Search Results

Search found 81 results on 4 pages for 'dmitriy n laykom'.

Page 4/4 | < Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 

  • Hot to get rid of memory allocations/deallocations in swig wrappers?

    - by Dmitriy Matveev
    I want to use swig for generation of read-only wrappers for a complex object. The object which I want to wrap will always be existent while I will read it. And also I will only use my wrappers at the time that object is existent, thus I don't need any memory management from SWIG. For following swig interface: %module test %immutable; %inline %{ struct Foo { int a; }; struct Bar { int b; Foo f; }; %} I will have a wrappers which will have a lot of garbage in generated interfaces and do useless work which will reduce performance in my case. Generated java wrapper for Bar class will be like this: public class Bar { private long swigCPtr; protected boolean swigCMemOwn; protected Bar(long cPtr, boolean cMemoryOwn) { swigCMemOwn = cMemoryOwn; swigCPtr = cPtr; } protected static long getCPtr(Bar obj) { return (obj == null) ? 0 : obj.swigCPtr; } protected void finalize() { delete(); } public synchronized void delete() { if (swigCPtr != 0) { if (swigCMemOwn) { swigCMemOwn = false; testJNI.delete_Bar(swigCPtr); } swigCPtr = 0; } } public int getB() { return testJNI.Bar_b_get(swigCPtr, this); } public Foo getF() { return new Foo(testJNI.Bar_f_get(swigCPtr, this), true); } public Bar() { this(testJNI.new_Bar(), true); } } I don't need 'swigCMemOwn' field in my wrapper since it always will be false. All code related to this field will also be useless. There are also unnecessary logic in native code: SWIGEXPORT jlong JNICALL Java_some_testJNI_Bar_1f_1get(JNIEnv *jenv, jclass jcls, jlong jarg1, jobject jarg1_) { jlong jresult = 0 ; struct Bar *arg1 = (struct Bar *) 0 ; Foo result; (void)jenv; (void)jcls; (void)jarg1_; arg1 = *(struct Bar **)&jarg1; result = ((arg1)->f); { Foo * resultptr = (Foo *) malloc(sizeof(Foo)); memmove(resultptr, &result, sizeof(Foo)); *(Foo **)&jresult = resultptr; } return jresult; } I don't need these calls to malloc and memmove. I want to force swig to resolve both of these problems, but don't know how. Is it possible?

    Read the article

  • Is it possible to change names of Doxygen generated html files?

    - by Dmitriy
    We are going to publish API documentation on our web site. The documentation is generated by Doxygen from sources. The problem is that Doxygen generate weird file names (which is no so good for SEO). For example, for source file RO4_Languages.h Doxygen generate _r_o4___languages_8h.htm. Is it possible to change name of generated files? PS: I know that it possible to change output using 3rd party tools/scripts (awk/sed/perl/etc).

    Read the article

  • ActiveRecord bug? Or am I getting it wrong? (validates_presence_of if)

    - by Dmitriy Likhten
    Ok: User attr_accessible :name, :email, :email_confirmation validates_presence_of :email_confirmation if :email_changed? What happens in the following situation: u = User.find 1 u.name = 'Fonzi' u.name_changed? # => true u.email_changed? # => false u.valid? # => false : email_confirmation is required Basically, if I change if to unless the validates works as expected, won't validate if the email has not changed, will validate if the email changed. I thought the IF indicates "run this validation if the following function returns true. Seems to work backwards!? Am I just getting it wrong?

    Read the article

  • fields_for to stop pluralizing.

    - by Dmitriy Likhten
    I have a fields_for tag, where I specify the prefix (lets say for some good reasons), and this is supposed to represent a one-to-one relationship. I am trying to represent a relationship widget has_many thingamagigs thingamagig has_one whatchamacallit The field_for code is: fields_for "widgt[thingamagigs_attributes][][whatchamacallit_attributes]", thingamagig.whatchamacallit do |x| which generates names (wrongly): widget[thingamagigs_attributes][][whatchamacallit_attributes][][value] The better solution would be t.fields_for :whatchamacallit do |x| where t = fields_for the thingamagig... However if I do that, the following names are generated widgt[thingamagigs_attributes][whatchamacallit_attributes][] which is completely wrong as all other fields for a thingamagig is... widgt[thingamagigs_attributes][][name] So in all cases I am screwed. The original field_for using a string cannot be used with accepts_nested_attributes_for :whatchamacallit since whatchamacallit is a singular relationship and an object is expected not an array. The second fields_for will simply not work because rails cannot parse the params object correctly. Is there a way to tell the first forms_for to not add the [] after [whatchamacallit_attributes] in all field names?

    Read the article

  • ActiveRecord validates... custom field name.

    - by Dmitriy Likhten
    I would like to fix up some error messages my site generates. Here is the problem: class Brand < ActiveRecord::Base validates_presence_of :foo ... end My goal is to make a message "Ticket description is required" instead of "Foo is required" or may not be blank, or whatever. The reason this is so important is because lets say previously the field was ticket_summary. That was great and the server was coded to use that, but now due to crazy-insane business analysts it has been determined that ticket_summary is a poor name, and should be ticket_description. Now I don't necessarily want to have my db be driven by the user requirements for field names, especially since they can change frequently without functionality changes. Is there a mechanism for providing this already?

    Read the article

  • Hashes vs Numeric id's

    - by Karan Bhangui
    When creating a web application that some how displays the display of a unique identifier for a recurring entity (videos on YouTube, or book section on a site like mine), would it be better to use a uniform length identifier like a hash or the unique key of the item in the database (1, 2, 3, etc). Besides revealing a little, what I think is immaterial, information about the internals of your app, why would using a hash be better than just using the unique id? In short: Which is better to use as a publicly displayed unique identifier - a hash value, or a unique key from the database? Edit: I'm opening up this question again because Dmitriy brought up the good point of not tying down the naming to db specific property. Will this sort of tie down prevent me from optimizing/normalizing the database in the future? The platform uses php/python with ISAM /w MySQL.

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 1 2 3 4