Search Results

Search found 2669 results on 107 pages for 'james m singleton'.

Page 4/107 | < Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >

  • PHP - static DB class vs DB singleton object

    - by Marco Demaio
    I don't want to create a discussion about singleton better than static or better than global, etc. I read dozens of questions about it on SO, but I couldn't come up with an answer to this SPECIFIC question, so I hope someone could now illuminate me buy answering this question with one (or more) real simple EXAMPLES, and not theoretical discussions. In my app I have the typical DB class needed to perform tasks on DB without having to write everywhere in code mysql_connect/mysql_select_db/mysql... (moreover in future I might decide to use another type of DB engine in place of mySQL so obviously I need a class of abstration). I could write the class either as a static class: class DB { private static $connection = FALSE; //connection to be opened //DB connection values private static $server = NULL; private static $usr = NULL; private static $psw = NULL; private static $name = NULL; public static function init($db_server, $db_usr, $db_psw, $db_name) { //simply stores connections values, withour opening connection } public static function query($query_string) { //performs query over alerady opened connection, if not open, it opens connection 1st } ... } or as a Singletonm class: class DBSingleton { private $inst = NULL; private $connection = FALSE; //connection to be opened //DB connection values private $server = NULL; private $usr = NULL; private $psw = NULL; private $name = NULL; public static function getInstance($db_server, $db_usr, $db_psw, $db_name) { //simply stores connections values, withour opening connection if($inst === NULL) $this->inst = new DBSingleton(); return $this->inst; } private __construct()... public function query($query_string) { //performs query over already opened connection, if connection is not open, it opens connection 1st } ... } Then after in my app if I wanto to query the DB i could do //Performing query using static DB object DB:init(HOST, USR, PSW, DB_NAME); DB::query("SELECT..."); //Performing query using DB singleton $temp = DBSingleton::getInstance(HOST, USR, PSW, DB_NAME); $temp->query("SELECT..."); My simple brain sees Singleton has got the only advantage to avoid declaring as 'static' each method of the class. I'm sure some of you could give me an EXAMPLE of real advantage of singleton in this specific case. Thanks in advance.

    Read the article

  • linq2sql: singleton or using, best practices

    - by zerkms
    what is the preferred practice when linq2sql using (in asp.net mvc applications): to create "singleton" for DataContext like: partial class db { static db _db = new db(global::data.Properties.Settings.Default.nanocrmConnectionString, new AttributeMappingSource()); public static db GetInstance() { return _db; } } or to retrieve new instance when it needed within using: using (db _db = new db()) { ... } the usage of using brings some limitations on code. so I prefer to use singleton one. is it weird practice?

    Read the article

  • Singleton with eager initialization

    - by jesper
    I have class X that takes much time to initialize itself. I want to make that class singleton and force its creation when rails application starts. I've made the singleton: class X @@instance = nil def self.instance if @@instance.nil? @@instance = X.new puts 'CREATING' end return @@instance end private_class_method :new end The problem is that every time I use this class I see 'CREATING' in logs. I've tried to put creation of class in initializers directory but it doesn't work either.

    Read the article

  • Example of Singleton pattern

    - by Supereme
    Hi, Can anybody tell me a good example of Singleton pattern? Also I've one doubt to ask, Is the following scenario is that of singleton pattern: When we have many printers connected in LAN but only one printer queue?

    Read the article

  • Singleton & Multithreading in Java

    - by vivek jagtap
    What is the preferred way to work with Singleton class in multithreaded environment? Suppose if I have 3 thread, and all they try to access getInstance() method of singleton class at the same time - What would happen if no synchronization is maintained? Is it good practice to use synchronized getInstance() method or use synchronized block inside getInstance(). Please advise if there is any other way out.

    Read the article

  • [PHP] Making a good singleton registry class structure which hold your objects

    - by Saif Bechan
    I am working on a web application in PHP. I have a singleton class called registry. This class will hold all the objects i need throughout my application, such as loader classes, template classes, database, classes, etc. When an object of the registry class is created I send it an array with the classes it need to load: // Create the registry $registry = registry::singleton(); // Store those core objects $registry->storeObjects(Array('session','db','page','template','errors')); In this example I only put some of the classes, to get the basic idea. Now I have some classes in the registry that use each other. For example the 'errors' object uses the 'page' object. Now I was wondering if it is a good practice to make an instance of the registry object in the errors object. Like this; class errors{ private $registry; public function __construct(){ $this->registry = registry::singleton(); } } So there is an instance of the registry object, inside an object of the registry object. This does not sound like a good idea to me. Anyone have a suggestion how to model such a thing?

    Read the article

  • Call from a singleton class to a function which in turn calls that class's method

    - by dare2be
    Hello, I am still looking for a way to phrase it properly (I'm not a native speaker...). So I have this class SQL which implements the singleton pattern (for obvious reasons) and I also have this function, checkUsr(), which queries the database using one of SQL's methods. Everything works fine as long as I don't call checkUsr() from within the SQL class. When I do so, the scripts just exits and a blank page is displayed - no errors are returned, no exception is thrown... What's happening? And how do I work around this problem? EDIT: class SQL { public static function singleton() { static $instance; if(!isset($instance)) $instance = new SQL; return $instance; } public function tryLoginAuthor( $login, $sha1 ) { (...) } } function checkUsr() { if (!isset($_SESSION['login']) || !isset($_SESSION['sha1'])) throw new Exception('Not logged in', 1); $SQL = SQL::singleton(); $res = $SQL->tryLoginAuthor($_SESSION['login'], $_SESSION['sha1']); if (!isset($res[0])) throw new Exception('Not logged in', 1); }

    Read the article

  • C#: System.Lazy&lt;T&gt; and the Singleton Design Pattern

    - by James Michael Hare
    So we've all coded a Singleton at one time or another.  It's a really simple pattern and can be a slightly more elegant alternative to global variables.  Make no mistake, Singletons can be abused and are often over-used -- but occasionally you find a Singleton is the most elegant solution. For those of you not familiar with a Singleton, the basic Design Pattern is that a Singleton class is one where there is only ever one instance of the class created.  This means that constructors must be private to avoid users creating their own instances, and a static property (or method in languages without properties) is defined that returns a single static instance. 1: public class Singleton 2: { 3: // the single instance is defined in a static field 4: private static readonly Singleton _instance = new Singleton(); 5:  6: // constructor private so users can't instantiate on their own 7: private Singleton() 8: { 9: } 10:  11: // read-only property that returns the static field 12: public static Singleton Instance 13: { 14: get 15: { 16: return _instance; 17: } 18: } 19: } This is the most basic singleton, notice the key features: Static readonly field that contains the one and only instance. Constructor is private so it can only be called by the class itself. Static property that returns the single instance. Looks like it satisfies, right?  There's just one (potential) problem.  C# gives you no guarantee of when the static field _instance will be created.  This is because the C# standard simply states that classes (which are marked in the IL as BeforeFieldInit) can have their static fields initialized any time before the field is accessed.  This means that they may be initialized on first use, they may be initialized at some other time before, you can't be sure when. So what if you want to guarantee your instance is truly lazy.  That is, that it is only created on first call to Instance?  Well, there's a few ways to do this.  First we'll show the old ways, and then talk about how .Net 4.0's new System.Lazy<T> type can help make the lazy-Singleton cleaner. Obviously, we could take on the lazy construction ourselves, but being that our Singleton may be accessed by many different threads, we'd need to lock it down. 1: public class LazySingleton1 2: { 3: // lock for thread-safety laziness 4: private static readonly object _mutex = new object(); 5:  6: // static field to hold single instance 7: private static LazySingleton1 _instance = null; 8:  9: // property that does some locking and then creates on first call 10: public static LazySingleton1 Instance 11: { 12: get 13: { 14: if (_instance == null) 15: { 16: lock (_mutex) 17: { 18: if (_instance == null) 19: { 20: _instance = new LazySingleton1(); 21: } 22: } 23: } 24:  25: return _instance; 26: } 27: } 28:  29: private LazySingleton1() 30: { 31: } 32: } This is a standard double-check algorithm so that you don't lock if the instance has already been created.  However, because it's possible two threads can go through the first if at the same time the first time back in, you need to check again after the lock is acquired to avoid creating two instances. Pretty straightforward, but ugly as all heck.  Well, you could also take advantage of the C# standard's BeforeFieldInit and define your class with a static constructor.  It need not have a body, just the presence of the static constructor will remove the BeforeFieldInit attribute on the class and guarantee that no fields are initialized until the first static field, property, or method is called.   1: public class LazySingleton2 2: { 3: // because of the static constructor, this won't get created until first use 4: private static readonly LazySingleton2 _instance = new LazySingleton2(); 5:  6: // Returns the singleton instance using lazy-instantiation 7: public static LazySingleton2 Instance 8: { 9: get { return _instance; } 10: } 11:  12: // private to prevent direct instantiation 13: private LazySingleton2() 14: { 15: } 16:  17: // removes BeforeFieldInit on class so static fields not 18: // initialized before they are used 19: static LazySingleton2() 20: { 21: } 22: } Now, while this works perfectly, I hate it.  Why?  Because it's relying on a non-obvious trick of the IL to guarantee laziness.  Just looking at this code, you'd have no idea that it's doing what it's doing.  Worse yet, you may decide that the empty static constructor serves no purpose and delete it (which removes your lazy guarantee).  Worse-worse yet, they may alter the rules around BeforeFieldInit in the future which could change this. So, what do I propose instead?  .Net 4.0 adds the System.Lazy type which guarantees thread-safe lazy-construction.  Using System.Lazy<T>, we get: 1: public class LazySingleton3 2: { 3: // static holder for instance, need to use lambda to construct since constructor private 4: private static readonly Lazy<LazySingleton3> _instance 5: = new Lazy<LazySingleton3>(() => new LazySingleton3()); 6:  7: // private to prevent direct instantiation. 8: private LazySingleton3() 9: { 10: } 11:  12: // accessor for instance 13: public static LazySingleton3 Instance 14: { 15: get 16: { 17: return _instance.Value; 18: } 19: } 20: } Note, you need your lambda to call the private constructor as Lazy's default constructor can only call public constructors of the type passed in (which we can't have by definition of a Singleton).  But, because the lambda is defined inside our type, it has access to the private members so it's perfect. Note how the Lazy<T> makes it obvious what you're doing (lazy construction), instead of relying on an IL generation side-effect.  This way, it's more maintainable.  Lazy<T> has many other uses as well, obviously, but I really love how elegant and readable it makes the lazy Singleton.

    Read the article

  • What is the best way to create a Singleton Webservice in PHP?

    - by ChronoFish
    Hello, We have a need to access a DB that only allows one connection at a time. This screams "singleton" to me. The catch of course is that the singleton connection will be exposed (either directly or indirectly) via a web-service (most probable a SOAP based web-service - located on a separate server from the calling app(s) ) - which means that there may be more than one app / instance attempting to connect to the singleton class. In PHP, what is the best way to create a global singleton or a web-service singleton? TIA

    Read the article

  • Java Spotlight Episode 150: James Gosling on Java

    - by Roger Brinkley
    Interview with James Gosling, father of Java and Java Champion, on the history of Java, his work at Liquid Robotics, Netbeans, the future of Java and what he sees as the next revolutionary trend in the computer industry. Right-click or Control-click to download this MP3 file. You can also subscribe to the Java Spotlight Podcast Feed to get the latest podcast automatically. If you use iTunes you can open iTunes and subscribe with this link: Java Spotlight Podcast in iTunes. Show Notes Feature Interview James Gosling received a BSc in Computer Science from the University of Calgary, Canada in 1977. He received a PhD in Computer Science from Carnegie-Mellon University in 1983. The title of his thesis was "The Algebraic Manipulation of Constraints". He spent many years as a VP & Fellow at Sun Microsystems. He has built satellite data acquisition systems, a multiprocessor version of Unix, several compilers, mail systems and window managers. He has also built a WYSIWYG text editor, a constraint based drawing editor and a text editor called `Emacs' for Unix systems. At Sun his early activity was as lead engineer of the NeWS window system. He did the original design of the Java programming language and implemented its original compiler and virtual machine. He has been a contributor to the Real-Time Specification for Java, and a researcher at Sun labs where his primary interest was software development tools.     He then was the Chief Technology Officer of Sun's Developer Products Group and the CTO of Sun's Client Software Group. He briefly worked for Oracle after the acquisition of Sun. After a year off, he spent some time at Google and is now the chief software architect at Liquid Robotics where he spends his time writing software for the Waveglider, an autonomous ocean-going robot.

    Read the article

  • Advantages of Singleton Class over Static Class?

    Point 1)Singleton We can get the object of singleton and then pass to other methods.Static Class We can not pass static class to other methods as we pass objectsPoint 2) Singleton In future, it is easy to change the logic of of creating objects to some pooling mechanism. Static Class Very difficult to implement some pooling logic in case of static class. We would need to make that class as non-static and then make all the methods non-static methods, So entire your code needs to be changed.Point3:) Singleton Can Singletone class be inherited to subclass? Singleton class does not say any restriction of Inheritence. So we should be able to do this as long as subclass is also inheritence.There's nothing fundamentally wrong with subclassing a class that is intended to be a singleton. There are many reasons you might want to do it. and there are many ways to accomplish it. It depends on language you use.Static Class We can not inherit Static class to another Static class in C#. Think about it this way: you access static members via type name, like this: MyStaticType.MyStaticMember(); Were you to inherit from that class, you would have to access it via the new type name: MyNewType.MyStaticMember(); Thus, the new item bears no relationships to the original when used in code. There would be no way to take advantage of any inheritance relationship for things like polymorphism. span.fullpost {display:none;}

    Read the article

  • Advantages of Singleton Class over Static Class?

    Point 1) Singleton We can get the object of singleton and then pass to other methods. Static Class We can not pass static class to other methods as we pass objects Point 2) Singleton In future, it is easy to change the logic of of creating objects to some pooling mechanism. Static Class Very difficult to implement some pooling logic in case of static class. We would need to make that class as non-static and then make all the methods non-static methods, So entire your code needs to be changed. Point3:) Singleton Can Singletone class be inherited to subclass? Singleton class does not say any restriction of Inheritence. So we should be able to do this as long as subclass is also inheritence.There's nothing fundamentally wrong with subclassing a class that is intended to be a singleton. There are many reasons you might want to do it. and there are many ways to accomplish it. It depends on language you use. Static Class We can not inherit Static class to another Static class in C#. Think about it this way: you access static members via type name, like this: MyStaticType.MyStaticMember(); Were you to inherit from that class, you would have to access it via the new type name: MyNewType.MyStaticMember(); Thus, the new item bears no relationships to the original when used in code. There would be no way to take advantage of any inheritance relationship for things like polymorphism. span.fullpost {display:none;}

    Read the article

  • Singleton constructor question

    - by gillyb
    Hi, I created a Singleton class in c#, with a public property that I want to initialize when the Singleton is first called. This is the code I wrote : public class BL { private ISessionFactory _sessionFactory; public ISessionFactory SessionFactory { get { return _sessionFactory; } set { _sessionFactory = value; } } private BL() { SessionFactory = Dal.SessionFactory.CreateSessionFactory(); } private object thisLock = new object(); private BL _instance = null; public BL Instance { get { lock (thisLock) { if (_instance == null) { _instance = new BL(); } return _instance; } } } } As far as I know, when I address the Instance BL object in the BL class for the first time, it should load the constructor and that should initialize the SessionFactory object. But when I try : BL.Instance.SessionFactory.OpenSession(); I get a Null Reference Exception, and I see that SessionFactory is null... why?

    Read the article

  • Zend Framework - Database Table Singleton

    - by Sonny
    I have found myself doing this in my code to 'cache' the work done when instantiating my Zend_Db_Table models: if (Zend_Registry::isRegistered('x_table')) { $x_table = Zend_Registry::get('x_table'); } else { $x_table = new Default_Model_DbTable_X; Zend_Registry::set('x_table', $x_table); } It bothered me that this method isn't very DRY and it dawned on me today that a singleton pattern would probably be a better way to do this. Problem is, I've never written a singleton class. When I did some web searches, I found some offhand comments about Zend_Db_Table singletons, but no real examples. I already have meta-data caching configured. How do I make my Zend_Db_Table models singletons? Are there pitfalls or downsides?

    Read the article

  • Is extending a singleton class wrong?

    - by Anwar Shaikh
    I am creating a logger for an application. I am using a third party logger library. In which logger is implemented as singleton. I extended that logger class because I want to add some more static functions. In these static functions I internally use the instance (which is single) of Logger(which i inherited). I neither creates instance of MyLogger nor re-implemented the getInstance() method of super class. But I am still getting warnings like destructor of MyLogger can not be created as parent class (Loggger) destructor is not accessible. I want to know, I am I doing something wrong? Inheriting the singleton is wrong or should be avoided??

    Read the article

  • iphone singleton object synchronization

    - by user127091
    I'm working on an iphone app but this is probably a general question. I have a singleton Model class and there would be scenarios where multiple NSOperations (threads) would exist and work with the singleton object. If they all call the same method in this object, do i need to have some locking mechanism? Or can this method be executed only one at a time? I do not have a computer science background but my guess is that all threads would have their CALL to the same address (this method). Also can you please suggest a good beginner programming book that discusses general programming concepts. I don't have the brains for Knuth kinda books.

    Read the article

  • Singleton design potential leak

    - by iBrad Apps
    I have downloaded a library off of github and have noticed that in the main singleton of the library there is a possible leak in this bit of code: +(DDGameKitHelper*) sharedGameKitHelper { @synchronized(self) { if (instanceOfGameKitHelper == nil) { [[DDGameKitHelper alloc] init]; } return instanceOfGameKitHelper; } return nil; } Now obviously there is no release or autorelease anywhere so I must do it but how and in what way properly? I have looked at various Singleton design patterns on the Internet and they just assign, in this case, instanceOfGameKitHelper to the alloc and init line. Anyway how would I properly fix this? Thanks!

    Read the article

  • Interview de James Reinders d'Intel au sujet de l'Intel Software Conference 2010, par Loïc Joly

    Bonjour, Suite à l'Intel Software conférence à laquelle j'étais invité au nom de developpez.com, j'ai rédigé deux articles racontant ce que j'ai pu y apprendre : - Une interview de James Reinders, le gourou d'Intel sur le sujet - Un compte rendu plus général de la conférence N'hésitez pas à faire part ici de ce que vous avez pensé de ces articles (ou à poser des questions si des clarifications sont nécessaires) !...

    Read the article

  • game state singleton cocos2d, initWithEncoder always returns null

    - by taber
    Hi, I'm trying to write a basic test "game state" singleton in cocos2d, but for some reason upon loading the app, initWithCoder is never called. Any help would be much appreciated, thanks. Here's my singleton GameState.h: #import "cocos2d.h" @interface GameState : NSObject <NSCoding> { NSInteger level, score; Boolean seenInstructions; } @property (readwrite) NSInteger level; @property (readwrite) NSInteger score; @property (readwrite) Boolean seenInstructions; +(GameState *) sharedState; +(void) loadState; +(void) saveState; @end ... and GameState.m: #import "GameState.h" #import "Constants.h" @implementation GameState static GameState *sharedState = nil; @synthesize level, score, seenInstructions; -(void)dealloc { [super dealloc]; } -(id)init { if(!(self = [super init])) return nil; level = 1; score = 0; seenInstructions = NO; return self; } +(void)loadState { @synchronized([GameState class]) { NSArray *paths = NSSearchPathForDirectoriesInDomains(NSDocumentDirectory, NSUserDomainMask, YES); NSString *documentsDirectory = [paths objectAtIndex:0]; NSString *saveFile = [documentsDirectory stringByAppendingPathComponent:kSaveFileName]; Boolean saveFileExists = [[NSFileManager defaultManager] fileExistsAtPath:saveFile]; if(!sharedState) { sharedState = [GameState sharedState]; } if(saveFileExists == YES) { [sharedState release]; sharedState = [[NSKeyedUnarchiver unarchiveObjectWithFile:saveFile] retain]; } // at this point, sharedState is null, saveFileExists is 1 if(sharedState == nil) { // this always occurs CCLOG(@"Couldn't load game state, so initialized with defaults"); sharedState = [self sharedState]; } } } +(void)saveState { NSArray *paths = NSSearchPathForDirectoriesInDomains(NSDocumentDirectory, NSUserDomainMask, YES); NSString *documentsDirectory = [paths objectAtIndex:0]; NSString *saveFile = [documentsDirectory stringByAppendingPathComponent:kSaveFileName]; [NSKeyedArchiver archiveRootObject:[GameState sharedState] toFile:saveFile]; } +(GameState *)sharedState { @synchronized([GameState class]) { if(!sharedState) { [[GameState alloc] init]; } return sharedState; } return nil; } +(id)alloc { @synchronized([GameState class]) { NSAssert(sharedState == nil, @"Attempted to allocate a second instance of a singleton."); sharedState = [super alloc]; return sharedState; } return nil; } +(id)allocWithZone:(NSZone *)zone { @synchronized([GameState class]) { if(!sharedState) { sharedState = [super allocWithZone:zone]; return sharedState; } } return nil; } ... -(void)encodeWithCoder:(NSCoder *)coder { [coder encodeInt:level forKey:@"level"]; [coder encodeInt:score forKey:@"score"]; [coder encodeBool:seenInstructions forKey:@"seenInstructions"]; } -(id)initWithCoder:(NSCoder *)coder { CCLOG(@"initWithCoder called"); self = [super init]; if(self != nil) { CCLOG(@"initWithCoder self exists"); level = [coder decodeIntForKey:@"level"]; score = [coder decodeIntForKey:@"score"]; seenInstructions = [coder decodeBoolForKey:@"seenInstructions"]; } return self; } @end ... I'm saving the state on app exit, like this: - (void)applicationWillTerminate:(UIApplication *)application { [GameState saveState]; [[CCDirector sharedDirector] end]; } ... and loading the state when the app finishes loading, like this: - (BOOL) application:(UIApplication *)application didFinishLaunchingWithOptions:(NSDictionary *)launchOptions { ... [GameState loadState]; ... } I've tried moving around where I call loadState too, for example in my main CCScene, but that didn't seem to work either. Thanks again in advance.

    Read the article

  • Rebinding and singleton-behaviour [NInject]

    - by Maximilian Csuk
    Hi! I have set up a NInject (using version 1.5) binding like this: Bind<ISessionFactory>().ToMethod<ISessionFactory>(ctx => { try { // create session factory, might fail because of database issues like wrong connection string } catch (Exception e) { throw new DatabaseException(e); } }).Using<SingletonBehavior>(); As you can see, this binding uses a singleton behavior but can also throw exception when something is not configured correctly, like a wrong connection string to the database. Now, when the creation of a session factory fails at first (throwing a database exception), NInject doesn't try to create the object again but always returns null. I would need NInject to check for null first and recreate when the instance is null, but of course not when there already is an instance successfully constructed (keeping it singleton). Like this: var a = Kernel.Get<ISessionFactory>(); // might fail, a = null // ... change some database settings var b = Kernel.Get<ISessionFactory>(); // might not fail anymore, b = ISessionFactory object Would I need to write a custom behavior or am I missing something else? Thanks for your answers!

    Read the article

  • PHP OOP: Avoid Singleton/Static Methods in Domain Model Pattern

    - by sunwukung
    I understand the importance of Dependency Injection and its role in Unit testing, which is why the following issue is giving me pause: One area where I struggle not to use the Singleton is the Identity Map/Unit of Work pattern (Which keeps tabs on Domain Object state). //Not actual code, but it should demonstrate the point class Monitor{//singleton construction omitted for brevity static $members = array();//keeps record of all objects static $dirty = array();//keeps record of all modified objects static $clean = array();//keeps record of all clean objects } class Mapper{//queries database, maps values to object fields public function find($id){ if(isset(Monitor::members[$id]){ return Monitor::members[$id]; } $values = $this->selectStmt($id); //field mapping process omitted for brevity $Object = new Object($values); Monitor::new[$id]=$Object return $Object; } $User = $UserMapper->find(1);//domain object is registered in Id Map $User->changePropertyX();//object is marked "dirty" in UoW // at this point, I can save by passing the Domain Object back to the Mapper $UserMapper->save($User);//object is marked clean in UoW //but a nicer API would be something like this $User->save(); //but if I want to do this - it has to make a call to the mapper/db somehow $User->getBlogPosts(); //or else have to generate specific collection/object graphing methods in the mapper $UserPosts = $UserMapper->getBlogPosts(); $User->setPosts($UserPosts); Any advice on how you might handle this situation? I would be loathe to pass/generate instances of the mapper/database access into the Domain Object itself to satisfy DI - At the same time, avoiding that results in lots of calls within the Domain Object to external static methods. Although I guess if I want "save" to be part of its behaviour then a facility to do so is required in its construction. Perhaps it's a problem with responsibility, the Domain Object shouldn't be burdened with saving. It's just quite a neat feature from the Active Record pattern - it would be nice to implement it in some way.

    Read the article

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