Search Results

Search found 25521 results on 1021 pages for 'static objects'.

Page 38/1021 | < Previous Page | 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45  | Next Page >

  • Objects, Relationships, Systems, And Processes

    What is the difference between an expert DBA and a Master DBA? This piece from William Talada talks about Objects, Relationships, Systems, and Processes and how they may relate to your job as a DBA. Schedule Azure backupsRed Gate’s Cloud Services makes it simple to create and schedule backups of your SQL Azure databases to Azure blob storage or Amazon S3. Try it for free today.

    Read the article

  • Are there any tools for performing static analysis of Scala code?

    - by Roman Kagan
    Are there any tools for performing static analysis of Scala code, similar to FindBugs and PMD for Java or Splint for C/C++? I know that FindBugs works on the bytecode produced by compiling Java, so I'm curious as to how it would work on Scala. Google searches (as of 27 October 2009) reveal very little. Google searches (as of 01 February 2010) reveal this question.

    Read the article

  • Java List with Objects - find and replace (delete) entry if Object with certain attribute already ex

    - by Sophomore
    Hi there I've been working all day and I somehow can't get this probably easy task figured out - probably a lack of coffee... I have a synchronizedList where some Objects are being stored. Those objects have a field which is something like an ID. These objects carry information about a user and his current state (simplified). The point is, that I only want one object for each user. So when the state of this user changes, I'd like to remove the "old" entry and store a new one in the List. protected static class Objects{ ... long time; Object ID; ... } ... if (Objects.contains(ID)) { Objects.remove(ID); Objects.add(newObject); } else { Objects.add(newObject); } Obviously this is not the way to go but should illustrate what I'm looking for... Maybe the data structure is not the best for this purpose but any help is welcome!

    Read the article

  • Velocity CTP: can we 'search' for objects?

    - by Stato Machino
    It appears that 'tags' allow us to associate a 'search term' with the objects placed into the Velocity cache space. However, these can only be queried within a 'region'. Further, regions somehow limit the locality of objects in the cache to a single server (or maybe something kinda like that). So this appears to make it hard to perform any operation for which the unique Id of the cached item is not persisted or continuously available to the application that stores and retrieves objects to and from the cache. In any case, I can't see an easy way to 'cleanse' the cache of objects or to find objects across the entire cache that may share some prefix, postfix or infix values in the cache key so that i can clear out the cache of object repeatedly created in unit tests, for example. And I am unsure about the consequences of regions being associated with single server cache locations. So I would appreciate any help with the following questions: What is the difference between a 'distributed cache' (called a 'partitioned' cache??) when using regions, and a 'local cache'? 1.a. In particular, are the region-oriented values in a distributed cache visible through a cache factory that is configured to 'see' the entire cache space? Are the operations of creating and removing 'regions' efficient enough that it would be reasonable to create a region and a group of tags for each bundle of objects that need to be cached? 2.a. Or does this just push the problem of scoping the 'search for objects' up the chain because the ability of the DataCache object to query down through regions and tags as limited as querying for the cache keys of objects themselves. Thanks, Stato

    Read the article

  • Linq to SQL Repository ~theory~ - Generic but now uses Linq to Objects?

    - by Matt Tolliday
    The project I am currently working on used Linq to SQL as an ORM data access technology. Its an MVC3 Web app. The problem I faced was primarily due to the inability to mock (for testing) the DataContext which gets autogenerated by the DBML designer. So to solve this issue (after much reading) I refactored the repository system which was in place - single repository with seperate and duplicated access methods for each table which ended up with something like 300 methods only 10 of which were unique - into a single repository with generic methods taking the table and returning more generic types to the upper reaches of the application. My question revolves more around the design I've used to get thus far and the differences I'm noticing in the structure of the app. 1) Having refactored the code from the dark ages which used classic Linq to SQL queries: public Billing GetBilling(int id) { var result = ( from bil in _bicDc.Billings where bil.BillingId == id select bil).SingleOrDefault(); return (result); } it now looks like: public T GetRecordWhere<T>(Expression<Func<T, bool>> predicate) where T : class { T result; try { result = _dataContext.GetTable<T>().Where(predicate).SingleOrDefault(); } catch (Exception ex) { throw ex; } return result; } and is used by the controller with a query along the lines of: _repository.GetRecordWhere<Billing>(x => x.BillingId == 1); which is fine, and precisely what I wanted to achieve. ...however.... I'm also having to do the following to get precisely the result set i require in the controller class (the highest point of the app in essence)... viewModel.RecentRequests = _model.GetAllRecordsWhere<Billing>(x => x.BillingId == 1) .Where(x => x.BillingId == Convert.ToInt32(BillingType.Submitted)) .OrderByDescending(x => x.DateCreated). Take(5).ToList(); This - as far as my understanding is correct - is now using Linq to Objects rather than the Linq to SQL queries I was previously? Is this okay practise? It feels wrong to me but I dont know why. Probably because the logic of the queries is in the very highest tier of the app, rather than the lowest, but... I defer to you good people for advice. One of the issues I considered was bringing the entire table into memory but I understand that using the Iqeryable return type the where clause is taken to the database and evaluated there. Thus returning only the resultset i require... i may be wrong. And if you've made it this far, well done. Thank you, and if you have any advice it is very much appreciated!!

    Read the article

  • Equivalent of public static final fields in Scala

    - by JT
    I'm learning Scala, and I can't figure out how to best express this simple Java class in Scala: public class Color { public static final Color BLACK = new Color(0, 0, 0); public static final Color WHITE = new Color(255, 255, 255); public static final Color GREEN = new Color(0, 0, 255); private static final int red; private static final int blue; private static final int green; public Color(int red, int blue, int green) { this.red = red; this.blue = blue; this.green = green; } // getters, et cetera } The best I have is the following: class Color(val red: Int, val blue: Int, val green: Int) object BLACK extends Color(0, 0, 0) object WHITE extends Color(255, 255, 255) object GREEN extends Color(0, 0, 255) But I lose the advantages of having BLACK, WHITE, and GREEN being tied to the Color namespace.

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45  | Next Page >