Search Results

Search found 1256 results on 51 pages for 'explicit'.

Page 4/51 | < Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >

  • Explicit disable MySQL query cache in some parts of program

    - by jack
    In a Django project, some cronjob programs are mainly used for administrative or analysis purposes, e.g. generating site usage stats, rotating user activities log, etc. We probably do not hope MySQL to cache queries in those programs to save memory usage and improve query cache efficiency. Is it possible to turn off MySQL query cache explicitly in those programs while keep it enabled for other parts including all views.py?

    Read the article

  • Attaining Explicit and Predictable Ruby on Rails...

    - by Winston
    I need help, how can I learn this framework? Here's what I need to know. Routes, it's expected outcome, the prefix/suffix methods associated with every changes made with it. ActiveRecord, the dynamic generation of methods, the behind the scenes with prefix_ and _suffix methods. The View, how do I know what prefix/suffix methods can be used in the View. Is there's a way to know all those behind-the-scenes actions in console.

    Read the article

  • Get the signed/unsigned variant of an integer template parameter without explicit traits

    - by Blair Holloway
    I am looking to define a template class whose template parameter will always be an integer type. The class will contain two members, one of type T, and the other as the unsigned variant of type T -- i.e. if T == int, then T_Unsigned == unsigned int. My first instinct was to do this: template <typename T> class Range { typedef unsigned T T_Unsigned; // does not compile public: Range(T min, T_Unsigned range); private: T m_min; T_Unsigned m_range; }; But it doesn't work. I then thought about using partial template specialization, like so: template <typename T> struct UnsignedType {}; // deliberately empty template <> struct UnsignedType<int> { typedef unsigned int Type; }; template <typename T> class Range { typedef UnsignedType<T>::Type T_Unsigned; /* ... */ }; This works, so long as you partially specialize UnsignedType for every integer type. It's a little bit of additional copy-paste work (slash judicious use of macros), but serviceable. However, I'm now curious - is there another way of determining the signed-ness of an integer type, and/or using the unsigned variant of a type, without having to manually define a Traits class per-type? Or is this the only way to do it?

    Read the article

  • Spring MVC 3.0: Avoiding explicit JAXBElement<> wrapper in method arg

    - by Keith Myers
    I have the following method and want to avoid having to explicitly show the JAXBElement< syntax. Is there some sort of annotation that would allow the method to appear to accept raw MessageResponse objects but in actuality work the same as shown below? I'm not sure how clear that was so I'll say this: I'm looking for some syntactic sugar :) @ServiceActivator public void handleMessageResponse(JAXBElement<MessageResponse> jaxbResponse) { MessageResponse response = jaxbResponse.getValue(); MessageStatus status = messageStatusDao.getByStoreIdAndMessageId(response.getStoreId(), response.getMessageId()); status.setStatusTimestamp(response.getDate()); status.setStatus("Complete"); }

    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

  • gcc problem with explicit template instantiation?

    - by steve jaffe
    It is my understanding that either a declaration or typedef of a specialization ought to cause a template class to be instantiated, but this does not appear to be happening with gcc. E.g. I have a template class, template class Foo {}; I write class Foo<double>; or typedef Foo<double> DoubleFoo; but after compilation the symbol table of the resulting object file does not contain the members of Foo. If I create an instance: Foo<double> aFoo; then of course the symbols are all generated. Has anyone else experienced this and/or have an explanation?

    Read the article

  • Visual Studio 2008 Explicit Reference Error

    - by Alan
    I have a project which references a dll in the same solution (called "Common"). Common has two types of errors with the same names but different namespaces i.e. Common.Login.UserDeleted Common.Imaging.UserDeleted When I type UserDeleted visual studio recognizes both of these and asks for which it is ("ambiguous reference"). I right-click UserDeleted and select one of the two above, yet it then says that the type or reference doesn't exist! It doesn't make any sense. Why is this happening? I can't compile my program until I find a solution to this, thanks

    Read the article

  • Fluent NHibernate - Delete a related object when no explicit relationship exists in the model

    - by John Price
    I've got an application that keeps track of (for the sake of an example) what drinks are available at a given restaurant. My domain model looks like: class Restaurant { public IEnumerable<RestaurantDrink> GetRestaurantDrinks() { ... } //other various properties } class RestaurantDrink { public Restaurant Restaurant { get; set; } public Drink { get; set; } public string DrinkVariety { get; set; } //"fountain drink", "bottled", etc. //other various properties } class Drink { public string Name { get; set; } public string Manufacturer { get; set; } //other various properties } My db schema is (I hope) about what you'd expect; "RestaurantDrinks" is essentially a mapping table between Restaurants and Drinks with some extra properties (like "DrinkVariety" tacked on). Using Fluent NHibernate to set up mappings, I've set up a "HasMany" relationship from Restaurants to RestaurantDrinks that causes the latter to be deleted when its parent Restaurant is deleted. My question is, given that "Drink" does not have any property on it that explicitly references RestaurantDrinks (the relationship only exists in the underlying database), can I set up a mapping that will cause RestaurantDrinks to be deleted if their associated Drink is deleted?

    Read the article

  • Foo f = Foo(); // no matching function for call to 'Foo::Foo(Foo)' ... huh?!

    - by Kyle
    class Foo { public: explicit Foo() {} explicit Foo(Foo&) {} }; Foo d = Foo(); error: no matching function for call to 'Foo::Foo(Foo)' I tried changing Foo(Foo&) to Foo(Foo) as the error suggests, which AFAIK is not a valid constructor, and sure enough I get: error: invalid constructor; you probably meant ‘Foo (const Foo&)’ What gives? How do I resolve this? (This is on GCC by the way)

    Read the article

  • Wanna use StructureMap to store HttpContext/User based explicit instances

    - by René
    Hi I'm having difficulty figuring out how to store an explicitly user generated instance in StructureMap, cached by HttpContext. When I try the code underneath, I even get the first cached instance, which leads to failures when using it for storing user credentials in Asp.Net AuthenticateRequest method. ForRequestedType<TInterface>() .CacheBy(InstanceScope.HttpContext) .TheDefault. Is. Object(instance)); The problem is I can't create a new instance on requesting StructureMap, because I need more other factories for getting rights etc. for the current user. Any ideas?

    Read the article

  • Explicit initialization of struct/class members

    - by Zephon
    struct some_struct{ int a; }; some_struct n = {}; n.a will be 0 after this; I know this braces form of initialization is inherited from C and is supported for compatibility with C programs, but this only compiles with C++, not with the C compiler. I'm using Visual C++ 2005. In C this type of initialization struct some_struct n = {0}; is correct and will zero-initialize all members of a structure. Is the empty pair of braces form of initialization standard? I first saw this form of initialization in a WinAPI tutorial from msdn.

    Read the article

  • reorder XML elements or set an explicit template with XSLT

    - by Sash
    I tried the solution in my previous question (flattening XML to load via SSIS package), however this isn't working. I now know what I need to do, however I need some guidance on how to do it. So say I have the following XML structure: <person id="1"> <name>John</name> <surname>Smith</surname> <age>25</age> <comment> <comment_id>1</comment_id> <comment_text>Hello</comment_text> </comment> <comment> <comment_id>2</comment_id> <comment_text>Hello again!</comment_text> </comment> <somethingelse> <id>1</id> </somethingelse> <comment> <comment_id>3</comment_id> <comment_text>Third Item</comment_text> </comment> </person> <person id="2"> <name>John</name> <surname>Smith</surname> <age>25</age> <somethingelse> <id>1</id> </somethingelse> </person> ... ... If I am to load this into a SSIS package, as an XML source, what I will essentially get is a table created for each element, as opposed to get a structured table output such as person table (name, surname, age) somethingelse table (id) comment table (comment_id, comment_text) What I end up getting is: person table (person_Id <-- internal SSIS id) name table surname table age table person_name table person_surname table person_comment_comment_id table etc... What I found was that if each element and all inner elements are not in the same format and consistency, i will get the above anomaly which makes it rather complex especially if I am dealing with 80 - 100+ columns. Unfortunately I have no way of modifying the system (Lotus Notes) that produces these reports, so I was wondering whether I may be able to explicitly have an XSLT template that will be able to align each person sub elements (and the sub collection elements such as comments ? Unless there is a quicker way to realign all inner elements. Seems that SSIS XML source requires a very consistent XML file in the sense of: if the name element is in position 1, then all subsequent name elements within person parent have to be in position 1. SSIS seems to pickup the inconsistencies if there are certain elements missing from one parent to another, however, if their ordering is not right (A, B, C)(A, B, C)(A,C,B), it will chuck a massive fuss! All help is appreciated! Thank you in advance.

    Read the article

  • Explicit call of Runnable.run

    - by klaudio
    Hi, I have a question. Somebody, who was working on my code before me, created some method and passed Runnable as parameter, more likely: void myMethod(Runnable runnable){ runnable.run(); } Then calling myMethod out of main looks like: public static void main(String args[]) { try { myMethod(new Runnable(){ public void run() { //do something...; }}); } catch (Throwable t) { } } So, to supply parameter to myMethod I need to instantiate object of (in this case anonymous) class implementing Runnable. My question is: is it necessary to use Runnable in this example? Can I use any different interface? I mean I can create new interface with single method i.e. interface MyInterface{ void doThis(); } then change look of myMethod: void myMethod(MyInterface myObject){ myObject.doThis(); } And of course client too: public static void main(String args[]) { try { myMethod(new MyInterface (){ public void doThis() { //do something...; }}); } catch (Throwable t) { } } Or maybe something is about Runnable?!

    Read the article

  • Explicit or implicit execution control statement use

    - by Andrei Rinea
    I sometimes use if (this._currentToolForeColor.HasValue) return this._currentToolForeColor.Value; else throw new InvalidOperationException(); other times I use if (this._currentToolForeColor.HasValue) return this._currentToolForeColor.Value; throw new InvalidOperationException(); The two are equivalent, I know, but I am not sure which is the best and why. This goes even further as you can use other execution-control statements such as brake or continue : while(something) { if(condition) { DoThis(); continue; } else break; } versus while(something) { if(condition) { DoThis(); continue; } break; } EDIT 1 : Yes the loop example(s) suck because they are synthetic (i.e.: made up for this question) unlike the first which is practical.

    Read the article

  • Is it bad practise to initialise fields outside of an explicit constructor

    - by MrTortoise
    So its monday and we are arguing about coding practises. The examples here are a litttle too simple, but the real deal has several constructors. In order to initialise the simple values (eg dates to their min value) I have moved the code out of the constructors and into the field definitions. public class ConstructorExample { string _string = "John"; } public class ConstructorExample2 { string _string; public ConstructorExample2() { _string = "John"; } } How should it be done by the book. I tend to be very case by case and so am maybe a little lax abotu this kind of thing. However i feel that accams razor tells me to move the initialisation out of multiple constructors. Of course I could always move this shared initialisation into a private method. The question is essentially ... is initialising fields where they are defined as opposed to the constructor bad in any way? The argument I am facing is one of error handling, but i do not feel it is relevant as there are no possible exceptions that won't be picked up at compile time.

    Read the article

  • SVN Subversion use explicit cached credentials

    - by Nick
    I am trying to run a SVN command in a script, but the script is launched as a system service that has cached svn username/password credentials. I could always just put the username/password arguments in the command: svn info --username bob --password pass but I'd rather not have my username/password just sitting in a text file. I've discovered that my cached credentails (when run svn normally) end up here: C:\Documents and Settings\bob\Application Data\Subversion\auth\svn.simple\6ef188c2163f1ccc860a690b7ad21a15 Is there any way I could copy this cached credential file to where my script exists and just call that file explicitly?

    Read the article

  • scala implicit or explicit conversion from iterator to iterable

    - by landon9720
    Does Scala provide a built-in class, utility, syntax, or other mechanism for converting (by wrapping) an Iterator with an Iterable? For example, I have an Iterator[Foo] and I need an Iterable[Foo], so currently I am: val foo1: Iterator[Foo] = .... val foo2: Iterable[Foo] = new Iterable[Foo] { def elements = foo1 } This seems ugly and unnecessary. What's a better way?

    Read the article

  • Defining implicit and explicit casts for C# interfaces

    - by ehdv
    Is there a way to write interface-based code (i.e. using interfaces rather than classes as the types accepted and passed around) in C# without giving up the use of things like implicit casts? Here's some sample code - there's been a lot removed, but these are the relevant portions. public class Game { public class VariantInfo { public string Language { get; set; } public string Variant { get; set; } } } And in ScrDictionary.cs, we have... public class ScrDictionary: IScrDictionary { public string Language { get; set; } public string Variant { get; set; } public static implicit operator Game.VariantInfo(ScrDictionary s) { return new Game.VariantInfo{Language=sd.Language, Variant=sd.Variant}; } } And the interface... public interface IScrDictionary { string Language { get; set; } string Variant { get; set; } } I want to be able to use IScrDictionary instead of ScrDictionary, but still be able to implicitly convert a ScrDictionary to a Game.VariantInfo. Also, while there may be an easy way to make this work by giving IScrDictionary a property of type Game.VariantInfo my question is more generally: Is there a way to define casts or operator overloading on interfaces? (If not, what is the proper C# way to maintain this functionality without giving up interface-oriented design?)

    Read the article

  • Delegates with explicit "this" pointer?

    - by Qwertie
    Is it possible to adapt a method like this function "F" class C { public void F(int i); } to a delegate like Action<C,int>? I have this vague recollection that Microsoft was working on supporting this kind of adaptation. But maybe I misremembered!

    Read the article

  • What are good reasons to use explicit interface implementation for the sole purpose of hiding members?

    - by Nathanus
    During one of my studies into the intricacies of C#, I came across an interesting passage concerning explicit interface implementation. While this syntax is quite helpful when you need to resolve name clashes, you can use explicit interface implementation simply to hide more "advanced" members from the object level. The difference between allowing the use of object.method() or requiring the casting of ((Interface)object).method() seems like mean-spirited obfuscation to my inexperienced eyes. The text noted that this will hide the method from Intellisense at the object level, but why would you want to do that if it was not necessary to avoid name conflicts?

    Read the article

  • LINQ .Cast() extension method fails but (type)object works.

    - by Ben Robinson
    To convert between some LINQ to SQL objects and DTOs we have created explicit cast operators on the DTOs. That way we can do the following: DTOType MyDTO = (LinqToSQLType)MyLinq2SQLObj; This works well. However when you try to cast using the LINQ .Cast() extension method it trows an invalid cast exception saying cannot cast type Linq2SQLType to type DTOType. i.e. the below does not work List<DTO.Name> Names = dbContact.tNames.Cast<DTO.Name>() .ToList(); But the below works fine: DAL.tName MyDalName = new DAL.tName(); DTO.Name MyDTOName = (DTO.Name)MyDalName; and the below also works fine List<DTO.Name> Names = dbContact.tNames.Select(name => (DTO.Name)name) .ToList(); Why does the .Cast() extension method throw an invalid cast exception? I have used the .Cast() extension method in this way many times in the past and when you are casting something like a base type to a derived type it works fine, but falls over when the object has an explicit cast operator.

    Read the article

  • Interface member name conflicts in ActionScript 3

    - by Aaron
    I am trying to create an ActionScript 3 class that implements two interfaces. The interfaces contain member functions with different signatures but the same name: public interface IFoo { function doStuff(input:int):void; } public interface IBar { function doStuff(input1:String, input2:Number):void; } public class FooBar implements IFoo, IBar { // ??? } In C# this problem can be solved with explicit interface implementations, but as far as I can tell ActionScript does not have that feature. Is there any way to create a class that implements both interfaces?

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >