Search Results

Search found 14326 results on 574 pages for 'design by contract'.

Page 222/574 | < Previous Page | 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229  | Next Page >

  • Working with foreign keys - cannot insert

    - by Industrial
    Hi everyone! Doing my first tryouts with foreign keys in a mySQL database and are trying to do a insert, that fails for this reason: Integrity constraint violation: 1452 Cannot add or update a child row: a foreign key constraint fails Does this mean that foreign keys restrict INSERTS as well as DELETES and/or UPDATES on each table that is enforced with foreign keys relations? Thanks! Updated description: Products ---------------------------- id | type ---------------------------- 0 | 0 1 | 3 ProductsToCategories ---------------------------- productid | categoryid ---------------------------- 0 | 0 1 | 1 Product table has following structure CREATE TABLE IF NOT EXISTS `alpha`.`products` ( `id` MEDIUMINT UNSIGNED NOT NULL AUTO_INCREMENT , `type` TINYINT(2) UNSIGNED NOT NULL DEFAULT 0 , PRIMARY KEY (`id`) , CONSTRAINT `prodsku` FOREIGN KEY (`id` ) REFERENCES `alpha`.`productsToSku` (`product` ) ON DELETE CASCADE, ON UPDATE CASCADE) ENGINE = InnoDB;

    Read the article

  • Would ViewModels fit in the Model View Presenter pattern?

    - by Jonn
    Having used ViewModels in MVC, I was wondering if applying the same to the MVP pattern is practical. I only have a few considerations, one being that MVP is already fairly hard to implement (with all the additional coding, not much on the seeming complexity) or that ViewModels already have a slightly similar way of modeling data or entities. Would adding another layer in the form of ViewModels be redundant or is it a logical abstraction that I, as one implementing the MVP pattern, should adhere to?

    Read the article

  • What is the best practice in regards to building composite dtos off of an aggregate root with domain

    - by Chance
    I'm trying to figure out the best approach/practice for assembling a composite data transfer object off of an aggregate root and would love to hear people's thoughts on this. For example, lets say I have a root that has a few domain objects as children. I want to assemble a specific view dto, based on some business logic, that either has attributes or full dto's of it's objects. What I'm struggling with is trying to figure out where that assembly should happen. I can see it going on the domain object of the aggregate root as there is some business logic associated with it. The benefits of this approach from what I've deduced thus far is that it should reduce the inevitable business logic from bleeding outisde of the domain object. It also allows for private methods that take care of tasks that could become more complex from an external builder. The downsides being that the domain object becomes much more entrenched in the application's workflow and represents much more than just the domain object. It also could become very large in the scenario where you need multiple composite Dtos. Alternatively, I could also see it belonging to some form of transfer object assembler where there is a builder for each domain object. The domain objects would still be responsible for GetDto() and UpdateFromDto(dto). Outside of that, the builder would handle the construction and deconstruction of composite dtos. The downside is kind of mentioned above, where I fear this will easily lead to developers unfamiliar with DDD bleeding a ton of business logic into the assembler which is what I want to desperately avoid. Any thoughts would be greatly apperciated.

    Read the article

  • how to elegantly duplicate a graph (neural network)

    - by macias
    I have a graph (network) which consists of layers, which contains nodes (neurons). I would like to write a procedure to duplicate entire graph in most elegant way possible -- i.e. with minimal or no overhead added to the structure of the node or layer. Or yet in other words -- the procedure could be complex, but the complexity should not "leak" to structures. They should be no complex just because they are copyable. I wrote the code in C#, so far it looks like this: neuron has additional field -- copy_of which is pointer the the neuron which base copied from, this is my additional overhead neuron has parameterless method Clone() neuron has method Reconnect() -- which exchanges connection from "source" neuron (parameter) to "target" neuron (parameter) layer has parameterless method Clone() -- it simply call Clone() for all neurons network has parameterless method Clone() -- it calls Clone() for every layer and then it iterates over all neurons and creates mappings neuron=copy_of and then calls Reconnect to exchange all the "wiring" I hope my approach is clear. The question is -- is there more elegant method, I particularly don't like keeping extra pointer in neuron class just in case of being copied! I would like to gather the data in one point (network's Clone) and then dispose it completely (Clone method cannot have an argument though).

    Read the article

  • Circular dependency with generics

    - by devoured elysium
    I have defined the following interface: public interface IStateSpace<State, Action> where State : IState where Action : IAction<State, Action> // <-- this is the line that bothers me { void SetValueAt(State state, Action action); Action GetValueAt(State state); } Basically, an IStateSpace interface should be something like a chess board, and in each position of the chess board you have a set of possible movements to do. Those movements here are called IActions. I have defined this interface this way so I can accommodate for different implementations: I can then define concrete classes that implement 2D matrix, 3D matrix, graphs, etc. public interface IAction<State, Action> { IStateSpace<State, Action> StateSpace { get; } } An IAction, would be to move up(this is, if in (2, 2) move to (2, 1)), move down, etc. Now, I'll want that each action has access to a StateSpace so it can do some checking logic. Is this implementation correct? Or is this a bad case of a circular dependence? If yes, how to accomplish "the same" in a different way? Thanks

    Read the article

  • what is the easiest way to do this function in c# ?

    - by From.ME.to.YOU
    Hello let say that we have an array [5,5] 01,02,03,04,05 06,07,08,09,10 11,12,13,14,15 16,17,18,19,20 21,22,23,24,25 the user should send 2 values to the function (start,searchFOR) for example (13,25) the function should search for that value in this way 07,08,09 12, ,14 17,18,19 if the value is n't found in this level it will goes a level higher 01,02,03,04,05 06, , , ,10 11, , , ,15 16, , , ,20 21,22,23,24,25 if the array is bigger than this and the value didn't found it will go to a level higher Thanks for your help

    Read the article

  • some confusions to singleton pattern in PHP

    - by SpawnCxy
    Hi all, In my team I've been told to write resource class like this style: class MemcacheService { private static $instance = null; private function __construct() { } public static function getInstance($fortest = false) { if (self::$instance == null) { self::$instance = new Memcached(); if ($fortest) { self::$instance->addServer(MEMTEST_HOST, MEMTEST_PORT); } else { self::$instance->addServer(MEM_HOST, MEM_PORT); } } return self::$instance; } } But I think in PHP resource handles will be released and initialized again every time after a request over. That means MemcacheService::getInstance() is totally equal new Memcached() which cannot be called singleton pattern at all. Please correct me if I'm wrong. Regards

    Read the article

  • PHP Frontpage/Page controller

    - by atno
    I using the following as Frontpage/Page Controller(s) and it's working ok so far, except two problems I'm facing which as you can see are the $pages array and the switch, which are actually much much longer as the one I've pasted here. Everytime there is a need for a new page controller I have to add it to $pages array and to switch which makes that list very long. How would you overcome this problem and do you see any other improvement on this code? loadLogic() in page controllers it is used to get functions under pages/controllername/logic/function.php. Frontpage Controller - index.php: include 'common/common.php'; if(!isset($_GET['p']) OR $_GET['p'] == ''){ $_GET['p'] = 'home'; header('Location: index.php?p=home'); } $pages = array('home','register','login','logout','page1','page2','page3'); $_GET['p'] = trim($_GET['p']); if(isset($_GET['p'])){ if(in_array($_GET['p'], $pages)){ switch ($_GET['p']) { case 'home': include 'home.php'; break; case 'register': include 'register.php'; break; case 'login': include 'login.php'; break; case 'logout': include 'logout.php'; break; case 'page1': include 'page1.php'; break; case 'page2': include 'page2.php'; break; case 'page3': include 'page3.php'; break; } }else{ echo '404!'; } } Page Controller - {home,register,login,logout,page1,page2,page3}.php: include 'tpl/common/header.php'; contentStart(); if(isset($_SESSION['logged'])){ loadLogic('dashboard'); }else{ loadLogic('nologin'); } //Display login form in logic page instead links // if(!isset($_SESSION['logged'])){ contentEnd(); loadLogic('nologinForm'); }else{ contentEnd(); include'tpl/common/rcol.php'; } include 'tpl/common/footer.php'; function loadLogic(): function loadLogic($logic) { $path = dirname(__DIR__) . '/pages'; $controller = preg_split('/&/',$_SERVER['QUERY_STRING']); $controller = trim($controller[0],"p="); $logicPath = 'logic'; $logic = $logic . '.php'; $err = 0; $logicFullPath = $path.'/'.$controller.'/'.$logicPath.'/'.$logic; if($err == '0'){ include "$logicFullPath"; } } Folder Structure: projectName | ---> common | ---> pages | | | --->home | | | --->register | | | --->login | | | --->logout | | | --->page1 | | | --->page2 | | | --->page3 | ---> tpl | | | ---> common | --> home.php | --> register.php | --> login.php | --> logout.php | --> page1.php | --> page2.php | --> page3.php

    Read the article

  • C++ visitor pattern handling templated string types?

    - by Steve the Plant
    I'm trying to use the visitor pattern to serialize the contents of objects. However one snag I'm hitting is when I'm visiting strings. My strings are of a templated type, similar to STL's basic_string. So something like: basic_string<char_type, memory_allocator, other_possible_stuff> \\ many variations possible! Since I can have very many different templated string types, I can't go and add them to my visitor interface. It would be ridiculous. But I can't add templates to my VisitString method because C++ prevents using templates parameters in virtual methods. So what are my options to work around this?

    Read the article

  • Is there any danger in committing to a component library such as SmartGwt or Swing?

    - by Banang
    Since February this year I have been working on an app that's built using SmartGWT components. Generally, I find the components very nice to work with, and the fact that they're open source and free to use is just fantastic. However, I can't seem to shake the feeling that it's not a durable way of developing, but I can't quite explain why. Maybe it's because I know that any minute now the team developing it could decide to stop, which would leave me and my team in a bit of a pickle, but I'm sure there must be something more. I have been trying to find ways of explaining this feeling to myself, but to no avail. Therefore I turn to you, dear community, to ask if you can come up with a good reason why committing to building your app (that's supposed to be around for many more years to come) using a component library such as SmartGWT is a bad idea? Is there any reason I should just have developed the components myself? Or did I make the right choice when deciding not to reinvent the wheel and just go for what was readily available?

    Read the article

  • Database localization

    - by Don
    Hi, I have a number of database tables that contain name and description columns which need to be localized. My initial attempt at designing a DB schema that would support this was something like: product ------- id name description local_product ------- id product_id local_name local_description locale_id locale ------ id locale However, this solution requires a new local_ table for every table that contains name and description columns that require localization. In an attempt to avoid this overhead I redesigned the schema so that only a single localization table is needed product ------- id localization_id localization ------- id local_name local_description locale_id locale ------ id locale Here's an example of the data which would be stored in this schema when there are 2 tables (product and country) requiring localization: country id, localization_id ----------------------- 1, 5 product id, localization_id ----------------------- 1, 2 localization id, local_name, local_description, locale_id ------------------------------------------------------ 2, apple, a delicious fruit, 2 2, pomme, un fruit délicieux, 3 2, apfel, ein köstliches Obst, 4 5, ireland, a small country, 2 5, irlande, un petite pay, 3 locale id, locale -------------- 2, en 3, fr 4, de Notice that the compound primary key of the localization table is (id, locale_id), but the foreign key in the product table only refers to the first element of this compound PK. This seems like 'a bad thing' from the POV of normalization. Is there any way I can fix this problem, or alternatively, is there a completely different schema that supports localization without creating a separate table for each localizable table? Update: A number of respondents have proposed a solution that requires creating a separate table for each localizable table. However, this is precisely what I'm trying to avoid. The schema I've proposed above almost solves the problem to my satisfaction, but I'm unhappy about the fact that the localization_id foreign keys only refer to part of the corresponding primary key in the localization table. Thanks, Don

    Read the article

  • Is there any way to provide custom factory for .Net Framework creation Entities from EF4 ?

    - by ILICH
    There are a lot of posts about how cool POCO objects are and how Entity Framework 4 supports them. I decided to try it out with domain driven development oriented architecture and finished with domain entities that has dependencies from services. So far so good. Imagine my Products are POCO objects. When i query for objects like this: NorthwindContext db = new NorthwindContext(); var products = db.Products.ToList(); EF creates instances of products for me. Now I want to inject dependencies in my POCO objects (products) The only way I see is make some method within NorthwindContext that makes something like pseudo-code below: public List<Product> GetProducts(){ var products = database.Products.ToList(); container.BuildUp(products); //inject dependencies return products; } But what if i want to make my repository to be more flexible like this: public ObjectSet<Product> GetProducts() { ... } So, I really need a factory to make it more lazy and linq friendly. Please help !

    Read the article

  • Getters and Setters: Code smell, Necessary Evil, or Can't Live Without Them [closed]

    - by Avery Payne
    Possible Duplicate: Allen Holub wrote “You should never use get/set functions”, is he correct? Is there a good, no, a very good reason, to go through all the trouble of using getters and setters for object-oriented languages? What's wrong with just using a direct reference to a property or method? Is there some kind of "semantical coverup" that people don't want to talk about in polite company? Was I just too tired and fell asleep when someone walked out and said "Thou Shalt Write Copious Amounts of Code to Obtain Getters and Setters"? Follow-up after a year: It seems to be a common occurrence with Java, less so with Python. I'm beginning to wonder if this is more of a cultural phenomena (related to the limitations of the language) rather than "sage advice". The -1 question score is complete for-the-lulz as far as I am concerned. It's interesting that there are specific questions that are downvoted, not because they are "bad questions", but rather, because they hit someone's raw nerve.

    Read the article

  • Is it OK to re-create many SQL connections (SQL 2008)

    - by Mr. Flibble
    When performing many inserts into a database I would usually have code like this: using (var connection = new SqlConnection(connStr)) { connection.Open(); foreach (var item in items) { var cmd = new SqlCommand("INSERT ...") cmd.ExecuteNonQuery(); } } I now want to shard the database and therefore need to choose the connection string based on the item being inserted. This would make my code run more like this foreach (var item in items) { connStr = GetConnectionString(item); using (var connection = new SqlConnection(connStr)) { connection.Open(); var cmd = new SqlCommand("INSERT ...") cmd.ExecuteNonQuery(); } } Which basically means it's creating a new connection to the database for each item. Will this work or will recreating connections for each insert cause terrible overhead?

    Read the article

  • Handling Dialogs in WPF with MVVM

    - by Ray Booysen
    In the MVVM pattern for WPF, handling dialogs is one of the more complex operations. As your view model does not know anything about the view, dialog communication can be interesting. I can expose an ICommand that when the view invokes it, a dialog can appear. Does anyone know of a good way to handle results from dialogs? I am speaking about windows dialogs such as MessageBox. One of the ways we did this was have an event on the viewmodel that the view would subscribe to when a dialog was required. public event EventHandler<MyDeleteArgs> RequiresDeleteDialog; This is OK, but it means that the view requires code which is something I would like to stay away from.

    Read the article

  • Reducing a set of non-unique elements via transformations

    - by Andrey Fedorov
    I have: 1) a "starting set" of not-necessarily-unique elements, e.x. { x, y, z, z }, 2) a set of transformations, e.x. (x,z) = y, (z,z) = z, x = z, y = x, and 3) a "target set" that I am trying to get by applying transformations to the starting set, e.x. { z }. I'd like to find an algorithm to generate the (possibly infinite) possible applications of the transformations to the starting set that result in the target set. For example: { x, y, z, z }, y => x { x, x, z, z }, x => z { z, x, z, z }, x => z { z, z, z, z }, (z, z) => z { z, z, z }, (z, z) => z { z, z }, (z, z) => z { z } This sounds like something that's probably an existing (named) problem, but I don't recognize it. Can anyone help me track it down, or suggest further reading on something similar?

    Read the article

  • JSF data transfer between UI and business layer

    - by Ram
    Hi, We are using JSF in UI, Spring in business layer, Hibernate in persistence layer. Now my question is how to pass data from the JSF UI to spring business layer. Can I directly use my business object in my backing bean or should I transfer data between the layer through DTO? Can one explain me with clear explanation if possible with piece of code and that related websites?

    Read the article

  • Passing an array for setting variable

    - by mathk
    Hi, I often see this idiom when reading php code: public function __construct($config) { if (array_key_exists('options', $config)) { ... } if (array_key_exists('driver_options', $config)) { ... } } Here I am concern with the way the parameter is used. If I were in lisp I would do: (defun ct (&key options driver_options) (do-something-with-option-and-driver_option)) But since I am in PHP I would rather have a constructor that take a list of parameter and let them be null if there a not require. So what do you guys think about having an array as parameter in other to do some initialization-or-whatever? In other to answer you have to take in account the point of view of the user of the function and the designer of the API. Also have you ever heard this has a code-smell? thanks

    Read the article

  • Refactoring tools for namespaces and physical project structure

    - by simendsjo
    When I hack around, some code tend to get much bigger than originally planned. As this happens I usually introduce/collapse/merge namespaces, move files between them, move folders etc etc. Sometimes, if I don't have a clear picture of the end result, this is a real pain and really easy to just "skip". This leads the project deteriorate where classes belong elsewhere, strange namespaces, no folders/wrong folders etc. And then I usually cannot take it anymore and do a larger cleanup - which is usually not difficult, just very tedious and it feels nice to do everything at once, so I do a code freeze while finishing up. So my question is... Are there any tools to help refactoring the namespace/physical aspects of a project?

    Read the article

  • If as assert fails, is there a bug?

    - by RichAmberale
    I've always followed the logic: if assert fails, then there is a bug. Root cause could either be: Assert itself is invalid (bug) There is a programming error (bug) (no other options) I.E. Are there any other conclusions one could come to? Are there cases where an assert would fail and there is no bug?

    Read the article

  • Generic version control strategy for select table data within a heavily normalized database

    - by leppie
    Hi Sorry for the long winded title, but the requirement/problem is rather specific. With reference to the following sample (but very simplified) structure (in psuedo SQL), I hope to explain it a bit better. TABLE StructureName { Id GUID PK, Name varchar(50) NOT NULL } TABLE Structure { Id GUID PK, ParentId GUID (FK to Structure), NameId GUID (FK to StructureName) NOT NULL } TABLE Something { Id GUID PK, RootStructureId GUID (FK to Structure) NOT NULL } As one can see, Structure is a simple tree structure (not worried about ordering of children for the problem). StructureName is a simplification of a translation system. Finally 'Something' is simply something referencing the tree's root structure. This is just one of many tables that need to be versioned, but this one serves as a good example for most cases. There is a requirement to version to any changes to the name and/or the tree 'layout' of the Structure table. Previous versions should always be available. There seems to be a few possibilities to tackle this issue, like copying the entire structure, but most approaches causes one to 'loose' referential integrity. Example if one followed this approach, one would have to make a duplicate of the 'Something' record, given that the root structure will be a new record, and have a new ID. Other avenues of possible solutions are looking into how Wiki's handle this or go a lot further and look how proper version control systems work. Currently, I feel a bit clueless how to proceed on this in a generic way. Any ideas will be greatly appreciated. Thanks leppie

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229  | Next Page >