Search Results

Search found 8156 results on 327 pages for 'generic relationship'.

Page 25/327 | < Previous Page | 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32  | Next Page >

  • Generic Dictionary - Getting Conversion Error

    - by pm_2
    The following code is giving me an error: // GetDirectoryList() returns Dictionary<string, DirectoryInfo> Dictionary<string, DirectoryInfo> myDirectoryList = GetDirectoryList(); // The following line gives a compile error foreach (Dictionary<string, DirectoryInfo> eachItem in myDirectoryList) The error it gives is as follows: Cannot convert type 'System.Collections.Generic.KeyValuePair<string,System.IO.DirectoryInfo>' to 'System.Collections.Generic.Dictionary<string,System.IO.DirectoryInfo>’ My question is: why is it trying to perform this conversion? Can I not use a foreach loop on this type of object?

    Read the article

  • NSInvalidArgumentException: Illegal attempt to establish a relationship between objects in different

    - by iPhoneDollaraire
    I have an app based on the CoreDataBooks example that uses an addingManagedObjectContext to add an Ingredient to a Cocktail in order to undo the entire add. The CocktailsDetailViewController in turn calls a BrandPickerViewController to (optionally) set a brand name for a given ingredient. Cocktail, Ingredient and Brand are all NSManagedObjects. Cocktail requires at least one Ingredient (baseLiquor) to be set, so I create it when the Cocktail is created. If I add the Cocktail in CocktailsAddViewController : CocktailsDetailViewController (merging into the Cocktail managed object context on save) without setting baseLiquor.brand, then it works to set the Brand from a picker (also stored in the Cocktails managed context) later from the CocktailsDetailViewController. However, if I try to set baseLiquor.brand in CocktailsAddViewController, I get: Terminating app due to uncaught exception 'NSInvalidArgumentException', reason: 'Illegal attempt to establish a relationship 'brand' between objects in different contexts' From this question I understand that the issue is that Brand is stored in the app's managedObjectContext and the newly added Ingredient and Cocktail are stored in addingManagedObjectContext, and that passing the ObjectID instead would avoid the crash. What I don't get is how to implement the picker generically so that all of the Ingredients (baseLiquor, mixer, garnish, etc.) can be set during the add, as well as one-by-one from the CocktailsDetailViewController after the Cocktail has been created. In other words, following the CoreDataBooks example, where and when would the ObjectID be turned into the NSManagedObject from the parent MOC in both add and edit cases? -IPD UPDATE - Here's the code: - (IBAction)addCocktail:(id)sender { CocktailsAddViewController *addViewController = [[CocktailsAddViewController alloc] init]; addViewController.title = @"Add Cocktail"; addViewController.delegate = self; // Create a new managed object context for the new book -- set its persistent store coordinator to the same as that from the fetched results controller's context. NSManagedObjectContext *addingContext = [[NSManagedObjectContext alloc] init]; self.addingManagedObjectContext = addingContext; [addingContext release]; [addingManagedObjectContext setPersistentStoreCoordinator:[[fetchedResultsController managedObjectContext] persistentStoreCoordinator]]; Cocktail *newCocktail = (Cocktail *)[NSEntityDescription insertNewObjectForEntityForName:@"Cocktail" inManagedObjectContext:self.addingManagedObjectContext]; newCocktail.baseLiquor = (Ingredient *)[NSEntityDescription insertNewObjectForEntityForName:@"Ingredient" inManagedObjectContext:self.addingManagedObjectContext]; newCocktail.mixer = (Ingredient *)[NSEntityDescription insertNewObjectForEntityForName:@"Ingredient" inManagedObjectContext:self.addingManagedObjectContext]; newCocktail.volume = [NSNumber numberWithInt:0]; addViewController.cocktail = newCocktail; UINavigationController *navController = [[UINavigationController alloc] initWithRootViewController:addViewController]; [self.navigationController presentModalViewController:navController animated:YES]; [addViewController release]; [navController release]; }

    Read the article

  • Complex relationship between tables in NHibernate

    - by Ilya Kogan
    Hi all, I'm writing a Fluent NHibernate mapping for a legacy Oracle database. The challenge is that the tables have composite primary keys. If I were at total freedom, I would redesign the relationships and auto-generate primary keys, but other applications must write to the same database and read from it, so I cannot do it. These are the two tables I'll focus on: Example data Trips table: 1, 10:00, 11:00 ... 1, 12:00, 15:00 ... 1, 16:00, 19:00 ... 2, 12:00, 13:00 ... 3, 9:00, 18:00 ... Faults table: 1, 13:00 ... 1, 23:00 ... 2, 12:30 ... In this case, vehicle 1 made three trips and has two faults. The first fault happened during the second trip, and the second fault happened while the vehicle was resting. Vehicle 2 had one trip, during which a fault happened. Constraints Trips of the same vehicle never overlap. So the tables have an optional one-to-many relationship, because every fault either happens during a trip or it doesn't. If I wanted to join them in SQL, I would write: select ... from Faults left outer join Trips on Faults.VehicleId = Trips.VehicleId and Faults.FaultTime between Trips.TripStartTime and Trips.TripEndTime and then I'd get a dataset where every fault appears exactly once (one-to-many as I said). Note that there is no Vehicles table, and I don't need one. But I did create a view that contains all VehicleIds from both tables, so I can use it as a junction table. What am I actually looking for? The tables are huge because they cover years of data, and every time I only need to fetch a range of a few hours. So I need a mapping and a criteria that will run something like the following SQL underneath: select ... from Faults left outer join Trips on Faults.VehicleId = Trips.VehicleId and Faults.FaultTime between Trips.TripStartTime and Trips.TripEndTime where Faults.FaultTime between :p0 and :p1 Do you have any ideas how to achieve it? Note 1: Currently the application shouldn't write to the database, so persistence is not a must, although if the mapping supports persistence, it may help at some point in the future. Note 2: I know it's a tough one, so if you give me a great answer, you will be properly rewarded :) Thank you for reading this long question, and now I only hope for the best :)

    Read the article

  • One-to-many relationship with JDO in Google App Engine

    - by Marvin
    I've followed the GAE docs on setting up one-to-many relationship in JDO but I'm still having trouble in retrieving the collection data back. I have no problem getting the other non-collection fields back. Here are my classes: @PersistenceCapable public class User{ @PrimaryKey @Persistent(valueStrategy = IdGeneratorStrategy.IDENTITY) private Key key; @Persistent private String uniqueId; @Persistent private String email; @Persistent private List<Address> addresses = new ArrayList<Address>() ; ... } @PersistenceCapable public class Phone{ @PrimaryKey @Persistent(valueStrategy = IdGeneratorStrategy.IDENTITY) private Key key; @Persistent private String number; ... } public class UserDaoImpl implements UserDao { public void insertUser(User user) { if(user.getKey() == null) { com.google.appengine.api.datastore.Key key = KeyFactory.createKey(User.class.getSimpleName(), user.getEmail()); user.setKey(key); } PersistenceManager pm = PersistenceManagerWrapper.getPersistenceManager(); notNull(user); try { pm.makePersistent(user); } finally { pm.close(); } } @SuppressWarnings("unchecked") public User getUser(String uniqueId) { PersistenceManager pm = PersistenceManagerWrapper.getPersistenceManager(); Query query = pm.newQuery(User.class); query.setFilter("uniqueId == uniqueIdParam"); query.declareParameters("String uniqueIdParam"); User user = null; try { List<User> users = (List<User>)(query.execute(uniqueId)); //TODO abstract this if(users.size() > 0) user = users.get(0); } finally { pm.close(); } return user; } } public class UserDaoImplTest { @Test public void getUserTest() { User user = createTestUser(); assertNotNull("The user object should not be null", user); userDao.insertUser(user); User returnedUser = userDao.getUser(TEST_USER_ID); assertNotNull("The returnedUser object should not be null", returnedUser); Assert.assertPropertyEqualsExcludeProperties("User Object", user, returnedUser, ""); } } When I run the test, all the properties for User is populated but the list of Phone if I get is empty.

    Read the article

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

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

    Read the article

  • Zend Table Relationship Modeling with Composite Key

    - by emeraldjava
    I have a table with a composite primary key using four columns. mysql> describe leaguesummary; +------------------------+------------------+------+-----+---------+----------------+ | Field | Type | Null | Key | Default | Extra | +------------------------+------------------+------+-----+---------+----------------+ | leagueid | int(10) unsigned | NO | PRI | NULL | auto_increment | | leaguetype | enum('I','T') | NO | PRI | NULL | | | leagueparticipantid | int(10) unsigned | NO | PRI | NULL | | | leaguestandard | int(10) unsigned | NO | | NULL | | | leaguedivision | varchar(5) | NO | PRI | NULL | | | leagueposition | int(10) unsigned | NO | | NULL | | I have the league object modelled as so (all plain enough mappings) <?php class Model_DbTable_League extends Zend_Db_Table_Abstract { protected $_name = 'league'; protected $_primary = 'id'; protected $_dependentTables = array('Model_DbTable_LeagueSummary'); And I've started like this on the new model class. I've mapped a simple reference map which returns all rows linked to the league id. // http://files.zend.com/help/Zend-Framework/zend.db.table.relationships.html // http://naneau.nl/2007/04/21/a-zend-framework-tutorial-part-one/ class Model_DbTable_LeagueSummary extends Zend_Db_Table_Abstract { protected $_name = "leaguesummary"; protected $_primary = array('leagueid', 'leaguetype','leagueparticipantid','leaguedivision'); protected $_referenceMap = array( 'Summary' => array( 'columns' => array('leagueid'), 'refTableClass' => 'Model_DbTable_League', 'refColumns' => array('id') ), ..... ); } ?> The simple case works when called from my controller public function listAction() { // action body $leagueTable = new Model_DbTable_League(); $this->view->leagues = $leagueTable->getLeagues(); $league = $leagueTable->getLeague(6); // work $summary = $league->findDependentRowset('Model_DbTable_LeagueSummary','Summary'); Zend_Debug::dump($summary,"",true); I'm not sure how i can define extra _referenceMap keys which will take extra contraint ket values. I would like to be able to define a set called 'MenA' in which the type and division values are hardcoded, and the league id is taken from the initial rowset. 'MenA' =>array( 'columns' => array('leagueid','leaguetype','leaguedivision'), 'refTableClass' => 'Model_DbTable_League', 'refColumns' => array("id","I","A") ) Is this style of mapping possible ie hardcoding the values into the 'refColumns'. The second crazy idea i had was to pass the variable values in as part of the third param of the findDependentRowset() method. $menA = $league->findDependentRowset('Model_DbTable_LeagueSummary','MenA',array("I","A")); Any suggestions on how I might use the Zend DB Table Relationship mapping correctly to do this would be appreciated. I'm not interested in the plain, old and ugly $db-select(a,b,c)-where(..) style solution.

    Read the article

  • ASP.NET MVC 2: Linq to SQL entity w/ ForeignKey relationship and Default ModelBinder strangeness

    - by Simon
    Once again I'm having trouble with Linq to Sql and the MVC Model Binder. I have Linq to Sql generated classes, to illustrate them they look similar to this: public class Client { public int ClientID { get; set; } public string Name { get; set; } } public class Site { public int SiteID { get; set; } public string Name { get; set; } } public class User { public int UserID { get; set; } public string Name { get; set; } public int? ClientID { get; set; } public EntityRef<Client> Client { get; set; } public int? SiteID { get; set; } public EntityRef<Site> Site { get; set; } } The 'User' has a relationship with the 'Client' and 'Site . The User class has nullable ClientIDs and SiteIDs because the admin users are not bound to a Client or Site. Now I have a view where a user can edit a 'User' object, the view has fields for all the 'User' properties. When the form is submitted, the appropiate 'Save' action is called in my UserController: public ActionResult Save(User user, FormCollection form) { //form['SiteID'] == 1 //user.SiteID == 1 //form['ClientID'] == 1 //user.ClientID == null } The problem here is that the ClientID is never set, it is always null, even though the value is in the FormCollection. To figure out whats going wrong I set breakpoints for the ClientID and SiteID getters and setters in the Linq to Sql designer generated classes. I noticed the following: SiteID is being set, then ClientID is being set, but then the Client EntityRef property is being set with a null value which in turn is setting the ClientID to null too! I don't know why and what is trying to set the Client property, because the Site property setter is never beeing called, only the Client setter is being called. Manually setting the ClientID from the FormCollection like this: user.ClientID = int.Parse(form["ClientID"].ToString()); throws a 'ForeignKeyReferenceAlreadyHasValueException', because it was already set to null before. The only workaround I have found is to extend the generated partial User class with a custom method: Client = default(EntityRef<Client>) but this is not a satisfying solution. I don't think it should work like this? Please enlighten me someone. So far Linq to Sql is driving me crazy! Best regards

    Read the article

  • Fluent NHibernate automap a HasManyToMany using a generic type

    - by zulkamal
    I have a bunch of domain entities that can be keyword tagged (a Tag is also an entity.) I want to do a normal many-to-many (Tag - TagReview <- Review) table relationship but I don't want to have to create a new concrete relationship on both the Entity and Tag every single time I add a new entity. I was hoping to do a generic based Tag and do this: // Tag public class Tag<T> { public virtual int Id { get; private set; } public virtual string Name { get; set; } public virtual IList<T> Entities { get; set; } public Tag() { Entities = new List<T>(); } } // Review public class Review { public virtual string Id { get; private set; } public virtual string Title { get; set; } public virtual string Content { get; set; } public virtual IList<Tag<Review>> Tags { get; set; } public Review() { Tags = new List<Tag<Review>>(); } } Unfortunately I get an exception: ----> System.ArgumentException : Cannot create an instance of FluentNHibernate.Automapping.AutoMapping`1[Example.Entities.Tag`1[T]] because Type.ContainsGenericParameters is true. I anticipate there will be maybe 5-10 entities so mapping normally would be ok but is there a way to do something like this?

    Read the article

  • Hibernate and parent/child relations

    - by Marco
    Hi to all, I'm using Hibernate in a Java application, and i feel that something could be done better for the management of parent/child relationships. I've a complex set of entities, that have some kind of relationships between them (one-to-many, many-to-many, one-to-one, both unidirectional and bidirectional). Every time an entity is saved and it has a parent, to estabilish the relationship the parent has to add the child to its collection (considering a one-to-may relationship). For example: Parent p = (Parent) session.load(Parent.class, pid); Child c = new Child(); c.setParent(p); p.getChildren().add(c); session.save(c); session.flush(); In the same way, if i remove a child then i have to explicitly remove it from the parent collection too. Child c = (Child) session.load(Child.class, cid); session.delete(c); Parent p = (Parent) session.load(Parent.class, pid); p.getChildren().remove(c); session.flush(); I was wondering if there are some best practices out there to do this jobs in a different way: when i save a child entity, automatically add it to the parent collection. If i remove a child, automatically update the parent collection by removing the child, etc. For example, Child c = new Child(); c.setParent(p); session.save(c); // Automatically update the parent collection session.flush(); or Child c = (Child) session.load(Child.class, cid); session.delete(c); // Automatically updates its parents (could be more than one) session.flush(); Anyway, it would not be difficult to implement this behaviour, but i was wondering if exist some standard tools or well known libraries that deals with this issue. And, if not, what are the reasons? Thanks

    Read the article

  • JPA - Entity design problem

    - by Yatendra Goel
    I am developing a Java Desktop Application and using JPA for persistence. I have a problem mentioned below: I have two entities: Country City Country has the following attribute: CountryName (PK) City has the following attribute: CityName Now as there can be two cities with same name in two different countries, the primaryKey for City table in the datbase is a composite primary key composed of CityName and CountryName. Now my question is How to implement the primary key of the City as an Entity in Java @Entity public class Country implements Serializable { private String countryName; @Id public String getCountryName() { return this.countryName; } } @Entity public class City implements Serializable { private CityPK cityPK; private Country country; @EmbeddedId public CityPK getCityPK() { return this.cityPK; } } @Embeddable public class CityPK implements Serializable { public String cityName; public String countryName; } Now as we know that the relationship from Country to City is OneToMany and to show this relationship in the above code, I have added a country variable in City class. But then we have duplicate data(countryName) stored in two places in the City class: one in the country object and other in the cityPK object. But on the other hand, both are necessary: countryName in cityPK object is necessary because we implement composite primary keys in this way. countryName in country object is necessary because it is the standard way of showing relashionship between objects. How to get around this problem?

    Read the article

  • How do I serialize/deserialize a NHibernate entity that has references to other objects?

    - by Daniel T.
    I have two NHibernate-managed entities that have a bi-directional one-to-many relationship: public class Storage { public virtual string Name { get; set; } public virtual IList<Box> Boxes { get; set; } } public class Box { public virtual string Box { get; set; } [DoNotSerialize] public virtual Storage ParentStorage { get; set; } } A Storage can contain many Boxes, and a Box always belongs in a Storage. I want to edit a Box's name, so I send it to the client using JSON. Note that I don't serialize ParentStorage because I'm not changing which storage it's in. The client edits the name and sends the Box back as JSON. The server deserializes it back into a Box entity. Problem is, the ParentStorage property is null. When I try to save the Box to the database, it updates the name, but also removes the relationship to the Storage. How do I properly serialize and deserialize an entity like a Box, while keeping the JSON data size to a minimum?

    Read the article

  • LINQ2SQL: How to let a column accept null values as zero (0) in Self-Relation table

    - by Remon
    As described in the img, I got a parent-Children relation and since the ParentID not accepting null values (and I can't change to nullabel due to some restriction in the UI I have), how can I remove an existence relation between ReportDataSources in order to change the parent for them (here i want to set the parentId for one of them = 0) how could i do that since i cant change the ParentID directly and setting Parent = null is not valid public void SetReportDataSourceAsMaster(ReportDataSource reportDataSource) { //Some logic - not necessarily for this scenario //Reset Master this.ReportDataSources.ToList().ForEach(rds => rds.IsMaster = false); //Set Master reportDataSource.IsMaster = true; //Set Parent ID for the rest of the Reports data sources this.ReportDataSources.Where(rds => rds.ID != reportDataSource.ID).ToList().ForEach(rds => { //Change Parent ID rds.Parent = reportDataSource; //Remove filttering data rds.FilteringDataMembers.Clear(); //Remove Grouping Data rds.GroupingDataMembers.Clear(); }); //Delete parent HERE THE EXCEPTION THROWN AFTER CALLING SUBMITCHANGES() reportDataSource.Parent = null; //Other logic } Exception thrown after calling submitChanges An attempt was made to remove a relationship between a ReportDataSource and a ReportDataSource. However, one of the relationship's foreign keys (ReportDataSource.ParentID) cannot be set to null.

    Read the article

  • Hibernate: update on parent-child relationship causes duplicate children

    - by TimmyJ
    I have a parent child relationship in which the parent has a collection of children (a set to be specific). The child collection is setup with cascade="all-delete-orphan". When I initially save the parent element everything works as expected. However, when I update the parent and save again, all the children are re-saved. This behavior leads me to believe that the parent is losing its reference to the collection of children, and therefore when persisting all the children are re-saved. It seems the only way to fix this is to not use the setter method of this child collection, but unfortunately this setter is called implicitly in my application (Spring MVC is used to bind a multi-select form element to this collection, and the setter is called by spring on the form submission). Overwriting this setter to not lose the reference (ie, do a colleciton.clear() and collection.addAll(newCollection) rather than collection = newCollection) is apparently a hibernate no-no, as is pointed out here: https://forum.hibernate.org/viewtopic.php?t=956859 Does anyone know how to circumvent this problem? I've posted some of my code below. The parent hibernate configuration: <hibernate-mapping package="org.fstrf.masterpk.domain"> <class name="ReportCriteriaBean" table="masterPkReportCriteria"> <id name="id" column="id"> <generator class="org.hibernate.id.IncrementGenerator" /> </id> <set name="treatmentArms" table="masterPkTreatmentArms" sort="org.fstrf.masterpk.domain.RxCodeComparator" lazy="false" cascade="all-delete-orphan" inverse="true"> <key column="runid"/> <one-to-many class="TreatmentArm"/> </set> </class> </hibernate-mapping> The parent object: public class ReportCriteriaBean{ private Integer id; private Set<TreatmentArm> treatmentArms; public Integer getId() { return id; } public void setId(Integer id) { this.id = id; } public Set<TreatmentArm> getTreatmentArms() { return treatmentArms; } public void setTreatmentArms(Set<TreatmentArm> treatmentArms) { this.treatmentArms = treatmentArms; if(this.treatmentArms != null){ for(TreatmentArm treatmentArm : this.treatmentArms){ treatmentArm.setReportCriteriaBean(this); } } } The child hibernate configuration: <hibernate-mapping package="org.fstrf.masterpk.domain"> <class name="TreatmentArm" table="masterPkTreatmentArms"> <id name="id" column="id"> <generator class="org.hibernate.id.IncrementGenerator" /> </id> <many-to-one name="reportCriteriaBean" class="ReportCriteriaBean" column="runId" not-null="true" /> <property name="rxCode" column="rxCode" not-null="true"/> </class> </hibernate-mapping> The child object: public class TreatmentArm { private Integer id; private ReportCriteriaBean reportCriteriaBean; private String rxCode; public Integer getId() { return id; } public void setId(Integer id) { this.id = id; } public ReportCriteriaBean getReportCriteriaBean() { return reportCriteriaBean; } public void setReportCriteriaBean(ReportCriteriaBean reportCriteriaBean) { this.reportCriteriaBean = reportCriteriaBean; } public String getRxCode() { return rxCode; } public void setRxCode(String rxCode) { this.rxCode = rxCode; } }

    Read the article

  • Generic Aggregation of C++ Objects by Attribute When Attribute Name is Unknown at Runtime

    - by stretch
    I'm currently implementing a system with a number of class's representing objects such as client, business, product etc. Standard business logic. As one might expect each class has a number of standard attributes. I have a long list of essentially identical requirements such as: the ability to retrieve all business' whose industry is manufacturing. the ability to retrieve all clients based in London Class business has attribute sector and client has attribute location. Clearly this a relational problem and in pseudo SQL would look something like: SELECT ALL business in business' WHERE sector == manufacturing Unfortunately plugging into a DB is not an option. What I want to do is have a single generic aggregation function whose signature would take the form: vector<generic> genericAggregation(class, attribute, value); Where class is the class of object I want to aggregate, attribute and value being the class attribute and value of interest. In my example I've put vector as return type, but this wouldn't work. Probably better to declare a vector of relevant class type and pass it as an argument. But this isn't the main problem. How can I accept arguments in string form for class, attribute and value and then map these in a generic object aggregation function? Since it's rude not to post code, below is a dummy program which creates a bunch of objects of imaginatively named classes. Included is a specific aggregation function which returns a vector of B objects whose A object is equal to an id specified at the command line e.g. .. $ ./aggregations 5 which returns all B's whose A objects 'i' attribute is equal to 5. See below: #include <iostream> #include <cstring> #include <sstream> #include <vector> using namespace std; //First imaginativly names dummy class class A { private: int i; double d; string s; public: A(){} A(int i, double d, string s) { this->i = i; this->d = d; this->s = s; } ~A(){} int getInt() {return i;} double getDouble() {return d;} string getString() {return s;} }; //second imaginativly named dummy class class B { private: int i; double d; string s; A *a; public: B(int i, double d, string s, A *a) { this->i = i; this->d = d; this->s = s; this->a = a; } ~B(){} int getInt() {return i;} double getDouble() {return d;} string getString() {return s;} A* getA() {return a;} }; //Containers for dummy class objects vector<A> a_vec (10); vector<B> b_vec;//100 //Util function, not important.. string int2string(int number) { stringstream ss; ss << number; return ss.str(); } //Example function that returns a new vector containing on B objects //whose A object i attribute is equal to 'id' vector<B> getBbyA(int id) { vector<B> result; for(int i = 0; i < b_vec.size(); i++) { if(b_vec.at(i).getA()->getInt() == id) { result.push_back(b_vec.at(i)); } } return result; } int main(int argc, char** argv) { //Create some A's and B's, each B has an A... //Each of the 10 A's are associated with 10 B's. for(int i = 0; i < 10; ++i) { A a(i, (double)i, int2string(i)); a_vec.at(i) = a; for(int j = 0; j < 10; j++) { B b((i * 10) + j, (double)j, int2string(i), &a_vec.at(i)); b_vec.push_back(b); } } //Got some objects so lets do some aggregation //Call example aggregation function to return all B objects //whose A object has i attribute equal to argv[1] vector<B> result = getBbyA(atoi(argv[1])); //If some B's were found print them, else don't... if(result.size() != 0) { for(int i = 0; i < result.size(); i++) { cout << result.at(i).getInt() << " " << result.at(i).getA()->getInt() << endl; } } else { cout << "No B's had A's with attribute i equal to " << argv[1] << endl; } return 0; } Compile with: g++ -o aggregations aggregations.cpp If you wish :) Instead of implementing a separate aggregation function (i.e. getBbyA() in the example) I'd like to have a single generic aggregation function which accounts for all possible class attribute pairs such that all aggregation requirements are met.. and in the event additional attributes are added later, or additional aggregation requirements, these will automatically be accounted for. So there's a few issues here but the main one I'm seeking insight into is how to map a runtime argument to a class attribute. I hope I've provided enough detail to adequately describe what I'm trying to do...

    Read the article

  • How to model a relationship that NHibernate (or Hibernate) doesn’t easily support

    - by MylesRip
    I have a situation in which the ideal relationship, I believe, would involve Value Object Inheritance. This is unfortunately not supported in NHibernate so any solution I come up with will be less than perfect. Let’s say that: “Item” entities have a “Location” that can be in one of multiple different formats. These formats are completely different with no overlapping fields. We will deal with each Location in the format that is provided in the data with no attempt to convert from one format to another. Each Item has exactly one Location. “SpecialItem” is a subtype of Item, however, that is unique in that it has exactly two Locations. “Group” entities aggregate Items. “LocationGroup” is as subtype of Group. LocationGroup also has a single Location that can be in any of the formats as described above. Although I’m interested in Items by Group, I’m also interested in being able to find all items with the same Location, regardless of which group they are in. I apologize for the number of stipulations listed above, but I’m afraid that simplifying it any further wouldn’t really reflect the difficulties of the situation. Here is how the above could be diagrammed: Mapping Dilemma Diagram: (http://www.freeimagehosting.net/uploads/592ad48b1a.jpg) (I tried placing the diagram inline, but Stack Overflow won't allow that until I have accumulated more points. I understand the reasoning behind it, but it is a bit inconvenient for now.) Hmmm... Apparently I can't have multiple links either. :-( Analyzing the above, I make the following observations: I treat Locations polymorphically, referring to the supertype rather than the subtype. Logically, Locations should be “Value Objects” rather than entities since it is meaningless to differentiate between two Location objects that have all the same values. Thus equality between Locations should be based on field comparisons, not identifiers. Also, value objects should be immutable and shared references should not be allowed. Using NHibernate (or Hibernate) one would typically map value objects using the “component” keyword which would cause the fields of the class to be mapped directly into the database table that represents the containing class. Put another way, there would not be a separate “Locations” table in the database (and Locations would therefore have no identifiers). NHibernate (or Hibernate) do not currently support inheritance for value objects. My choices as I see them are: Ignore the fact that Locations should be value objects and map them as entities. This would take care of the inheritance mapping issues since NHibernate supports entity inheritance. The downside is that I then have to deal with aliasing issues. (Meaning that if multiple objects share a reference to the same Location, then changing values for one object’s Location would cause the location to change for other objects that share the reference the same Location record.) I want to avoid this if possible. Another downside is that entities are typically compared by their IDs. This would mean that two Location objects would be considered not equal even if the values of all their fields are the same. This would be invalid and unacceptable from the business perspective. Flatten Locations into a single class so that there are no longer inheritance relationships for Locations. This would allow Locations to be treated as value objects which could easily be handled by using “component” mapping in NHibernate. The downside in this case would be that the domain model becomes weaker, more fragile and less maintainable. Do some “creative” mapping in the hbm files in order to force Location fields to be mapped into the containing entities’ tables without using the “component” keyword. This approach is described by Colin Jack here. My situation is more complicated than the one he describes due to the fact that SpecialItem has a second Location and the fact that a different entity, LocatedGroup, also has Locations. I could probably get it to work, but the mappings would be non-intuitive and therefore hard to understand and maintain by other developers in the future. Also, I suspect that these tricky mappings would likely not be possible using Fluent NHibernate so I would use the advantages of using that tool, at least in that situation. Surely others out there have run into similar situations. I’m hoping someone who has “been there, done that” can share some wisdom. :-) So here’s the question… Which approach should be preferred in this situation? Why?

    Read the article

  • How are the conceptual pairs Abstract/Concrete, Generic/Specific, and Complex/Simple related to one another in software architecture?

    - by tjb1982
    (= 2 (+ 1 1)) take the above. The requirement of the '=' predicate is that its arguments be comparable. Any two structures are comparable in this case, and so the contract/requirement is pretty generic. The '+' predicate requires that its arguments be numbers. That's more specific. (socket domain type protocol) the arguments here are much more specific (even though the arguments are still just numbers and the function itself returns a file descriptor, which is itself an int), but the arguments are more abstract, and the implementation is built up from other functions whose abstractions are less abstract, which are themselves built from less and less abstract abstractions. To the point where the requirements are something like move from one location to another, observe whether the switch at that location is on or off, turn the switch on or off, or leave it the same, etc. But are functions also less and less complex the less abstract they are? And is there a relationship between the number and range of arguments of a function and the complexity of its implementation, as you go from more abstract to less abstract, and vice versa? (= 2 (+ 1 1) 2r10) the '=' predicate is more generic than the '+' predicate, and thus could be more complex in its implementation. The '+' predicate's contract is less generic, and so could be less complex in its implementation. Is this even a little correct? What about the 'socket' function? Each of those arguments is a number of some kind. What they represent, though, is something more elaborate. It also returns a number (just like the others do), which is also a representation of something conceptually much more elaborate than a number. To boil it down, I'm asking if there is a relationship between the following dimensions, and why: Abstract/Concrete Complex/Simple Generic/Specific And more specifically, do different configurations of these dimensions have a specific, measurable impact on the number and range of the arguments (i.e., the contract) of a function?

    Read the article

  • How set EnqueueCallBack to my generic callback

    - by CrazyJoe
    using System; using System.Windows; using System.Windows.Controls; using System.Windows.Documents; using System.Windows.Ink; using System.Windows.Input; using System.Windows.Media; using System.Windows.Media.Animation; using System.Windows.Shapes; using Microsistec.Domain; using Microsistec.Client; using Microsoft.VisualStudio.TestTools.UnitTesting; using System.Collections.Generic; using Microsistec.Tools; using System.Json; using Microsistec.SystemConfig; using System.Threading; using Microsoft.Silverlight.Testing; namespace Test { [TestClass] public class SampleTest : SilverlightTest { [TestMethod, Asynchronous] public void login() { List<PostData> data = new List<PostData>(); data.Add(new PostData("email", "xxx")); data.Add(new PostData("password", MD5.GetHashString("xxx"))); WebClient.sendData(Config.DataServerURL + "/user/login", data, LoginCallBack); EnqueueCallback(?????????); EnqueueTestComplete(); } [Asynchronous] public void LoginCallBack(object sender, System.Net.UploadStringCompletedEventArgs e) { string json = Microsistec.Client.WebClient.ProcessResult(e); var result = JsonArray.Parse(json); Assert.Equals("1", result["value"].ToString()); TestComplete(); } } Im tring to set ???????? value but my callback is generic, it is setup on my WebClient .SendData, how i implement my EnqueueCallback to a my already functio LoginCallBack???

    Read the article

  • Reflective Generic Detection

    - by Aren B
    Trying to find out if a provided Type is of a given generic type (with any generic types inside) Let me Explain: bool IsOfGenericType(Type baseType, Type sampleType) { /// ... } Such that: IsOfGenericType(typeof(Dictionary<,>), typeof(Dictionary<string, int>)); // True IsOfGenericType(typeof(IDictionary<,>), typeof(Dictionary<string, int>)); // True IsOfGenericType(typeof(IList<>), typeof(Dictionary<string,int>)); // False However, I played with some reflection in the intermediate window, here were my results: typeof(Dictionary<,>) is typeof(Dictionary<string,int>) Type expected typeof(Dictionary<string,int>) is typeof(Dictionary<string,int>) Type expected typeof(Dictionary<string,int>).IsAssignableFrom(typeof(Dictionary<,>)) false typeof(Dictionary<string,int>).IsSubclassOf(typeof(Dictionary<,>)) false typeof(Dictionary<string,int>).IsInstanceOfType(typeof(Dictionary<,>)) false typeof(Dictionary<,>).IsInstanceOfType(typeof(Dictionary<string,int>)) false typeof(Dictionary<,>).IsAssignableFrom(typeof(Dictionary<string,int>)) false typeof(Dictionary<,>).IsSubclassOf(typeof(Dictionary<string,int>)) false typeof(Dictionary<,>) is typeof(Dictionary<string,int>) Type expected typeof(Dictionary<string,int>) is typeof(Dictionary<string,int>) Type expected typeof(Dictionary<string,int>).IsAssignableFrom(typeof(Dictionary<,>)) false typeof(Dictionary<string,int>).IsSubclassOf(typeof(Dictionary<,>)) false typeof(Dictionary<string,int>).IsInstanceOfType(typeof(Dictionary<,>)) false typeof(Dictionary<,>).IsInstanceOfType(typeof(Dictionary<string,int>)) false typeof(Dictionary<,>).IsAssignableFrom(typeof(Dictionary<string,int>)) false typeof(Dictionary<,>).IsSubclassOf(typeof(Dictionary<string,int>)) false So now I'm at a loss because when you look at the base.Name on typeof(Dictionary) you get Dictionary`2 Which is the same as typeof(Dictionary<,>).Name

    Read the article

  • Generic wrapper for System.Web.Caching.Cache functions

    - by David Neale
    I've created a generic wrapper for using the Cache object: public class Cache<T> where T : class { public Cache Cache {get;set;} public CachedKeys Key {get;set;} public Cache(Cache cache, CachedKeys key){ Cache = cache; Key = key; } public void AddToCache(T obj){ Cache.Add(Key.ToString(), obj, null, DateTime.Now.AddMinutes(5), System.Web.Caching.Cache.NoSlidingExpiration, System.Web.Caching.CacheItemPriority.Normal, null); } public bool TryGetFromCache(out T cachedData) { cachedData = Cache[Key.ToString()] as T; return cachedData != null; } public void RemoveFromCache() { Cache.Remove(Key.ToString()); } } The CachedKeys enumeration is just a list of keys that can be used to cache data. The trouble is, to call it is quite convuluted: var cache = new Cache<MyObject>(Page.Cache, CachedKeys.MyKey); MyObject myObject = null; if(!cache.TryGetFromCache(out myObject)){ //get data... cache.AddToCache(data); //add to cache return data; } return myObject; I only store one instance of each of my objects in the cache. Therefore, is there any way that I can create an extension method that accepts the type of object to Cache and uses (via Reflection) its Name as the cache key? public static Cache<T> GetCache(this Cache cache, Type cacheType){ Cache<cacheType> Cache = new Cache<cacheType>(cache, cacheType.Name); } Of course, there's two errors here: Extension methods must be defined in a non-generic static class The type or namespace name 'cacheType' could not be found This is clearly not the right approach but I thought I'd show my working. Could somebody guide me in the right direction?

    Read the article

  • Problem with MessageContract, Generic return types and clientside naming

    - by Soeteman
    I'm building a web service which uses MessageContracts, because I want to add custom fields to my SOAP header. In a previous topic, I learned that a composite response has to be wrapped. For this purpose, I devised a generic ResponseWrapper class. [MessageContract(WrapperNamespace = "http://mynamespace.com", WrapperName="WrapperOf{0}")] public class ResponseWrapper<T> { [MessageBodyMember(Namespace = "http://mynamespace.com")] public T Response { get; set; } } I made a ServiceResult base class, defined as follows: [MessageContract(WrapperNamespace = "http://mynamespace.com")] public class ServiceResult { [MessageBodyMember] public bool Status { get; set; } [MessageBodyMember] public string Message { get; set; } [MessageBodyMember] public string Description { get; set; } } To be able to include the request context in the response, I use a derived class of ServiceResult, which uses generics: [MessageContract(WrapperNamespace = "http://mynamespace.com", WrapperName = "ServiceResultOf{0}")] public class ServiceResult<TRequest> : ServiceResult { [MessageBodyMember] public TRequest Request { get; set; } } This is used in the following way [OperationContract()] ResponseWrapper<ServiceResult<HCCertificateRequest>> OrderHealthCertificate(RequestContext<HCCertificateRequest> context); I expected my client code to be generated as ServiceResultOfHCCertificateRequest OrderHealthCertificate(RequestContextOfHCCertificateRequest context); Instead, I get the following: ServiceResultOfHCCertificateRequestzSOTD_SSj OrderHealthCertificate(CompType1 c1, CompType2 c2, HCCertificateRequest context); CompType1 and CompType2 are properties of the RequestContext class. The problem is that a hash is added to the end of ServiceResultOfHCCertificateRequestzSOTD_SSj. How do I need define my generic return types in order for the client type to be generated as expected (without the hash)?

    Read the article

  • Generic list typecasting problem

    - by AJ
    Hello, I'm new to C# and am stuck on the following. I have a Silverlight web service that uses LINQ to query a ADO.NET entity object. e.g.: [OperationContract] public List<Customer> GetData() { using (TestEntities ctx = new TestEntities()) { var data = from rec in ctx.Customer select rec; return data.ToList(); } } This works fine, but what I want to do is to make this more abstract. The first step would be to return a List<EntityObject> but this gives a compiler error, e.g.: [OperationContract] public List<EntityObject> GetData() { using (TestEntities ctx = new TestEntities()) { var data = from rec in ctx.Customer select rec; return data.ToList(); } } The error is: Error 1 Cannot implicitly convert type 'System.Collections.Generic.List<SilverlightTest.Web.Customer>' to 'System.Collections.Generic.IEnumerable<System.Data.Objects.DataClasses.EntityObject>'. An explicit conversion exists (are you missing a cast?) What am i doing wrong? Thanks, AJ

    Read the article

  • Best Practice - Removing item from generic collection in C#

    - by Matt Davis
    I'm using C# in Visual Studio 2008 with .NET 3.5. I have a generic dictionary that maps types of events to a generic list of subscribers. A subscriber can be subscribed to more than one event. private static Dictionary<EventType, List<ISubscriber>> _subscriptions; To remove a subscriber from the subscription list, I can use either of these two options. Option 1: ISubscriber subscriber; // defined elsewhere foreach (EventType event in _subscriptions.Keys) { if (_subscriptions[event].Contains(subscriber)) { _subscriptions[event].Remove(subscriber); } } Option 2: ISubscriber subscriber; // defined elsewhere foreach (EventType event in _subscriptions.Keys) { _subscriptions[event].Remove(subscriber); } I have two questions. First, notice that Option 1 checks for existence before removing the item, while Option 2 uses a brute force removal since Remove() does not throw an exception. Of these two, which is the preferred, "best-practice" way to do this? Second, is there another, "cleaner," more elegant way to do this, perhaps with a lambda expression or using a LINQ extension? I'm still getting acclimated to these two features. Thanks. EDIT Just to clarify, I realize that the choice between Options 1 and 2 is a choice of speed (Option 2) versus maintainability (Option 1). In this particular case, I'm not necessarily trying to optimize the code, although that is certainly a worthy consideration. What I'm trying to understand is if there is a generally well-established practice for doing this. If not, which option would you use in your own code?

    Read the article

  • Generic object to object mapping with parametrized constructor

    - by Rody van Sambeek
    I have a data access layer which returns an IDataRecord. I have a WCF service that serves DataContracts (dto's). These DataContracts are initiated by a parametrized constructor containing the IDataRecord as follows: [DataContract] public class DataContractItem { [DataMember] public int ID; [DataMember] public string Title; public DataContractItem(IDataRecord record) { this.ID = Convert.ToInt32(record["ID"]); this.Title = record["title"].ToString(); } } Unfortanately I can't change the DAL, so I'm obliged to work with the IDataRecord as input. But in generat this works very well. The mappings are pretty simple most of the time, sometimes they are a bit more complex, but no rocket science. However, now I'd like to be able to use generics to instantiate the different DataContracts to simplify the WCF service methods. I want to be able to do something like: public T DoSomething<T>(IDataRecord record) { ... return new T(record); } So I'd tried to following solutions: Use a generic typed interface with a constructor. doesn't work: ofcourse we can't define a constructor in an interface Use a static method to instantiate the DataContract and create a typed interface containing this static method. doesn't work: ofcourse we can't define a static method in an interface Use a generic typed interface containing the new() constraint doesn't work: new() constraint cannot contain a parameter (the IDataRecord) Using a factory object to perform the mapping based on the DataContract Type. does work, but: not very clean, because I now have a switch statement with all mappings in one file. I can't find a real clean solution for this. Can somebody shed a light on this for me? The project is too small for any complex mapping techniques and too large for a "switch-based" factory implementation.

    Read the article

  • Receiving generic typed <T> custom objects through remote object in Flex

    - by Aaron
    Is it possible to receive custom generic typed objects through AMF? I'm trying to integrate a flex app with an existing C# service but flex is choking on custom generic typed objects. As far as I can tell Flex doesn't even support generics, but I'd like to be able to even just read in the object and cast its members as necessary. I basically just want flex to ignore the <T>. I'm hopeful that there's a way to do this, since flex doesn't complain about typed collections (a server call returning List works fine and flex converts it to an ArrayCollection just like an un-typed List). Here's a trimmed down example of what's going on for me: The custom C# typed class public class TypeTest<T> { public T value { get; set; } public TypeTest () { } } The server method returning the typeTest public TypeTest<String> doTypeTest() { TypeTest<String> theTester = new TypeTest<String>("grrrr"); return theTester; } The corresponding flex value object: [RemoteClass(alias="API.Model.TypeTest")] public class TypeTest { private var _value:Object; public function get value():Object { return _value; } public function set value(theValue:Object):void { _value = value; } public function TypeTest() { } } and the result handler code: public function doTypeTest(result:TypeTest):void { var theString:String = result.value as String; trace(theString); } When the result handler is called I get the runtime error: TypeError: Error #1034: Type Coercion failed: cannot convert mx.utils::ObjectProxy@11a98041 to com.model.vos.TypeTest. Irritatingly if I change the result handler to take parameter of type Object it works fine. Anyone know how to make this work with the value object? I feel like i'm missing something really obvious.

    Read the article

  • hadoop implementing a generic list writable

    - by Guruprasad Venkatesh
    I am working on building a map reduce pipeline of jobs(with one MR job's output feeding to another as input). The values being passed around are fairly complex, in that there are lists of different types and hash maps with values as lists. Hadoop api does not seem to have a ListWritable. Am trying to write a generic one, but it seems i can't instantiate a generic type in my readFields implementation, unless i pass in the class type itself: public class ListWritable<T extends Writable> implements Writable { private List<T> list; private Class<T> clazz; public ListWritable(Class<T> clazz) { this.clazz = clazz; list = new ArrayList<T>(); } @Override public void write(DataOutput out) throws IOException { out.writeInt(list.size()); for (T element : list) { element.write(out); } } @Override public void readFields(DataInput in) throws IOException{ int count = in.readInt(); this.list = new ArrayList<T>(); for (int i = 0; i < count; i++) { try { T obj = clazz.newInstance(); obj.readFields(in); list.add(obj); } catch (InstantiationException e) { e.printStackTrace(); } catch (IllegalAccessException e) { e.printStackTrace(); } } } } But hadoop requires all writables to have a no argument constructor to read the values back. Has anybody tried to do the same and solved this problem? TIA.

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32  | Next Page >