Search Results

Search found 6401 results on 257 pages for 'extends relationship'.

Page 19/257 | < Previous Page | 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26  | Next Page >

  • Core Data not-reverse relationship subquery

    - by user561485
    Hi, I have the following entities in CoreData: Village - villageID Bookmark - (relation) village There are multiple villages with each an unique villageID. I have a entity Bookmark which only has a relation to a Village entity; it isn't possible to make a reverse relation. Now I would like to get the village entities where there exists a Bookmark relation. I've red something about subqueries, but I can't get it right for this situation. It must be something like: Village.villageID IN (Bookmark.village.villageID) It isn't possible to get first all the Bookmarks and then loop to get all the Villages, because of the design of the framework. Can this be done in CoreData (I presume the answer is "Yes, of course!") and how?

    Read the article

  • Rails: bi-directional has_many :through relationship

    - by Chris
    I have three models in a Rails application: Game represents an instance of a game being played. Player represents an instance of a participant in a game. User represents a registered person who can participate in games. Each Game can have many Players, and each User can have many Players (a single person can participate in multiple games at once); but each Player is in precisely one Game, and represents precisely one User. Hence, my relationships are as follows at present. class Game has_many :players end class User has_many :players end class Player belongs_to :game belongs_to :user end ... where naturally the players table has game_id and user_id columns, but games and users have no foreign keys. I would also like to represent the fact that each Game has many Users playing in it; and each User has many Games in which they are playing. How do I do this? Is it enough to add class Game has_many :users, :through => :players end class User has_many :games, :through => :players end

    Read the article

  • How to relate keywords to records - Many to Many

    - by webworm
    Hi All, I am looking for suggestions on database design for a sample jobs listing application. I have many jobs that I would like to associate various keywords with. Each job can have multiple keywords. I would like to store the keywords in a seperate table instead of in a field within the Job table so as to avoid mispellings in keywords. What is the best way to relate keywords to the jobs? I was thinking of using an intermediary table that would have a many to many relationship linking keywords to jobs. Is this the best way to go or should I just have a field in the Job table that contains multiple keywords? Thanks for any suggestions.

    Read the article

  • Entity framework Update fails when object is linked to a missing child

    - by McKay
    I’m having trouble updating an objects child when the object has a reference to a nonexising child record. eg. Tables Car and CarColor have a relationship. Car.CarColorId CarColor.CarColorId If I load the car with its color record like so this var result = from x in database.Car.Include("CarColor") where x.CarId = 5 select x; I'll get back the Car object and it’s Color object. Now suppose that some time ago a CarColor had been deleted but the Car record in question still contains the CarColorId value. So when I run the query the Color object is null because the CarColor record didn’t exist. My problem here is that when I attach another Color object that does exist I get a Store update, insert error when saving. Car.Color = newColor Database.SaveChanges(); It’s like the context is trying to delete the nonexisting color. How can I get around this?

    Read the article

  • Entity Framework - Store parent reference on child relationship (one -> many)

    - by contactmatt
    I have a setup like this: [Table("tablename...")] public class Branch { public Branch() { Users = new List<User>(); } [Key] public int Id { get; set; } public string Name { get; set; } public List<User> Users { get; set; } } [Table("tablename...")] public class User { [Key] public int Id {get; set; } public string Username { get; set; } public string Password { get; set; } [ForeignKey("ParentBranch")] public int? ParentBranchId { get; set; } // Is this possible? public Branch ParentBranch { get; set; } // ??? } Is it possible for the User to know what parent branch it belongs to? The code above is not working. Entity Framework version 5.0 .NET 4.0 c#

    Read the article

  • Audit many-to-many relationship in NHibernate

    - by Kendrick
    I have implemented listeners to audit changes to tables in my application using IPreUpdateEventListener and IPreInsertEventListener and everything works except for my many-to-many relationships that don't have additional data in the joining table (i.e. I don't have a POCO for the joining table). Each auditable object implements an IAuditable interface, so the event listener checks to see if a POCO is of type IAuditable, and if it is it records any changes to the object. Look up tables implement an IAuditableProperty inteface, so if a property of the IAuditable POCO is pointing to a lookup table, the changes are recorded in the log for the main POCO. So, the question is, how should I determine I'm working with a many-to-many collection and record the changes in my audit table? //first two checks for LastUpdated and LastUpdatedBy ommitted for brevity else if (newState[i] is IAuditable) { //Do nothing, these will record themselves separately } else if (!(newState[i] is IAuditableProperty) && (newState[i] is IList<object> || newState[i] is ISet)) { //Do nothing, this is a collection and individual items will update themselves if they are auditable //I believe this is where my many-to-many values are being lost } else if (!isUpdateEvent || !Equals(oldState[i], newState[i]))//Record only modified fields when updating { changes.Append(preDatabaseEvent.Persister.PropertyNames[i]) .Append(": "); if (newState[i] is IAuditableProperty) { //Record changes to values in lookup tables if (isUpdateEvent) { changes.Append(((IAuditableProperty)oldState[i]).AuditPropertyValue) .Append(" => "); } changes.Append(((IAuditableProperty)newState[i]).AuditPropertyValue); } else { //Record changes for primitive values if(isUpdateEvent) { changes.Append(oldState[i]) .Append(" => "); } changes.Append(newState[i]); } changes.AppendLine(); }

    Read the article

  • Hibernate many-to-many relationship

    - by Capitan
    I have two mapped types, related many-to-many. @Entity @Table(name = "students") public class Student{ ... @ManyToMany(fetch = FetchType.EAGER) @JoinTable( name = "students2courses", joinColumns = { @JoinColumn( name = "student_id", referencedColumnName = "_id") }, inverseJoinColumns = { @JoinColumn( name = "course_id", referencedColumnName = "_id") }) public Set<Course> getCourses() { return courses; } public void setCourses(Set<Course> courses) { this.courses = courses; } ... } __ @Entity @Table(name = "courses") public class Course{ ... @ManyToMany(fetch = FetchType.EAGER, mappedBy = "courses") public Set<Student> getStudents() { return students; } public void setStudents(Set<Student> students) { this.students = students; } ... } But if I update/delete Course entity, records are not created/deleted in table students2courses. (with Student entity updating/deleting goes as expected) I wrote abstract class HibObject public abstract class HibObject { public String getRemoveMTMQuery() { return null; } } which is inherited by Student and Course. In DAO I added this code (for delete() method): String query = obj.getRemoveMTMQuery(); if (query != null) { session.createSQLQuery(query).executeUpdate(); } and I ovrerided method getRemoveMTMQuery() for Course @Override @Transient public String getRemoveMTMQuery() { return "delete from students2courses where course_id = " + id + ";"; } Now it works but I think it's a bad code. Is there a best way to solve this problem?

    Read the article

  • How to insert rows in a many-to-many relationship

    - by GSound
    Hello, I am having an issue trying to save into an intermediate table. I am new on Rails and I have spent a couple of hours on this but can't make it work, maybe I am doing wrong the whole thing. Any help will be appreciated. =) The app is a simple book store, where a logged-in user picks books and then create an order. This error is displayed: NameError in OrderController#create uninitialized constant Order::Orderlist These are my models: class Book < ActiveRecord::Base has_many :orderlists has_many :orders, :through => :orderlists end class Order < ActiveRecord::Base belongs_to :user has_many :orderlists has_many :books, :through => :orderlists end class OrderList < ActiveRecord::Base belongs_to :book belongs_to :order end This is my Order controller: class OrderController < ApplicationController def add if session[:user] book = Book.find(:first, :conditions => ["id = #{params[:id]}"]) if book session[:list].push(book) end redirect_to :controller => "book" else redirect_to :controller => "user" end end def create if session[:user] @order = Order.new if @order.save session[:list].each do |b| @order.orderlists.create(:book => b) # <-- here is my prob I cant make it work end end end redirect_to :controller => "book" end end Thnx in advance! Manuel

    Read the article

  • Core Data to-many relationship in code

    - by Jan Bezemer
    I have three entities: Session, User and Test. A session has 0-many users and a user can perform 0-6 tests. (I say 0 but in the real application always at least 1 is required, at least 1 user for a session and at least 1 test for a user. But I say 0 to express an empty start.) All entities have their own specific data attributes too. A user has a name, A session has a name, a test has six values to be filled in by the user, and so on. But my issue is with the relationships. How do I set multiple users and have them added to one session (same goes for multiple tests for one user). How do I show the content in a right way? How do I show a session that has multiple users and these users having completed multiple tests? Here's my code so far with regard to issue 1: Session *session = [NSEntityDescription insertNewObjectForEntityForName:@"Session" inManagedObjectContext:context]; session.name = @"Session 1"; User *users = [NSEntityDescription insertNewObjectForEntityForName:@"User" inManagedObjectContext:context]; users.age = [NSNumber numberWithInt:28]; users.session = session; //sessie.users = users; [sessie addUserObject:users]; With regard to issue 2: I can log the session, but I can't get the user(s) logged from a session. NSFetchRequest *fetchRequest = [[NSFetchRequest alloc] init]; NSEntityDescription *entity = [NSEntityDescription entityForName:@"Session" inManagedObjectContext:context]; [fetchRequest setEntity:entity]; NSArray *fetchedObjects = [context executeFetchRequest:fetchRequest error:&error]; for (Session *info in fetchedObjects) { NSLog(@"Name: %@", info.name); NSLog(@"Having problems with this: %@",info.user); //User *details = info.user; //NSLog(@"User: %@", details.age); }

    Read the article

  • MySQL: List rows who have one but not another many-to-many relationship

    - by Svish
    Not quite sure how to ask or define this, but can't figure it out. I have three tables like this: persons person_id, first_name, last_name hobbies hobby_id, name persons_hobbies person_id, hobby_id I need to make two lists. Persons that have both hobby A and B, and persons that have hobby A but not B. How can I write these two queries? Can't figure out how to do this with joining and all...

    Read the article

  • How can I add to List<? extends Number> data structures?

    - by kunjaan
    I have a List which is declared like this : List<? extends Number> foo3 = new ArrayList<Integer>(); I tried to add 3 to foo3. However I get an error message like this: The method add(capture#1-of ? extends Number) in the type List<capture#1-of ? extends Number> is not applicable for the arguments (ExtendsNumber)

    Read the article

  • 1:M relationship in Hibernate and cascading operations

    - by EugeneP
    Table SUBCOURSE references COURSE COURSE(id, name) SUBCOURSE(id, course_id, name) So, 1:M. Hibernate generates for Course: @OneToMany(fetch = FetchType.LAZY, mappedBy = "course", cascade = CascadeType.ALL) public Set getSubCourses() { return this.subCourses; } for Subcourse it generates @ManyToOne(fetch = FetchType.LAZY) @JoinColumn(name = "course_id", nullable = false) public Course getCourse() { return this.course; } Now the problem is that cascading does not work as expected. I want to create a collection of SubCourse objects (Set), fill it and then bind it to setSubCourses() of Course object. Though, having ManyToOne thing in a Subcourses table, I need to manually setCourse() before adding to collection on each object. If I do not do so, an exception is raised. What can you recommend me?

    Read the article

  • many-to-many relationship in CI (not using ORM)

    - by Ross
    I'm implementing a categories system in my CI app and trying to work out the best way of working with many to many relationships. I'm not using an ORM at this stage, but could use say Doctrine if necessary. Each entry may have multiple categories. I have three tables (simplified) Entries: entryID, entryName Categories: categoryID, categoryname Entry_Category: entryID, categoryID my CI code returns a record set like this: entryID, entryName, categoryID, categoryName but, as expected with Many-to-Many relationships, each "entry" is repeated for each "category". What would the best way to "group" the categories so that when I output the results, I am left with something like: Entry Name Appears in Category: Foo, Bar rather than: Entry Name Appears in Category: Foo Entry Name Appears in Category: Bar I believe the option is to track if the post ID matches a previous entry, and if so, store the respective category, and output it as one, rather than several, but am unsure of how to do this in CI. thanks for any pointers (I appreciate this is may be a vague/complex question without a better knowledge of the system).

    Read the article

  • Rails - column not found for defined 'has_many' relationship

    - by Guanlun
    I define a Post class which can link or be linked to multiple posts. To do this I added a PostLink class which specifies post_to and post_from. I generated the PostLink class by rails g model post_link from_post:integer to_post:integer and of course rake db:migrate, and added belongs_to :from_post, :class_name => 'Post' belongs_to :to_post, :class_name => 'Post' to the class. And I also have has_many :post_links in my Post class. I ran rails console and Post.new.post_links and got nil printed out, which is expected. However after I save a Post using p = Post.new p.save and then run p.post_links, it prints out the following error message: SQLite3::SQLException: no such column: post_links.post_id: SELECT "post_links".* FROM "post_links" WHERE "post_links"."post_id" = 1 So anybody know why after saving it to the database post_link can not be accessed?

    Read the article

  • Entity Framework - Merging 2 physical tables into one "virtual" table problems...

    - by Keith Barrows
    I have been reading up on porting ASP.NET Membership Provider into .NET 3.5 using LINQ & Entities. However, the DB model that every single sample shows is the newer model while I've inherited a rather old model. Differences: The User Table is split into a pair of User & Membership Tables. All of the tables in the DB are prepended with aspnet_ I have Lowered versions of some columns (UserName, Email, etc) To work with this I have copied the properties from the Membership table into the User table (in the DB this is a 1<-1 relationship, not a 1<-0,1), renamed aspnet_Applications to Application, aspnet_Profiles to Profile, aspnet_Users to User and aspnet_Roles to Role. (See image) Link to full size image of model Now, I am running into one of 2 problems when I try to compile. Using the model in the image I get this error: Problem in Mapping Fragment starting at line 464: EntitySets 'UserSet' and 'aspnet_Membership' are both mapped to table 'aspnet_Membership'. Their Primary Keys may collide. If I delete the aspnet_Membership table from my model (to handle the above error) I then get: Problem in Mapping Fragment starting at line 384: Column aspnet_Membership.ApplicationId in table aspnet_Membership must be mapped: It has no default value and is not nullable. My ability to hand edit the backing stores is not the best and I don't want to just hack something in that may break other things. I am looking for suggestions, best practices, etc to handle this. Note: Moving the data tables themselves is not an option as I cannot replace all the logic in the existing apps. I am building this EF Provider for a new App. Over the next 6 months the old app(s) will migrate bit-by-bit to the new structures. Note: I added a link just under the image to the full size image for better viewing.

    Read the article

  • Save has_and_belongs_to_many link in basic RoR app

    - by Stéphane V
    I try to learn the has_and_belongs_to_many relationship between my 2 fresh new and simple models Product and Author, where a Product can have many authors and where author can have a lots of products. I wrote this : class Author < ActiveRecord::Base has_and_belongs_to_many :products end class Product < ActiveRecord::Base has_and_belongs_to_many :authors end In the partial form of view for the products, I have : <p>Products</p> <%= collection_select(:product, :author_ids, @authors, :id, :name, :prompt => " ", :multiple => true) %> but when I hit the update button, I get this strange message I can't resolve myself : NoMethodError in ProductsController#update undefined method `reject' for "1":String Rails.root: /home/stephane/www/HABTM Application Trace | Framework Trace | Full Trace app/controllers/products_controller.rb:63:in block in update' app/controllers/products_controller.rb:62:inupdate' Request Parameters: {"utf8"="✓", "_method"="put", "authenticity_token"="2GlTssOFjTVZ9BikrIFgx22cdTOIJuAB70liYhhLf+4=", "product"={"title"="Le trésor des Templiers", "original_title"="", "number"="1", "added_by"="", "author_ids"="1"}, "commit"="Update Product", "id"="1"} What's wrong ? Is there a problem with :product_ids... I saw on internet I had to pu a "s" but I'm not sure of what it represents.... How can I link the table authors_products to the key which is given back by the drop-down menu ? (here "author_ids"="1") Thx !

    Read the article

  • Doctrine 1.2: How do i prevent a contraint from being assigned to both sides of a One-to-many relati

    - by prodigitalson
    Is there a way to prevent Doctrine from assigning a contraint on both sides of a one-to-one relationship? Ive tried moving the definition from one side to the other and using owning side but it still places a constraint on both tables. when I only want the parent table to have a constraint - ie. its possible for the parent to not have an associated child. For example iwant the following sql schema essentially: CREATE TABLE `parent_table` ( `child_id` varchar(50) NOT NULL, `id` integer UNSIGNED NOT NULL auto_increment, PRIMARY KEY (`id`) ); CREATE TABLE `child_table` ( `id` integer UNSIGNED NOT NULL auto_increment, `child_id` varchar(50) NOT NULL, PRIMARY KEY (`id`), UNIQUE KEY (`child_id`), CONSTRAINT `parent_table_child_id_FK_child_table_child_id` FOREIGN KEY (`child_id`) REFERENCES `parent_table` (`child_id`) ); However im getting something like this: CREATE TABLE `parent_table` ( `child_id` varchar(50) NOT NULL, `id` integer UNSIGNED NOT NULL auto_increment, PRIMARY KEY (`id`), CONSTRAINT `child_table_child_id_FK_parent_table_child_id` FOREIGN KEY (`child_id`) REFERENCES `child_table` (`child_id`) ); CREATE TABLE `child_table` ( `id` integer UNSIGNED NOT NULL auto_increment, `child_id` varchar(50) NOT NULL, PRIMARY KEY (`id`), UNIQUE KEY (`child_id`), CONSTRAINT `parent_table_child_id_FK_child_table_child_id` FOREIGN KEY (`child_id`) REFERENCES `parent_table` (`child_id`) ); I could just remove the constraint manually or modify my accessors to return/set a single entity in the collection (using a one-to-many) but it seems like there should built in way to handle this. Also im using Symfony 1.4.4 (pear installtion ATM) - in case its an sfDoctrinePlugin issue and not necessarily Doctrine itself.

    Read the article

  • Which Table Should be Master and Child in Database Design

    - by Jason
    I am quickly learning the ins and outs of database design (something that, as of a week ago, was new to me), but I am running across some questions that don't seem immediately obvious, so I was hoping to get some clarification. The question I have right is about foreign keys. As part of my design, I have a Company table. Originally, I had included address information directly within the table, but, as I was hoping to achieve 3NF, I broke out the address information into its own table, Address. In order to maintain data integrity, I created a row in Company called "addressId" as an INT and the Address table has a corresponding addressId as its primary key. What I'm a little bit confused about (or what I want to make sure I'm doing correctly) is determining which table should be the master (referenced) table and which should be the child (referencing) table. When I originally set this up, I made the Address table the master and the Company the child. However, I now believe this is wrong due to the fact that there should be only one address per Company and, if a Company row is deleted, I would want the corresponding Address to be removed as well (CASCADE deletion). I may be approaching this completely wrong, so I would appreciate any good rules of thumb on how to best think about the relationship between tables when using foreign keys. Thanks!

    Read the article

  • Does Hibernate support one-to-one associations as pkeys?

    - by Andrzej Doyle
    Hi all, Can anyone tell me whether Hibernate supports associations as the pkey of an entity? I thought that this would be supported but I am having a lot of trouble getting any kind of mapping that represents this to work. In particular, with the straight mapping below: @Entity public class EntityBar { @Id @OneToOne(optional = false, mappedBy = "bar") EntityFoo foo // other stuff } I get an org.hibernate.MappingException: "Could not determine type for: EntityFoo, at table: ENTITY_BAR, for columns: [org.hibernate.mapping.Column(foo)]" Diving into the code it seems the ID is always considered a Value type; i.e. "anything that is persisted by value, instead of by reference. It is essentially a Hibernate Type, together with zero or more columns." I could make my EntityFoo a value type by declaring it serializable, but I wouldn't expect this would lead to the right outcome either. I would have thought that Hibernate would consider the type of the column to be integer (or whatever the actual type of the parent's ID is), just like it would with a normal one-to-one link, but this doesn't appear to kick in when I also declare it an ID. Am I going beyond what is possible by trying to combine @OneToOne with @Id? And if so, how could one model this relationship sensibly?

    Read the article

  • Symfony: embedRelation() controlling options for nesting multiple levels of relations

    - by wulftone
    Hey all, I'm trying to set some conditional statements for nested embedRelation() instances, and can't find a way to get any kind of option through to the second embedRelation. I've got a "Measure-Page-Question" table relationship, and I'd like to be able to choose whether or not to display the Question table. For example, say I have two "success" pages, page1Success.php and page2Success.php. On page1, I'd like to display "Measure-Page-Question", and on page2, I'd like to display "Measure-Page", but I need a way to pass an "option" to the PageForm.class.php file to make that kind of decision. My actions.class.php file has something like this: // actions.class.php $this-form = new measureForm($measure, array('option'=$option)); to pass an option to the "Page", but passing that option through "Page" into "Question" doesn't work. My measureForm.class.php file has an embedRelation in it that is dependent on the "option": // measureForm.class.php if ($this-getOption('option') == "page_1") { $this-embedRelation('Page'); } and this is what i'd like to do in my pageForm.class.php file: // pageForm.class.php if ($this-getOption('option') == "page_1") { // Or != "page_2", or whatever $this-embedRelation('Question'); } I can't seem to find a way to do this. Any ideas? Is there a preferred Symfony way of doing this type of operation, perhaps without embedRelation? Thanks, -Trevor As requested, here's my schema.yml: # schema.yml Measure: connection: doctrine tableName: measure columns: _kp_mid: type: integer(4) fixed: false unsigned: false primary: true autoincrement: true description: type: string() fixed: false unsigned: false primary: false notnull: false autoincrement: false frequency: type: integer(4) fixed: false unsigned: false primary: false notnull: false autoincrement: false relations: Page: local: _kp_mid foreign: _kf_mid type: many Page: connection: doctrine tableName: page columns: _kp_pid: type: integer(4) fixed: false unsigned: false primary: true autoincrement: true _kf_mid: type: integer(4) fixed: false unsigned: false primary: false notnull: false autoincrement: false next: type: string() fixed: false unsigned: false primary: false notnull: false autoincrement: false number: type: string() fixed: false unsigned: false primary: false notnull: false autoincrement: false previous: type: string() fixed: false unsigned: false primary: false notnull: false autoincrement: false relations: Measure: local: _kf_mid foreign: _kp_mid type: one Question: local: _kp_pid foreign: _kf_pid type: many Question: connection: doctrine tableName: question columns: _kp_qid: type: integer(4) fixed: false unsigned: false primary: true autoincrement: true _kf_pid: type: integer(4) fixed: false unsigned: false primary: false notnull: false autoincrement: false text: type: string() fixed: false unsigned: false primary: false notnull: false autoincrement: false type: type: integer(4) fixed: false unsigned: false primary: false notnull: false autoincrement: false relations: Page: local: _kf_pid foreign: _kp_pid type: one

    Read the article

  • Creating A SharePoint Parent/Child List Relationship&ndash; SharePoint 2010 Edition

    - by Mark Rackley
    Hey blog readers… It has been almost 2 years since I posted my most read blog on creating a Parent/Child list relationship in SharePoint 2007: Creating a SharePoint List Parent / Child Relationship - Out of the Box And then a year ago I improved on my method and redid the blog post… still for SharePoint 2007: Creating a SharePoint List Parent/Child Relationship – VIDEO REMIX Since then many of you have been asking me how to get this to work in SharePoint 2010, and frankly I have just not had time to look into it. I wish I could have jumped into this sooner, but have just recently began to look at it. Well.. after all this time I have actually come up with two solutions that work, neither of them are as clean as I’d like them to be, but I wanted to get something in your hands that you can start using today. Hopefully in the coming weeks and months I’ll be able to improve upon this further and give you guys some better options. For the most part, the process is identical to the 2007 process, but you have probably found out that the list view web parts in 2010 behave differently, and getting the Parent ID to your new child form can be a pain in the rear (at least that’s what I’ve discovered). Anyway, like I said, I have found a couple of solutions that work. If you know of a better one, please let us know as it bugs me that this not as eloquent as my 2007 implementation. Getting on the same page First thing I’d recommend is recreating this blog: Creating a SharePoint List Parent/Child Relationship – VIDEO REMIX in SharePoint 2010… There are some vague differences, but it’s basically the same…  Here’s a quick video of me doing this in SP 2010: Creating Lists necessary for this blog post Now that you have the lists created, lets set up the New Time form to use a QueryString variable to populate the Parent ID field: Creating parameters in Child’s new item form to set parent ID Did I talk fast enough through both of those videos? Hopefully by now that stuff is old hat to you, but I wanted to make sure everyone could get on the same page.  Okay… let’s get started. Solution 1 – XSLTListView with Javascript This solution is the more elegant of the two, however it does require the use of a little javascript.  The other solution does not use javascript, but it also doesn’t use the pretty new SP 2010 pop-ups.  I’ll let you decide which you like better. The basic steps of this solution are: Inserted a Related Item View Insert a ContentEditorWebPart Insert script in ContentEditorWebPart that pulls the ID from the Query string and calls the method to insert a new item on the child entry form Hide the toolbar from data view to remove “add new item” link. Again, you don’t HAVE to use a CEWP, you could just put the javascript directly in the page using SPD.  Anyway, here is how I did it: Using Related Item View / JavaScript Here’s the JavaScript I used in my Content Editor Web Part: <script type="text/javascript"> function NewTime() { // Get the Query String values and split them out into the vals array var vals = new Object(); var qs = location.search.substring(1, location.search.length); var args = qs.split("&"); for (var i=0; i < args.length; i++) { var nameVal = args[i].split("="); var temp = unescape(nameVal[1]).split('+'); nameVal[1] = temp.join(' '); vals[nameVal[0]] = nameVal[1]; } var issueID = vals["ID"]; //use this to bring up the pretty pop up NewItem2(event,"http://sp2010dev:1234/Lists/Time/NewForm.aspx?IssueID=" + issueID); //use this to open a new window //window.location="http://sp2010dev:1234/Lists/Time/NewForm.aspx?IssueID=" + issueID; } </script> Solution 2 – DataFormWebPart and exact same 2007 Process This solution is a little more of a hack, but it also MUCH more close to the process we did in SP 2007. So, if you don’t mind not having the pretty pop-up and prefer the comforts of what you are used to, you can give this one a try.  The basics steps are: Insert a DataFormWebPart instead of the List Data View Create a Parameter on DataFormWebPart to store “ID” Query String Variable Filter DataFormWebPart using Parameter Insert a link at bottom of DataForm Web part that points to the Child’s new item form and passes in the Parent Id using the Parameter. See.. like I told you, exact same process as in 2007 (except using the DataFormWeb Part). The DataFormWebPart also requires a lot more work to make it look “pretty” but it’s just table rows and cells, and can be configured pretty painlessly.  Here is that video: Using DataForm Web Part One quick update… if you change the link in this solution from: <tr> <td><a href="http://sp2010dev:1234/Lists/Time/NewForm.aspx?IssueID={$IssueIDParam}">Click here to create new item...</a> </td> </tr> to: <tr> <td> <a href="javascript:NewItem2(event,'http://sp2010dev:1234/Lists/Time/NewForm.aspx?IssueID={$IssueIDParam}');">Click here to create new item...</a> </td> </tr> It will open up in the pretty pop up and act the same as solution one… So… both Solutions will now behave the same to the end user. Just depends on which you want to implement. That’s all for now… Remember in both solutions when you have them working, you can make the “IssueID” invisible to users by using the “ms-hidden” class (it’s my previous blog post on the subject up there). That’s basically all there is to it! No pithy or witty closing this time… I am sorry it took me so long to dive into this and I hope your questions are answered. As I become more polished myself I will try to come up with a cleaner solution that will make everyone happy… As always, thanks for taking the time to stop by.

    Read the article

  • Spotlight on Oracle Social Relationship Management. Social Enable Your Enterprise with Oracle SRM.

    - by Pat Ma
    Facebook is now the most popular site on the Internet. People are tweeting more than they send email. Because there are so many people on social media, companies and brands want to be there too. They want to be able to listen to social chatter, engage with customers on social, create great-looking Facebook pages, and roll out social-collaborative work environments within their organization. This is where Oracle Social Relationship Management (SRM) comes in. Oracle SRM is a product that allows companies to manage their presence with prospects and customers on social channels. Let's talk about two popular use cases with Oracle SRM. Easy Publishing - Companies now have an average of 178 social media accounts - with every product or geography or employee group creating their own social media channel. For example, if you work at an international hotel chain with every single hotel creating their own Facebook page for their location, that chain can have well over 1,000 social media accounts. Managing these channels is a mess - with logging in and out of every account, making sure that all accounts are on brand, and preventing rogue posts from destroying the brand. This is where Oracle SRM comes in. With Oracle Social Relationship Management, you can log into one window and post messages to all 1,000+ social channels at once. You can set up approval flows and have each account generate their own content but that content must be approved before publishing. The benefits of this are easy social media publishing, brand consistency across all channels, and protection of your brand from inappropriate posts. Monitoring and Listening - People are writing and talking about your company right now on social media. 75% of social media users have written a negative post about a brand after a poor customer service experience. Think about all the negative posts you see in your Facebook news feed about delayed flights or being on hold for 45 minutes. There is so much social chatter going on around your brand that it's almost impossible to keep up or comprehend what's going on. That's where Oracle SRM comes in. With Social Relationship Management, a company can monitor and listen to what people are saying about them on social channels. They can drill down into individual posts or get a high level view of trends and mentions. The benefits of this are comprehending what's being said about your brand and its competitors, understanding customers and their intent, and responding to negative posts before they become a PR crisis. Oracle SRM is part of Oracle Cloud. The benefits of cloud deployment for customers are faster deployments, less maintenance, and lower cost of ownership versus on-premise deployments. Oracle SRM also fits into Oracle's vision to social enable your enterprise. With Oracle SRM, social media is not just a marketing channel. Social media is also mechanism for sales, customer support, recruiting, and employee collaboration. For more information about how Oracle SRM can social enable your enterprise, please visit oracle.com/social. For more information about Oracle Cloud, please visit cloud.oracle.com.

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26  | Next Page >