. In the end, requirements A, B, C then could be finished just 70%, 80%, and 50%. What the heck? It´s good enough - for now. 33% money saved. Wouldn´t that be splendid? Isn´t that a stunning argument for any budget-sensitive customer? You can save money and still get what you need? Pull on practices So far, in addition to more trust, more flexibility, less money spent, Spinning led to “doing less” which also means less code which of course means higher Evolvability per se. Last but not least, though, I think Spinning´s short acceptance cycles have one more effect. They excert pull-power on all sorts of practices known for increasing Evolvability. If, for example, you believe high automated test coverage helps Evolvability by lowering the fear of inadverted damage to a code base, why isn´t 90% of the developer community practicing automated tests consistently? I think, the answer is simple: Because they can do without. Somehow they manage to do enough manual checks before their rare releases/acceptance checks to ensure good enough correctness - at least in the short term. The same goes for other practices like component orientation, continuous build/integration, code reviews etc. None of that is compelling, urgent, imperative. Something else always seems more important. So Evolvability principles and practices fall through the cracks most of the time - until a project hits a wall. Then everybody becomes desperate; but by then (re)gaining Evolvability has become as very, very difficult and tedious undertaking. Sometimes up to the point where the existence of a project/company is in danger. With Spinning that´s different. If you´re practicing Spinning you cannot avoid all those practices. With Spinning you very quickly realize you cannot deliver reliably even on your 32 hour promises. Spinning thus is pulling on developers to adopt principles and practices for Evolvability. They will start actively looking for ways to keep their delivery rate high. And if not, management will soon tell them to do that. Because first the Product Owner then management will notice an increasing difficulty to deliver value within 32 hours. There, finally there emerges a way to measure Evolvability: The more frequent developers tell the Product Owner there is no way to deliver anything worth of feedback until tomorrow night, the poorer Evolvability is. Don´t count the “WTF!”, count the “No way!” utterances. In closing For sustainable software development we need to put Evolvability first. Functionality and Quality must not rule software development but be implemented within a framework ensuring (enough) Evolvability. Since Evolvability cannot be measured easily, I think we need to put software development “under pressure”. Software needs to be changed more often, in smaller increments. Each increment being relevant to the customer/user in some way. That does not mean each increment is worthy of shipment. It´s sufficient to gain further insight from it. Increments primarily serve the reduction of uncertainty, not sales. Sales even needs to be decoupled from this incremental progress. No more promises to sales. No more delivery au point. Rather sales should look at a stream of accepted increments (or incremental releases) and scoup from that whatever they find valuable. Sales and marketing need to realize they should work on what´s there, not what might be possible in the future. But I digress… In my view a Spinning cycle - which is not easy to reach, which requires practice - is the core practice to compensate the immeasurability of Evolvability. From start to finish of each issue in 32 hours max - that´s the challenge we need to accept if we´re serious increasing Evolvability. Fortunately higher Evolvability is not the only outcome of Spinning. Customer/management will like the increased flexibility and “getting more bang for the buck”.

    Read the article

  • Need help using the DefaultModelBinder for a nested model.

    - by Will
    There are a few related questions, but I can't find an answer that works. Assuming I have the following models: public class EditorViewModel { public Account Account {get;set;} public string SomeSimpleStuff {get;set;} } public class Account { public string AccountName {get;set;} public int MorePrimitivesFollow {get;set;} } and a view that extends ViewPage<EditorViewModel> which does the following: <%= Html.TextBoxFor(model => model.Account.AccountName)%> <%= Html.ValidationMessageFor(model => model.Account.AccountName)%> <%= Html.TextBoxFor(model => model.SomeSimpleStuff )%> <%= Html.ValidationMessageFor(model => model.SomeSimpleStuff )%> and my controller looks like: [HttpPost] public virtual ActionResult Edit(EditorViewModel account) { /*...*/ } How can I get the DefaultModelBinder to properly bind my EditorViewModel? Without doing anything special, I get an empty instance of my EditorViewModel with everything null or default. The closest I've come is by calling UpdateModel manually: [HttpPost] public virtual ActionResult Edit(EditorViewModel account) { account.Account = new Account(); UpdateModel(account.Account, "Account"); // this kills me: UpdateModel(account); This successfully updates my Account property model, but when I call UpdateModel on account (to get the rest of the public properties of my EditorViewModel) I get the completely unhelpful "The model of type ... could not be updated." There is no inner exception, so I can't figure out what's going wrong. What should I do with this?

    Read the article

  • SQL Developer Data Modeler v3.3 Early Adopter: Collaborative Design via Excel?

    - by thatjeffsmith
    As you may have heard last week, we have a new version of Oracle SQL Developer Data Modeler now available as an Early Adopter release. Version 3.3 has quite a few new features and I’ll be previewing them here. Today’s topic is our new Excel integration. It builds off of last week’s lesson: Search, so you may want to go read that first. They say it takes a village to raise a child. I say it takes a team to build a data model. You have your techie folks, your business folks, your in-betweeners, and your database geeks. Who gets to define how customers are represented and stored in your database? That data lives forever, so you better get it right from the beginning, or you’ll be living in a hacker’s paradise for years to come. Lots of good rantings, ravings, and advice on this topic in general on Karen Lopez’s (@datachick) blog. But let’s say you are the primary modeler on a project. You dutifully interview the business folks for their requirements. You sit down and start to model and think you’re pretty close. Now you need someone to confirm your assumptions and provide some feedback. Do you send your model over? Take a screenshot and blow it up on a whiteboard? Export to HTML and let them take a magic marker to their monitors? Or maybe you bite the bullet and install your modeling software on their desktops and take the hours or days required to train them up on how to use the the tool. Wouldn’t it be nice if they could just mark up their corrections in Excel and let you suck the updates back in? This is what we have started to build in Oracle SQL Developer Data Modeler. Let’s say you have a new table called ‘UT_STARTUPS.’ It looks a little something like this: A table in Oracle SQL Developer Data Modeler What I would like to do is have my team or co-worker review how I have defined those columns. Perhaps TIMESTAMP is overkill or maybe the column names themselves aren’t up to snuff. What I am going to do is now search for all the columns in my table, then export that to Excel. So do a search for UT_STARTUPS. Search, filter, then Report With the filter set to ‘Columns,’ if I do a report I’ll be only getting the columns that are resolving to my search term. So as long as my table name is unique in the model, I should get what I’m looking for. Here’s what I see when I click on the Report button: XLS or XLSX, either format is just fine I want to decide how the Column data is exported to Excel though, so I’m going to create a report template that I can use going forward. So click the ‘Manage’ button and setup a new template. I’m going to call mine ‘CollaborativeDevelopment.’ The templates allow me to define what properties are included in the reports. Once this is set, I’ll have the XLS file generated, and get to work Now let the Excel junkies do their stuff Note that not ALL of the report properties are update-able (yes, I made up a new word there) via Excel. We’ll have the full list of properties documented going forward, but in my Excel sheet, note that I can’t change the table name or the data types for the columns. I’m going to update some column names and supply ‘nice’ comments so the database users know what’s what. Here’s my input for the designer/architect/database dude: Be kind, please rew…use comments. Save the file, email it back to your modeler. Update the model from Excel That’s right, it’s a right mouse click from your model in the tree If everything goes right, you’ll see a nice confirmation message: It’s alive! Another to-do item on tap – making this dialog more informative. We’ll be showing exactly what in your model was updated from Excel. Let’s take another look at the model now Voila! Why are we doing this again? The goal is to reduce the number of round-trips from the modeler and the business process owner. One is used to working with Excel – why not allow them to mark up their changes in the tool they already know? This is an early adopter release and I anticipate this feature getting a good bit of tuning up before we release. Why don’t you download 3.3, give it a whirl, and let us know what you think?

    Read the article

  • Filtering manager for django model, customized by user

    - by valya
    Hi there! I have a model, smth like this: class Action(models.Model): def can_be_applied(self, user): #whatever return True and I want to override its default Manager. But I don't know how to pass the current user variable to the manager, so I have to do smth like this: [act for act in Action.objects.all() if act.can_be_applied(current_user)] How do I get rid of it by just overriding the manager? Thanks.

    Read the article

  • How can I assign more than one ValueProvider to ModelBindingContext when testing a custom model bind

    - by Byron Sommardahl
    I have a custom model binder that uses data from session, tempdata, and form collection (hypothetically, of course!). When testing my model binder, need to create a ModelBindingContext with a ValueProvider. Trouble is, I can't see how I can have one ValueProvider that serves multiple value provider types. Any words of wisdom? ValidModelBindingContext = new ModelBindingContext { ModelName = "SomeModel", ValueProvider = ValidFormValueCollection };

    Read the article

  • CakePHP - How to use onError in Model

    - by Richard
    I've created a custom datasource which fetches data from a web api, and I'm now looking at implementing error handling. In the datasource, I'm calling $model-onError(). In the model, I've created the onError method, and I can access error details with $this-getDataSource()-error; However I can't redirect or set a flash message because that can only take place in the controller, so what should I be doing here to communicate the error to the user?

    Read the article

  • Get all model details in zend.

    - by Prasanth P
    Hi, I have one doubt in zend framework. I need all model details from project which i have done in zend framework. Is there any possibility to get all model details in zend framework. Please help me.. Thanks and regards, Prasanth P

    Read the article

  • counter_cache rails a child creation should increment the count intwo different models based on cond

    - by aditi-syal
    Hi, I have 3 models Recommendation Job Qualification Recommendation model has two fields as work_type and work_id(foreign key for job/qualification based on work_type as "J"/"Q") I am facing problem in using counter_cache I have done this in recommendation.rb belongs_to :job , :counter_cache = true, :foreign_key = "work_id" belongs_to :qualification , :counter_cache = true, :foreign_key = "work_id" and in job and qualification model files has_many :recommendations , :conditions = {:work_type = "J"} has_many :recommendations , :conditions = {:work_type = "Q"} Both Job and Qualification Models have a column as recommendations_count The problem is every time an object of recommendation is created count is increased in the both the models Please help me with this Thanks

    Read the article

  • Django model: Reference foreign key table in __unicode__ function for admin

    - by pa
    Example models: class Parent(models.Model): name = models.CharField() def __unicode__(self): return self.name class Child(models.Model): parent = models.ForeignKey(Parent) def __unicode__(self): return self.parent.name # Would reference name above I'm wanting the Child.unicode to refer to Parent.name, mostly for the admin section so I don't end up with "Child object" or similar, I'd prefer to display it more like "Child of ". Is this possible? Most of what I've tried hasn't worked unfortunately.

    Read the article

  • Cancel table design change in SQL Server 2000

    - by Bryce Wagner
    In SQL Server Enterprise Manager and change one of the columns and save it, it will create a table with the new definition, and copy all the data to that new table, and then delete the old table when it's done. But if your table is large (let's say on the order of 100GB), it can take a long time to do this. Even worse, if you don't have sufficient disk space, it doesn't notice ahead of time, and it will spend a long time trying to copy the table, run out of space, and then decide to abort the process. We have other ways to copy the data in smaller chunks, but those require significantly more manual intervention, so it's usually easier to just let Enterprise Manager figure it out, as long as there's enough disk space. So for a long running "Design Table" save like this, is there any way to cancel once it's started? Or do you just have to wait for it to fail?

    Read the article

  • Code Generation(based on templates) for COCOA

    - by Vikas
    Hi, I have written a library for I-phone which is based upon some object models(whose definitions I get via XML). Now I have one implementation for a sample model ready but to make the code library generic I want to write an application where I can templatize the code and provide placeholders for data model specific points. Is there any tool available for Xcode to enable me do this. In java "Velocity" does this job for me. Regards, Vikas

    Read the article

  • Remote site AD design (2003)

    - by Boy Mars
    A remote site has about 25 of our 50-ish employees. They have their own AD domain presently (2003) but I want to look at getting them onto the same global domain for ease of access/administration. The remote site has a VPN link but line speeds are very poor. I am already aware of tools like ADMT and have done a few migrations in the past (NT/2003 domains), but this is the first time I have the luxury of designing how this domain is organised. So I'm looking for tips on good AD design; would a remote site be better served as a sub-domain? would this reduce traffic? I am only currently looking at 2003 since only existing machine will be used.

    Read the article

  • Default value for hidden field in Django model

    - by Daniel Garcia
    I have this Model: class Occurrence(models.Model): id = models.AutoField(primary_key=True, null=True) reference = models.IntegerField(null=True, editable=False) def save(self): self.collection = self.id super(Occurrence, self).save() I want for the reference field to be hidden and at the same time have the same value as id. This code works if the editable=True but if i want to hide it it doesnt change the value of reference. how can i fix that?

    Read the article

  • Routes on a sphere surface - Find geodesic?

    - by CaNNaDaRk
    I'm working with some friends on a browser based game where people can move on a 2D map. It's been almost 7 years and still people play this game so we are thinking of a way to give them something new. Since then the game map was a limited plane and people could move from (0, 0) to (MAX_X, MAX_Y) in quantized X and Y increments (just imagine it as a big chessboard). We believe it's time to give it another dimension so, just a couple of weeks ago, we began to wonder how the game could look with other mappings: Unlimited plane with continous movement: this could be a step forward but still i'm not convinced. Toroidal World (continous or quantized movement): sincerely I worked with torus before but this time I want something more... Spherical world with continous movement: this would be great! What we want Users browsers are given a list of coordinates like (latitude, longitude) for each object on the spherical surface map; browsers must then show this in user's screen rendering them inside a web element (canvas maybe? this is not a problem). When people click on the plane we convert the (mouseX, mouseY) to (lat, lng) and send it to the server which has to compute a route between current user's position to the clicked point. What we have We began writing a Java library with many useful maths to work with Rotation Matrices, Quaternions, Euler Angles, Translations, etc. We put it all together and created a program that generates sphere points, renders them and show them to the user inside a JPanel. We managed to catch clicks and translate them to spherical coords and to provide some other useful features like view rotation, scale, translation etc. What we have now is like a little (very little indeed) engine that simulates client and server interaction. Client side shows points on the screen and catches other interactions, server side renders the view and does other calculus like interpolating the route between current position and clicked point. Where is the problem? Obviously we want to have the shortest path to interpolate between the two route points. We use quaternions to interpolate between two points on the surface of the sphere and this seemed to work fine until i noticed that we weren't getting the shortest path on the sphere surface: We though the problem was that the route is calculated as the sum of two rotations about X and Y axis. So we changed the way we calculate the destination quaternion: We get the third angle (the first is latitude, the second is longitude, the third is the rotation about the vector which points toward our current position) which we called orientation. Now that we have the "orientation" angle we rotate Z axis and then use the result vector as the rotation axis for the destination quaternion (you can see the rotation axis in grey): What we got is the correct route (you can see it lays on a great circle), but we get to this ONLY if the starting route point is at latitude, longitude (0, 0) which means the starting vector is (sphereRadius, 0, 0). With the previous version (image 1) we don't get a good result even when startin point is 0, 0, so i think we're moving towards a solution, but the procedure we follow to get this route is a little "strange" maybe? In the following image you get a view of the problem we get when starting point is not (0, 0), as you can see starting point is not the (sphereRadius, 0, 0) vector, and as you can see the destination point (which is correctly drawn!) is not on the route. The magenta point (the one which lays on the route) is the route's ending point rotated about the center of the sphere of (-startLatitude, 0, -startLongitude). This means that if i calculate a rotation matrix and apply it to every point on the route maybe i'll get the real route, but I start to think that there's a better way to do this. Maybe I should try to get the plane through the center of the sphere and the route points, intersect it with the sphere and get the geodesic? But how? Sorry for being way too verbose and maybe for incorrect English but this thing is blowing my mind! EDIT: This code version is related to the first image: public void setRouteStart(double lat, double lng) { EulerAngles tmp = new EulerAngles ( Math.toRadians(lat), 0, -Math.toRadians(lng)); //set route start Quaternion qtStart.setInertialToObject(tmp); //do other stuff like drawing start point... } public void impostaDestinazione(double lat, double lng) { EulerAngles tmp = new AngoliEulero( Math.toRadians(lat), 0, -Math.toRadians(lng)); qtEnd.setInertialToObject(tmp); //do other stuff like drawing dest point... } public V3D interpolate(double totalTime, double t) { double _t = t/totalTime; Quaternion q = Quaternion.Slerp(qtStart, qtEnd, _t); RotationMatrix.inertialQuatToIObject(q); V3D p = matInt.inertialToObject(V3D.Xaxis.scale(sphereRadius)); //other stuff, like drawing point ... return p; } //mostly taken from a book! public static Quaternion Slerp(Quaternion q0, Quaternion q1, double t) { double cosO = q0.dot(q1); double q1w = q1.w; double q1x = q1.x; double q1y = q1.y; double q1z = q1.z; if (cosO < 0.0f) { q1w = -q1w; q1x = -q1x; q1y = -q1y; q1z = -q1z; cosO = -cosO; } double sinO = Math.sqrt(1.0f - cosO*cosO); double O = Math.atan2(sinO, cosO); double oneOverSinO = 1.0f / senoOmega; k0 = Math.sin((1.0f - t) * O) * oneOverSinO; k1 = Math.sin(t * O) * oneOverSinO; // Interpolate return new Quaternion( k0*q0.w + k1*q1w, k0*q0.x + k1*q1x, k0*q0.y + k1*q1y, k0*q0.z + k1*q1z ); } A little dump of what i get (again check image 1): Route info: Sphere radius and center: 200,000, (0.0, 0.0, 0.0) Route start: lat 0,000 °, lng 0,000 ° @v: (200,000, 0,000, 0,000), |v| = 200,000 Route end: lat 30,000 °, lng 30,000 ° @v: (150,000, 86,603, 100,000), |v| = 200,000 Qt dump: (w, x, y, z), rot. angle°, (x, y, z) rot. axis Qt start: (1,000, 0,000, -0,000, 0,000); 0,000 °; (1,000, 0,000, 0,000) Qt end: (0,933, 0,067, -0,250, 0,250); 42,181 °; (0,186, -0,695, 0,695) Route start: lat 30,000 °, lng 10,000 ° @v: (170,574, 30,077, 100,000), |v| = 200,000 Route end: lat 80,000 °, lng -50,000 ° @v: (22,324, -26,604, 196,962), |v| = 200,000 Qt dump: (w, x, y, z), rot. angle°, (x, y, z) rot. axis Qt start: (0,962, 0,023, -0,258, 0,084); 31,586 °; (0,083, -0,947, 0,309) Qt end: (0,694, -0,272, -0,583, -0,324); 92,062 °; (-0,377, -0,809, -0,450)

    Read the article

  • Creating a Model using Stored Procedures with Zend Framework

    - by jwhat
    I'm using Zend Framework and I'd like to build a model to perform read/write operations on a database... using stored procedures. I know how stored procedures work, but I have yet to use them within Zend Framework. Is there any built in support for stored procedures that I should know about? What is the best practice way to create a model in this senario? Should I extend Zend_Db_Table_Abstract or some other class?

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180  | Next Page >