Search Results

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

Page 29/257 | < Previous Page | 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36  | Next Page >

  • is it wasteful/bad design to use a vector/list where in most instances it will only have one element

    - by lucid
    is it wasteful/bad design to use a vector/list where in most instances it will only have one element? example: class dragon { ArrayList<head> = new ArrayList<head> Heads; tail Tail = new tail(); body Body = new body(); dragon() { theHead=new head(); Heads.add(theHead); } void nod() { for (int i=0;i<Heads.size();i++) { heads.get(i).GoUpAndDown(); } } } class firedragon extends dragon { } class icedragon extends dragon { } class lightningdragon extends dragon { } // 10 other one-headed dragon declarations here class hydra extends dragon { hydra() { anotherHead=new head(); for (int i=0;i<2;i++) { Heads.add(anotherHead); } } } class superhydra extends dragon { superhydra() { anotherHead=new head(); for (int i=0;i<4;i++) { Heads.add(anotherHead); } } }

    Read the article

  • Unexpected generics behaviour

    - by pronicles
    I found strange generics behaviour. In two words - thing I realy want is to use ComplexObject1 in most general way, and the thing I realy missed is why defined generic type(... extends BuisnessObject) is lost. The discuss thread is also awailable in my blog http://pronicles.blogspot.com/2010/03/unexpected-generics-behaviour.html. public class Test { public interface EntityObject {} public interface SomeInterface {} public class BasicEntity implements EntityObject {} public interface BuisnessObject<E extends EntityObject> { E getEntity(); } public interface ComplexObject1<V extends SomeInterface> extends BusinessObject<BasicEntity> {} public interface ComplexObject2 extends BuisnessObject<BasicEntity> {} public void test(){ ComplexObject1 complexObject1 = null; ComplexObject2 complexObject2 = null; EntityObject entityObject1 = complexObject1.getEntity(); //BasicEntity entityObject1 = complexObject1.getEntity(); wtf incompatible types!!!! BasicEntity basicEntity = complexObject2.getEntity(); } }

    Read the article

  • Scala - Enumeration vs. Case-Classes

    - by tzofia
    I've created akka actor called LogActor. The LogActors's receive method handling messages from other actors and logging them to the specified log level. I can distinguish between the different levels in 2 ways. The first one: import LogLevel._ object LogLevel extends Enumeration { type LogLevel = Value val Error, Warning, Info, Debug = Value } case class LogMessage(level : LogLevel, msg : String) The second: (EDIT) abstract class LogMessage(msg : String) case class LogMessageError(msg : String) extends LogMessage(msg) case class LogMessageWarning(msg : String) extends LogMessage(msg) case class LogMessageInfo(msg : String) extends LogMessage(msg) case class LogMessageDebug(msg : String) extends LogMessage(msg) Which way is more efficient? does it take less time to match case class or to match enum value? (I read this question but there isn't any answer referring to the runtime issue)

    Read the article

  • Avoiding NPE in trait initialization without using lazy vals

    - by 0__
    This is probably covered by the blog entry by Jesse Eichar—still I can't figure out how to correct the following without residing to lazy vals so that the NPE is fixed: Given trait FooLike { def foo: String } case class Foo( foo: String ) extends FooLike trait Sys { type D <: FooLike def bar: D } trait Confluent extends Sys { type D = Foo } trait Mixin extends Sys { val global = bar.foo } First attempt: class System1 extends Mixin with Confluent { val bar = Foo( "npe" ) } new System1 // boom!! Second attempt, changing mixin order class System2 extends Confluent with Mixin { val bar = Foo( "npe" ) } new System2 // boom!! Now I use both bar and global very heavily, and therefore I don't want to pay a lazy-val tax just because Scala (2.9.2) doesn't get the initialisation right. What to do?

    Read the article

  • When is @uncheckedVariance needed in Scala, and why is it used in GenericTraversableTemplate?

    - by retronym
    @uncheckedVariance can be used to bridge the gap between Scala's declaration site variance annotations and Java's invariant generics. scala import java.util.Comparator import java.util.Comparator scala trait Foo[T] extends Comparator[T] defined trait Foo scala trait Foo[-T] extends Comparator[T] :5: error: contravariant type T occurs in invariant position in type [-T]java.lang.Object with java.util.Comparator[T] of trait Foo trait Foo[-T] extends Comparator[T] ^ scala import annotation.unchecked._ import annotation.unchecked._ scala trait Foo[-T] extends Comparator[T @uncheckedVariance] defined trait Foo This says that java.util.Comparator is naturally contra-variant, that is the type parameter T appears in parameters and never in a return type. Which begs the question, why is it also used in the Scala collections library: trait GenericTraversableTemplate[+A, +CC[X] <: Traversable[X]] extends HasNewBuilder[A, CC[A] @uncheckedVariance] What are the valid uses for this annotation?

    Read the article

  • Eager Loading more than 1 table in LinqtoSql

    - by Michael Freidgeim
    When I've tried in Linq2Sql to load table with 2 child tables, I've noticed, that multiple SQLs are generated. I've found that  it isa known issue, if you try to specify more than one to pre-load it just  picks which one to pre-load and which others to leave deferred (simply ignoring those LoadWith hints)There are more explanations in http://codebetter.com/blogs/david.hayden/archive/2007/08/06/linq-to-sql-query-tuning-appears-to-break-down-in-more-advanced-scenarios.aspxThe reason the relationship in your blog post above is generating multiple queries is that you have two (1:n) relationship (Customers->Orders) and (Orders->OrderDetails). If you just had one (1:n) relationship (Customer->Orders) or (Orders->OrderDetails) LINQ to SQL would optimize and grab it in one query (using a JOIN).  The alternative -to use SQL and POCO classes-see http://stackoverflow.com/questions/238504/linq-to-sql-loading-child-entities-without-using-dataloadoptions?rq=1Fortunately the problem is not applicable to Entity Framework, that we want to use in future development instead of Linq2SqlProduct firstProduct = db.Product.Include("OrderDetail").Include("Supplier").First(); ?

    Read the article

  • How to design database having multiple interrelated entities

    - by Sharath Chandra
    I am designing a new system which is more of a help system for core applications in banks or healthcare sector. Given the nature of the system this is not a heavy transaction oriented system but more of read intensive. Now within this application I have multiple entities which are related to each other. For e.g. Assume the following entities in the system User Training Regulations Now each of these entities have M:N Relationship with each other. Assuming the usage of a standard RDBMS, the design may involve many relationship tables each containing the relationships one other entity ("User_Training", "User_Regulations", "Training_Regulations"). This design is limiting since I have more than 3 entities in the system and maintaining the relationship graph is difficult this way. The most frequently used operation is "given an entity get me all the related entities" . I need to design the database where this operation is relatively inexpensive. What are the different recommendations for modelling this kind of database.

    Read the article

  • Advisor Webcast: Integrating DRM with EPMA

    - by THE
    Leave out your shoes early this year!On December 5th Saint Nicolas has something to put into them... Another Advisor Webcast is on: This time it is Matt Lontchar presenting the setup and use of Data Relationship Modeling ( DRM ) with Hyperion EPMA (to be then used with Planning and or HFM) In this one-hour session he will demonstrate the setup and configuration of a Data Relationship Management application for chart of accounts management with Oracle General Ledger and dimension management for Oracle EPM System applications such as Hyperion Financial Management and Hyperion Planning. Key Points will be: Configuring Data Relationship Management for Oracle GL and EPM Architect integration Configuring Hyperion Foundation Services (Weblogic, Web Services Manager, Shared Services) Deploying and configuring the DRM Web Service Setting up Oracle General Ledger for DRM integration Configuring EPM Architect for DRM integration So - treat yourself for some pre-season "chocolate" and join in on this webcast. You find all relevant information on Doc ID 1504283.1 or via the Advsior Webcast Schedule Note  Doc ID 740966.1 Or simply go directly to the registration site at Webex: https://oracleaw.webex.com/oracleaw/onstage/g.php?d=596766085&t=a

    Read the article

  • Accessing type-parameter of a type-parameter

    - by itemState
    i would like to access, in a trait, the type-parameter of a type-parameter of that trait. without adding this "second-order" type-parameter as another "first-order" parameter to the trait. the following illustrates this problem: sealed trait A; sealed trait A1 extends A; sealed trait A2 extends A trait B[ ASpecific <: A ] { type ASpec = ASpecific } trait D[ ASpecific <: A ] extends B[ ASpecific ] trait C[ +BSpecific <: B[ _ <: A ]] { def unaryOp : C[ D[ BSpecific#ASpec ]] } def test( c: C[ B[ A1 ]]) : C[ D[ A1 ]] = c.unaryOp the test fails to compile because apparently, the c.unaryOp has a result of type C[D[A]] and not C[D[A1]], indicating that ASpec is merely a shortcut for _ <: A and does not refer to the specific type parameter. the two-type-parameter solution is simple: sealed trait A; sealed trait A1 extends A; sealed trait A2 extends A trait B[ ASpecific <: A ] trait D[ ASpecific <: A ] extends B[ ASpecific ] trait C[ ASpecific <: A, +BSpecific <: B[ ASpecific ]] { def unaryOp : C[ ASpecific, D[ ASpecific ]] } def test( c: C[ A1, B[ A1 ]]) : C[ A1, D[ A1 ]] = c.unaryOp but i don't understand why i need to clutter my source with this second, obviously redundant, parameter. is there no way to retrieve it from trait B?

    Read the article

  • What would be different in Java if Enum declaration didn't have the recursive part

    - by atamur
    Please see http://stackoverflow.com/questions/211143/java-enum-definition and http://stackoverflow.com/questions/3061759/why-in-java-enum-is-declared-as-enume-extends-enume for general discussion. Here I would like to learn what exactly would be broken (not typesafe anymore, or requiring additional casts etc) if Enum class was defined as public class Enum<E extends Enum> I'm using this code for testing my ideas: interface MyComparable<T> { int myCompare(T o); } class MyEnum<E extends MyEnum> implements MyComparable<E> { public int myCompare(E o) { return -1; } } class FirstEnum extends MyEnum<FirstEnum> {} class SecondEnum extends MyEnum<SecondEnum> {} With it I wasn't able to find any benefits in this exact case. PS. the fact that I'm not allowed to do class ThirdEnum extends MyEnum<SecondEnum> {} when MyEnum is defined with recursion is a) not relevant, because with real enums you are not allowed to do that just because you can't extend enum yourself b) not true - pls try it in a compiler and see that it in fact is able to compile w/o any errors PPS. I'm more and more inclined to believe that the correct answer here would be "nothing would change if you remove the recursive part" - but I just can't believe that.

    Read the article

  • Overloading generic implicit conversions

    - by raichoo
    Hi I'm having a little scala (version 2.8.0RC1) problem with implicit conversions. Whenever importing more than one implicit conversion the first one gets shadowed. Here is the code where the problem shows up: // containers class Maybe[T] case class Nothing[T]() extends Maybe[T] case class Just[T](value: T) extends Maybe[T] case class Value[T](value: T) trait Monad[C[_]] { def >>=[A, B](a: C[A], f: A => C[B]): C[B] def pure[A](a: A): C[A] } // implicit converter trait Extender[C[_]] { class Wrapper[A](c: C[A]) { def >>=[B](f: A => C[B])(implicit m: Monad[C]): C[B] = { m >>= (c, f) } def >>[B](b: C[B])(implicit m: Monad[C]): C[B] = { m >>= (c, { (x: A) => b } ) } } implicit def extendToMonad[A](c: C[A]) = new Wrapper[A](c) } // instance maybe object maybemonad extends Extender[Maybe] { implicit object MaybeMonad extends Monad[Maybe] { override def >>=[A, B](a: Maybe[A], f: A => Maybe[B]): Maybe[B] = { a match { case Just(x) => f(x) case Nothing() => Nothing() } } override def pure[A](a: A): Maybe[A] = Just(a) } } // instance value object identitymonad extends Extender[Value] { implicit object IdentityMonad extends Monad[Value] { override def >>=[A, B](a: Value[A], f: A => Value[B]): Value[B] = { a match { case Value(x) => f(x) } } override def pure[A](a: A): Value[A] = Value(a) } } import maybemonad._ //import identitymonad._ object Main { def main(args: Array[String]): Unit = { println(Just(1) >>= { (x: Int) => MaybeMonad.pure(x) }) } } When uncommenting the second import statement everything goes wrong since the first "extendToMonad" is shadowed. However, this one works: object Main { implicit def foo(a: Int) = new { def foobar(): Unit = { println("Foobar") } } implicit def foo(a: String) = new { def foobar(): Unit = { println(a) } } def main(args: Array[String]): Unit = { 1 foobar() "bla" foobar() } } So, where is the catch? What am I missing? Regards, raichoo

    Read the article

  • Java Generic Type and Reflection

    - by Tom Tucker
    I have some tricky generic type problem involving reflection. Here's the code. public @interface MyConstraint { Class<? extends MyConstraintValidator<?>> validatedBy(); } public interface MyConstraintValidator<T extends Annotation> { void initialize(T annotation); } /** @param annotation is annotated with MyConstraint. */ public void run(Annotation annotation) { Class<? extends MyConstraintValidator<? extends Annotation>> validatorClass = annotation.annotationType().getAnnotation(MyConstraint.class).validatedBy(); validatorClass.newInstance().initialize(annotation) // will not compile! } The run() method above will not compile because of the following error. The method initialize(capture#10-of ? extends Annotation) in the type MyConstraintValidator<capture#10-of ? extends Annotation> is not applicable for the arguments (Annotation) If I remove the wild cards, then it compiles and works fine. What would be the propert way to declare the type parameter for the vairable validatorClass? Thanks.

    Read the article

  • How can I make a universal construction more efficient?

    - by VF1
    A "universal construction" is a wrapper class for a sequential object that enables it to be linearized (a strong consistency condition for concurrent objects). For instance, here's an adapted wait-free construction, in Java, from [1], which presumes the existence of a wait-free queue that satisfies the interface WFQ (which only requires one-time consensus between threads) and assumes a Sequential interface: public interface WFQ<T> // "FIFO" iteration { int enqueue(T t); // returns the sequence number of t Iterable<T> iterateUntil(int max); // iterates until sequence max } public interface Sequential { // Apply an invocation (method + arguments) // and get a response (return value + state) Response apply(Invocation i); } public interface Factory<T> { T generate(); } // generate new default object public interface Universal extends Sequential {} public class SlowUniversal implements Universal { Factory<? extends Sequential> generator; WFQ<Invocation> wfq = new WFQ<Invocation>(); Universal(Factory<? extends Sequential> g) { generator = g; } public Response apply(Invocation i) { int max = wfq.enqueue(i); Sequential s = generator.generate(); for(Invocation invoc : wfq.iterateUntil(max)) s.apply(invoc); return s.apply(i); } } This implementation isn't very satisfying, however, since it presumes determinism of a Sequential and is really slow. I attempted to add memory recycling: public interface WFQD<T> extends WFQ<T> { T dequeue(int n); } // dequeues only when n is the tail, else assists other threads public interface CopyableSequential extends Sequential { CopyableSequential copy(); } public class RecyclingUniversal implements Universal { WFQD<CopyableSequential> wfqd = new WFQD<CopyableSequential>(); Universal(CopyableSequential init) { wfqd.enqueue(init); } public Response apply(Invocation i) { int max = wfqd.enqueue(i); CopyableSequential cs = null; int ctr = max; for(CopyableSequential csq : wfq.iterateUntil(max)) if(--max == 0) cs = csq.copy(); wfqd.dequeue(max); return cs.apply(i); } } Here are my specific questions regarding the extension: Does my implementation create a linearizable multi-threaded version of a CopyableSequential? Is it possible extend memory recycling without extending the interface (perhaps my new methods trivialize the problem)? My implementation only reduces memory when a thread returns, so can this be strengthened? [1] provided an implementation for WFQ<T>, not WFQD<T> - one does exist, though, correct? [1] Herlihy and Shavit, The Art of Multiprocessor Programming.

    Read the article

  • Entity Framework and multi-tenancy database design

    - by Junto
    I am looking at multi-tenancy database schema design for an SaaS concept. It will be ASP.NET MVC - EF, but that isn't so important. Below you can see an example database schema (the Tenant being the Company). The CompanyId is replicated throughout the schema and the primary key has been placed on both the natural key, plus the tenant Id. Plugging this schema into the Entity Framework gives the following errors when I add the tables into the Entity Model file (Model1.edmx): The relationship 'FK_Order_Customer' uses the set of foreign keys '{CustomerId, CompanyId}' that are partially contained in the set of primary keys '{OrderId, CompanyId}' of the table 'Order'. The set of foreign keys must be fully contained in the set of primary keys, or fully not contained in the set of primary keys to be mapped to a model. The relationship 'FK_OrderLine_Customer' uses the set of foreign keys '{CustomerId, CompanyId}' that are partially contained in the set of primary keys '{OrderLineId, CompanyId}' of the table 'OrderLine'. The set of foreign keys must be fully contained in the set of primary keys, or fully not contained in the set of primary keys to be mapped to a model. The relationship 'FK_OrderLine_Order' uses the set of foreign keys '{OrderId, CompanyId}' that are partially contained in the set of primary keys '{OrderLineId, CompanyId}' of the table 'OrderLine'. The set of foreign keys must be fully contained in the set of primary keys, or fully not contained in the set of primary keys to be mapped to a model. The relationship 'FK_Order_Customer' uses the set of foreign keys '{CustomerId, CompanyId}' that are partially contained in the set of primary keys '{OrderId, CompanyId}' of the table 'Order'. The set of foreign keys must be fully contained in the set of primary keys, or fully not contained in the set of primary keys to be mapped to a model. The relationship 'FK_OrderLine_Customer' uses the set of foreign keys '{CustomerId, CompanyId}' that are partially contained in the set of primary keys '{OrderLineId, CompanyId}' of the table 'OrderLine'. The set of foreign keys must be fully contained in the set of primary keys, or fully not contained in the set of primary keys to be mapped to a model. The relationship 'FK_OrderLine_Order' uses the set of foreign keys '{OrderId, CompanyId}' that are partially contained in the set of primary keys '{OrderLineId, CompanyId}' of the table 'OrderLine'. The set of foreign keys must be fully contained in the set of primary keys, or fully not contained in the set of primary keys to be mapped to a model. The relationship 'FK_OrderLine_Product' uses the set of foreign keys '{ProductId, CompanyId}' that are partially contained in the set of primary keys '{OrderLineId, CompanyId}' of the table 'OrderLine'. The set of foreign keys must be fully contained in the set of primary keys, or fully not contained in the set of primary keys to be mapped to a model. The question is in two parts: Is my database design incorrect? Should I refrain from these compound primary keys? I'm questioning my sanity regarding the fundamental schema design (frazzled brain syndrome). Please feel free to suggest the 'idealized' schema. Alternatively, if the database design is correct, then is EF unable to match the keys because it perceives these foreign keys as a potential mis-configured 1:1 relationships (incorrectly)? In which case, is this an EF bug and how can I work around it?

    Read the article

  • Fluent NHibernate: mapping complex many-to-many (with additional columns) and setting fetch

    - by HackedByChinese
    I need a Fluent NHibernate mapping that will fulfill the following (if nothing else, I'll also take the appropriate NHibernate XML mapping and reverse engineer it). DETAILS I have a many-to-many relationship between two entities: Parent and Child. That is accomplished by an additional table to store the identities of the Parent and Child. However, I also need to define two additional columns on that mapping that provide more information about the relationship. This is roughly how I've defined my types, at least the relevant parts (where Entity is some base type that provides an Id property and checks for equivalence based on that Id): public class Parent : Entity { public virtual IList<ParentChildRelationship> Children { get; protected set; } public virtual void AddChildRelationship(Child child, int customerId) { var relationship = new ParentChildRelationship { CustomerId = customerId, Parent = this, Child = child }; if (Children == null) Children = new List<ParentChildRelationship>(); if (Children.Contains(relationship)) return; relationship.Sequence = Children.Count; Children.Add(relationship); } } public class Child : Entity { // child doesn't care about its relationships } public class ParentChildRelationship { public int CustomerId { get; set; } public Parent Parent { get; set; } public Child Child { get; set; } public int Sequence { get; set; } public override bool Equals(object obj) { if (ReferenceEquals(null, obj)) return false; if (ReferenceEquals(this, obj)) return true; var other = obj as ParentChildRelationship; if (return other == null) return false; return (CustomerId == other.CustomerId && Parent == other.Parent && Child == other.Child); } public override int GetHashCode() { unchecked { int result = CustomerId; result = Parent == null ? 0 : (result*397) ^ Parent.GetHashCode(); result = Child == null ? 0 : (result*397) ^ Child.GetHashCode(); return result; } } } The tables in the database look approximately like (assume primary/foreign keys and forgive syntax): create table Parent ( id int identity(1,1) not null ) create table Child ( id int identity(1,1) not null ) create table ParentChildRelationship ( customerId int not null, parent_id int not null, child_id int not null, sequence int not null ) I'm OK with Parent.Children being a lazy loaded property. However, the ParentChildRelationship should eager load ParentChildRelationship.Child. Furthermore, I want to use a Join when I eager load. The SQL, when accessing Parent.Children, NHibernate should generate an equivalent query to: SELECT * FROM ParentChildRelationship rel LEFT OUTER JOIN Child ch ON rel.child_id = ch.id WHERE parent_id = ? OK, so to do that I have mappings that look like this: ParentMap : ClassMap<Parent> { public ParentMap() { Table("Parent"); Id(c => c.Id).GeneratedBy.Identity(); HasMany(c => c.Children).KeyColumn("parent_id"); } } ChildMap : ClassMap<Child> { public ChildMap() { Table("Child"); Id(c => c.Id).GeneratedBy.Identity(); } } ParentChildRelationshipMap : ClassMap<ParentChildRelationship> { public ParentChildRelationshipMap() { Table("ParentChildRelationship"); CompositeId() .KeyProperty(c => c.CustomerId, "customerId") .KeyReference(c => c.Parent, "parent_id") .KeyReference(c => c.Child, "child_id"); Map(c => c.Sequence).Not.Nullable(); } } So, in my test if i try to get myParentRepo.Get(1).Children, it does in fact get me all the relationships and, as I access them from the relationship, the Child objects (for example, I can grab them all by doing parent.Children.Select(r => r.Child).ToList()). However, the SQL that NHibernate is generating is inefficient. When I access parent.Children, NHIbernate does a SELECT * FROM ParentChildRelationship WHERE parent_id = 1 and then a SELECT * FROM Child WHERE id = ? for each child in each relationship. I understand why NHibernate is doing this, but I can't figure out how to set up the mapping to make NHibernate query the way I mentioned above.

    Read the article

  • How to use Private Inheritence aka C++ in C# and Why not it is present in C#

    - by Vijay
    I know that private inheritance is supported in C++ and only public inheritance is supported in C#. I also came across an article which says that private inheritance usually defines a HAS-A relationship and kind of an aggregation relationship between the classes. EDIT: C++ code for private inheritance: The "Car has-a Engine" relationship can also be expressed using private inheritance: class Car : private Engine { // Car has-a Engine public: Car() : Engine(8) { } // Initializes this Car with 8 cylinders using Engine::start; // Start this Car by starting its Engine }; Now, Is there a way to create a HAS-A relationship between C# classes which is one of the thing that I would like to know - HOW? Another curious question is why doesn't C# support the private (and also protected) inheritance ? - Is not supporting multiple implementation inheritance a valid reason or any other? Is private (and protected) inheritance planned for future versions of C#? Will supporting the private (and protected) inheritance in C# make it a better and widely used language?

    Read the article

  • UML Class Relationships

    - by 01010011
    Hi, I would like to confirm whether I am on the right track when identifying common UML class relationships. For example, is the relationship between: 1 a stackoverflow member and his/her stackoverflow user account categorized as a composition relationship or an aggregation relationship? At first I thought it was an association because this member "has a" account. However on second thought, I am thinking its composition because each "part" (user account) belongs to only one whole (user) at a time, meaning for as long as I am logged into stackoverflow, I have to use this one and only account until I log off. If I log back onto stackoverflow with a different account then its composition again. Do you agree? 2 a database and a person's user account an aggregation relationship? I think so because 1 database (the whole) can store 0...* number of user accounts (the parts) but another database can store the same user accounts. Finally, can anyone recommend a website that specializes in designing code using UML? Thanks in advance

    Read the article

  • Association not imported in EF4 designer for non-primary key

    - by Rommel Manalo
    The relationship 'FK_EXTERNAL_ISMARKETI_MARKETIN' has columns that are not part of the key of the table on the primary side of the relationship. The relationship was excluded. USE [Instruments.UnitTest] GO ALTER TABLE [Instr].[ExternalIdentification] WITH CHECK ADD CONSTRAINT [FK_EXTERNAL_ISMARKETI_MARKETIN] FOREIGN KEY([InstrumentID], [MarketInstrumentID]) REFERENCES [Instr].[MarketInstrument] ([InstrumentID], [MarketInstrumentID]) GO ALTER TABLE [Instr].[ExternalIdentification] CHECK CONSTRAINT [FK_EXTERNAL_ISMARKETI_MARKETIN] GO I'm using an association for NON-PRIMARY KEY columns, is this possible in the EF4?

    Read the article

  • Form values appear blank when submitting to the database - Drupal FormAPI

    - by GaxZE
    Hello, I have been working on this drupal form API script for past week and half. to give an insight into my problem.. the form below merely lists a host of database records which contain 5 individual scoring ranks. (mind, action, relationship, language and IT). this code is apart of my own custom module where all values are listed from the database. the idea behind this module is to be able to edit these values on a large scale. I am having trouble getting the values entered in the form to be passed to the variables inside of the marli_admin_submit function. the second problem is the assigning those values to their specific ID. for this purpose id like to add im merely trying to get just one score updated rather than all of them. below is my code. any advice appreciated. function marli_scores(){ $result = pager_query(db_rewrite_sql('SELECT * FROM marli WHERE value != " "')); while ($node = db_fetch_object($result)) { $attribute = $node->attribute; $field = $node->field_name; $item = $node->value; $mind = $node->mind; $action = $node->action; $relationship = $node->relationship; $language = $node->language; $it = $node->it; $form['field'][$node->marli_id] = array('#type' => 'markup', '#value' => $field, '#prefix' => '<b>', '#suffix' => '</b>'); $form['title'][$node->marli_id] = array('#type' => 'markup', '#value' => $item, '#prefix' => '<b>', '#suffix' => '</b>'); $form['mind'][$node->marli_id] = array('#type' => 'textfield', '#maxlength' => '1', '#size' => '1', '#value' => $mind); $form['action'][$node->marli_id] = array('#type' => 'textfield', '#maxlength' => '1', '#size' => '1', '#value' => $action); $form['relationship'][$node->marli_id] = array('#type' => 'textfield', '#maxlength' => '1', '#size' => '1', '#value' => $relationship); $form['language'][$node->marli_id] = array('#type' => 'textfield', '#maxlength' => '1', '#size' => '1', '#value' => $language); $form['it'][$node->marli_id] = array('#type' => 'textfield', '#maxlength' => '1', '#size' => '1', '#value' => $it); } $form['pager'] = array('#value' => theme('pager', NULL, 50, 0)); $form['save'] = array('#type' => 'submit', '#value' => t('Save')); $form['#theme'] = 'marli_scores'; return $form; } function marli_admin_submit($form, &$form_state) { $marli_id = 4; $submit_mind = $form_state['values']['mind'][$marli_id]; $submit_action = $form_state['values']['action'][$marli_id]; $submit_relationship = $form_state['values']['relationship'][$marli_id]; $submit_language = $form_state['values']['language'][$marli_id]; $submit_it = $form_state['values']['it'][$marli_id]; $sql_query = "UPDATE {marli} SET mind = %d, action = %d, relationship = %d, language = %d, it = %d WHERE marli_id = %d"; if ($success = db_query($sql_query, $submit_mind, $submit_action, $submit_relationship, $submit_language, $submit_it)) { drupal_set_message(t(' Values have been saved.')); } else { drupal_set_message(t('There was an error saving your data. Please try again.')); } }

    Read the article

  • Trying and expand the contrib.auth.user model and add a "relatipnships" manage

    - by dotty
    I have the following model setup. from django.db import models from django.contrib.auth.models import User class SomeManager(models.Manager): def friends(self): # return friends bla bla bla class Relationship(models.Model): """(Relationship description)""" from_user = models.ForeignKey(User, related_name='from_user') to_user = models.ForeignKey(User, related_name='to_user') has_requested_friendship = models.BooleanField(default=True) is_friend = models.BooleanField(default=False) objects = SomeManager() relationships = models.ManyToManyField(User, through=Relationship, symmetrical=False) relationships.contribute_to_class(User, 'relationships') Here i take the User object and use contribute_to_class to add 'relationships' to the User object. The relationship show up, but if call User.relationships.friends it should run the friends() method, but its failing. Any ideas how i would do this? Thanks

    Read the article

  • SQLAlchemy & Complex Queries

    - by user356594
    I have to implement ACL for an existing application. So I added the a user, group and groupmembers table to the database. I defined a ManyToMany relationship between user and group via the association table groupmembers. In order to protect some ressources of the app (i..e item) I added a additional association table auth_items which should be used as an association table for the ManyToMany relationship between groups/users and the specific item. item has following columns: user_id -- user table group_id -- group table item_id -- item table at least on of user_id and group_id columns are set. So it's possible to define access for a group or for a user to a specific item. I have used the AssociationProxy to define the relationship between users/groups and items. I now want to display all items which the user has access to and I have a really hard time doing that. Following criteria are used: All items which are owned by the user should be shown (item.owner_id = user.id) All public items should be shown (item.access = public) All items which the user has access to should be shown (auth_item.user_id = user.id) All items which the group of the user has access to should be shown. The first two criteria are quite straightforward, but I have a hard time doing the 3rd one. Here is my approach: clause = and_(item.access == 'public') if user is not None: clause = or_(clause,item.owner == user,item.users.contains(user),item.groups.contains(group for group in user.groups)) The third criteria produces an error. item.groups.contains(group for group in user.groups) I am actually not sure if this is a good approach at all. What is the best approach when filtering manytomany relationships? How I can filter a manytomany relationship based on another list/relationship? Btw I am using the latest sqlalchemy (6.0) and elixir version Thanks for any insights.

    Read the article

  • SQL aggregation query, grouping by entries in junction table

    - by cm007
    I have TableA in a many-to-many relationship with TableC via TableB. That is, TableA TableB TableC id | val fkeyA | fkeyC id | data I wish the do select sum(val) on TableA, grouping by the relationship(s) to TableC. Every entry in TableA has at least one relationship with TableC. For example, TableA 1 | 25 2 | 30 3 | 50 TableB 1 | 1 1 | 2 2 | 1 2 | 2 2 | 3 3 | 1 3 | 2 should output 75 30 since rows 1 and 3 in Table have the same relationships to TableC, but row 2 in TableA has a different relationship to TableC. How can I write a SQL query for this?

    Read the article

  • iPhone Core Data - Access deep attributes with to many relationships

    - by ncohen
    Hi everyone, Let say I have an entity user which has a one to many relationship with the entity menu which has a one to many relationship with the entity meal which has a many to one relationship with the entity recipe which has a one to many relationship with the entity element. What I would like to do is to select the elements which belong to a particular user (username = myUsername) and particular menu*s* (minDate < menu.date < maxDate). Does anyone have an idea how to get them? Thanks

    Read the article

  • NHibernate Many-to-many with a boolean flag on the association table

    - by Nigel
    Hi I am doing some work on an application that uses an existing schema that cannot be altered. Whilst writing my NHibernate mappings I encountered a strange many-to-many relationship. The relationship is defined in the standard way as in this question with the addition of a boolean flag on the association table that signifies if the relationship is legal. This seems somewhat redundant but as I say, cannot be changed. Is it possible to define this relationship in Nhibernate without resorting to using a third class to represent the association? Perhaps by applying a filter? Many thanks.

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36  | Next Page >