Search Results

Search found 2568 results on 103 pages for 'lookup webmaster'.

Page 6/103 | < Previous Page | 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13  | Next Page >

  • Two-phase lookup: can I avoid "code bloat"?

    - by Pietro
    Two-phase lookup question: Is there a more synthetic way to write this code, i.e. avoiding all those "using" directives? I tried with "using CBase<T>;", but it is not accepted. #include <iostream> template <typename T> class CBase { protected: int a, b, c, d; // many more... public: CBase() { a = 123; } }; template <typename T> class CDer : public CBase<T> { // using CBase<T>; // error, but this is what I would like using CBase<T>::a; using CBase<T>::b; using CBase<T>::c; //... public: CDer() { std::cout << a; } }; int main() { CDer<int> cd; } In my real code there are many more member variables/functions, and I was wondering if it is possible to write shorter code in some way. Of course, using the CBase::a syntax does not solve the problem... Thank's! gcc 4.1 MacOS X 10.6

    Read the article

  • INDIA Legislation: New State 'Telangana' Added in IN_STATES System Lookup

    - by LieveDC
    With effect from June 02, 2014 the new state of Telangana will be operational in the Indian Union.Details of the new state are explained in the official gazette released on 1 March, 2014 by the Ministry of Home Affairs: http://mha.nic.in/sites/upload_files/mha/files/APRegACT2014_0.pdf This new State has been added in the IN_STATES System Lookup: a new lookup code 'TG' with meaning 'Telangana' has been added.For available patches on different R12 patch levels check out: Doc ID 1676224.1 New State Telangana Be Added In IN_STATES System Lookup.

    Read the article

  • Enabling Google Webmaster Tools With Your GWB Blog

    - by ToStringTheory
    I’ll be honest and save you some time, if you don’t have your own domain for your GWB blog, this won’t help, you may just want to move on…  I don’t want to waste your time……… Still here?  Good.  How great are Google’s website tools?  I don’t just mean Analytics which rocks, but also their Webmaster Tools (https://www.google.com/webmasters/tools/) which gives you a glimpse into the queries that provide you your website traffic, search engine behavior on your site, and important keywords, just to name a few.   Pictured Above: Cool statistics. Problem Thanks to svickn over at wtfnext.com (another GeeksWithBlogs blog), we already have the knowledge on how to setup Google Analytics (wtfnext.com - How to: Set up Google Analytics on your GeeksWithBlogs blog).  However, one of the questions raised in the post, and even semi-answered in the questions, was how to setup Google Webmaster Tools with your blog as well. At first glance, it seems like it can’t be done.  Google graciously gives you several different options on how to authorize that you own a site.  The authentication options are: 1. (Recommended) – Upload an HTML file to your server 2. Add a meta tag to your site’s home page 3. Use your Google Analytics account 4. Add a DNS record to your domain’s configuration Since you don’t have access to the base path, you can’t do #1.  Same goes for #2 since you can’t edit the master/index page.  As for #3, they REQUIRE the Analytics code to be in the <head> section of your page, so even though we can use the workaround of hosting it in the news section, it won’t allow it since it isn’t in the correct place. Solution Last I checked, I didn’t see the DNS record option for Webmaster Tools.  Maybe this was recently added, or maybe I don’t remember it since I was always able to use some other method to authorize it.  In this case though, this is the option that we need.  My registrar wasn’t in their list, but they provide detailed enough instructions for the ‘Other’ option: Simply create a TXT record with your domain hoster (mine is DynDns), fill in the tag information, and then click verify.  My entry was able to be resolved immediately, but since you are working with DNS, it may take longer.  If after 24 hours you still aren’t able to verify, you can use a site such as mxtoolbox.com, and in the searchbox type “txt: {domain-name-here}”, to see if your TXT record was entered successfully. It is pretty simple to setup the TXT entry in DynDns, but if you have questions/comments, feel free to post them. Conclusion With this simple workaround (not really a workaround, but feature since they offer it..), you are now able to see loads of information regarding your standings in the world of the Google Search Engine.  No critical issues?  Did I do something wrong?! As an aside, you can do the same thing with the Bing Webmaster Tools by adding a CNAME record to bing.verify.com…  Instructions can be found on the ‘Add Site’ popup when adding your site. If you don’t have your own domain, but continued, to read to this point – thank you!

    Read the article

  • Optimizing for speed - 4 dimensional array lookup in C

    - by Tiago
    I have a fitness function that is scoring the values on an int array based on data that lies on a 4D array. The profiler says this function is using 80% of CPU time (it needs to be called several million times). I can't seem to optimize it further (if it's even possible). Here is the function: unsigned int lookup_array[26][26][26][26]; /* lookup_array is a global variable */ unsigned int get_i_score(unsigned int *input) { register unsigned int i, score = 0; for(i = len - 3; i--; ) score += lookup_array[input[i]][input[i + 1]][input[i + 2]][input[i + 3]]; return(score) } I've tried to flatten the array to a single dimension but there was no improvement in performance. This is running on an IA32 CPU. Any CPU specific optimizations are also helpful. Thanks

    Read the article

  • SSRS 2008 Need to lookup customer name with largest order

    - by Chris
    Hi, I'm creating an SSRS report which contains a table of orders, grouped by day. Now I can easily get the max order value for the day and put it in the group header by using the SSRS MAX() function. However, I also want to get the corresponding customer name who placed this order, and place this in the group header too. We can assume my result set simply contains date, name and order value. Is there any way to do this in SSRS 2008? Thanks

    Read the article

  • Lookup table size reduction

    - by Ryan
    Hello: I have an application in which I have to store a couple of millions of integers, I have to store them in a Look up table, obviously I cannot store such amount of data in memory and in my requirements I am very limited I have to store the data in an embebedded system so I am very limited in the space, so I would like to ask you about recommended methods that I can use for the reduction of the look up table. I cannot use function approximation such as neural networks, the values needs to be in a table. The range of the integers is not known at the moment. When I say integers I mean a 32 bit value. Basically the idea is use some copmpression method to reduce the amount of memory but without losing many precision. This thing needs to run in hardware so the computation overhead cannot be very high. In my algorithm I have to access to one value of the table do some operations with it and after update the value. In the end what I should have is a function which I pass an index to it and then I get a value, and after I have to use another function to write a value in the table. I found one called tile coding http://www.cs.ualberta.ca/~sutton/book/8/node6.html, this one is based on several look up tables, does anyone know any other method?. Thanks.

    Read the article

  • How do you find all the links to disavow for a Google reconsideration request? [duplicate]

    - by QF_Developer
    This question already has an answer here: How to identify spammy domains giving backlinks to my site (to submit in disavow links in WMT) 2 answers A few months ago I received the following notification on Google Webmaster for a website I look after. Unnatural links to your site—impacts links Google has detected a pattern of unnatural artificial, deceptive, or manipulative links pointing to pages on this site. Some links may be outside of the webmaster’s control, so for this incident we are taking targeted action on the unnatural links instead of on the site’s ranking as a whole. Learn more. The question here is, should we actively attempt to disavow these links given that the action is seemingly targeted to just a bunch of keywords? I've downloaded the inbound links sample from Google Webmaster and so far I've been through the disavow and reconsideration requests process 6 times, each taking 2-3 weeks only to be supplied just 2 more links that Google don't approve of. At this rate it will take me the rest of my natural life to cleanup all these spammy links! It seems disavowing is futile as they haven't implemented broad actions against the website as a whole and (from what I can gather) have already nullified the value of those offending links. Under the quoted statement above however is a reconsideration request button that seems to imply I should be actively doing something here? UPDATE 14th October -- I have since created a small .NET application that you can feed the CSV sample links file into from Google Webmaster. What this tool does is crawl all the links and looks for specific linking patterns as per some configurable match strings. I realised that many of the links that Google are taking issue with were created by a rogue SEO firm we hired several years ago. All the links are appended with 1 of 5 different descriptions. The application I built uses some regexes to isolate any link sources with these matching appendages and automatically builds the disavow txt file. In the end it had to come down to an algorithm as manually disavowing links on this scale would take weeks! I will post the app here once I've cleaned it up.

    Read the article

  • Google Webmaster Tools reports fake 404 errors

    - by Edgar Quintero
    I have a website where Google Webmaster Tools reports 15,000 links as 404 errors. However, all links return a 200 when I visit them. The problem is, that eventhough I can visit these pages and return a 200, all those 15,000 pages won't index in Google. They aren't appearing in search results. These are constant errors Google Webmaster Tools keeps reporting and I'm not sure what the problem is. We've thought of a DNS issue, but it shouldn't be a DNS issue, because if it were, no page would be indexed (I have 10,000 perfectly indexed). Regarding URL parameters, my pages do not share a similarity in URL parameters that can make it obvious to me what could be causing the error.

    Read the article

  • Inequality joins, Asynchronous transformations and Lookups : SSIS

    - by jamiet
    It is pretty much accepted by SQL Server Integration Services (SSIS) developers that synchronous transformations are generally quicker than asynchronous transformations (for a description of synchronous and asynchronous transformations go read Asynchronous and synchronous data flow components). Notice I said “generally” and not “always”; there are circumstances where using asynchronous transformations can be beneficial and in this blog post I’ll demonstrate such a scenario, one that is pretty common when building data warehouses. Imagine I have a [Customer] dimension table that manages information about all of my customers as a slowly-changing dimension. If that is a type 2 slowly changing dimension then you will likely have multiple rows per customer in that table. Furthermore you might also have datetime fields that indicate the effective time period of each member record. Here is such a table that contains data for four dimension members {Terry, Max, Henry, Horace}: Notice that we have multiple records per customer and that the [SCDStartDate] of a record is equivalent to the [SCDEndDate] of the record that preceded it (if there was one). (Note that I am on record as saying I am not a fan of this technique of storing an [SCDEndDate] but for the purposes of clarity I have included it here.) Anyway, the idea here is that we will have some incoming data containing [CustomerName] & [EffectiveDate] and we need to use those values to lookup [Customer].[CustomerId]. The logic will be: Lookup a [CustomerId] WHERE [CustomerName]=[CustomerName] AND [SCDStartDate] <= [EffectiveDate] AND [EffectiveDate] <= [SCDEndDate] The conventional approach to this would be to use a full cached lookup but that isn’t an option here because we are using inequality conditions. The obvious next step then is to use a non-cached lookup which enables us to change the SQL statement to use inequality operators: Let’s take a look at the dataflow: Notice these are all synchronous components. This approach works just fine however it does have the limitation that it has to issue a SQL statement against your lookup set for every row thus we can expect the execution time of our dataflow to increase linearly in line with the number of rows in our dataflow; that’s not good. OK, that’s the obvious method. Let’s now look at a different way of achieving this using an asynchronous Merge Join transform coupled with a Conditional Split. I’ve shown it post-execution so that I can include the row counts which help to illustrate what is going on here: Notice that there are more rows output from our Merge Join component than on the input. That is because we are joining on [CustomerName] and, as we know, we have multiple records per [CustomerName] in our lookup set. Notice also that there are two asynchronous components in here (the Sort and the Merge Join). I have embedded a video below that compares the execution times for each of these two methods. The video is just over 8minutes long. View on Vimeo  For those that can’t be bothered watching the video I’ll tell you the results here. The dataflow that used the Lookup transform took 36 seconds whereas the dataflow that used the Merge Join took less than two seconds. An illustration in case it is needed: Pretty conclusive proof that in some scenarios it may be quicker to use an asynchronous component than a synchronous one. Your mileage may of course vary. The scenario outlined here is analogous to performance tuning procedural SQL that uses cursors. It is common to eliminate cursors by converting them to set-based operations and that is effectively what we have done here. Our non-cached lookup is performing a discrete operation for every single row of data, exactly like a cursor does. By eliminating this cursor-in-disguise we have dramatically sped up our dataflow. I hope all of that proves useful. You can download the package that I demonstrated in the video from my SkyDrive at http://cid-550f681dad532637.skydrive.live.com/self.aspx/Public/BlogShare/20100514/20100514%20Lookups%20and%20Merge%20Joins.zip Comments are welcome as always. @Jamiet Share this post: email it! | bookmark it! | digg it! | reddit! | kick it! | live it!

    Read the article

  • How to submit sitemap when your website has partial https? - Error: "Not in Domain"

    - by Ralph N
    My website is an ecommerce that is set up to do http for the item browsing portion, but https for things like shopping cart, contact us, etc.. (anything that has forms on it). I've submitted my website a long time ago to google webmaster tools as http://www.mywebsite.com. I also submitted a sitemap with about 40 links - 8 of them are https. I've noticed that for the longest time, google webmaster tools was reporting that 32 out of the 40 links have been crawled. I tested all the links against my robots.txt and realized that my robots text was blocking the https links. Google says those links are "Not In Domain". Is there a way i'm supposed to get around this so that I can have a hybrid-ssl site? I understand the concept that one site is mywebsite.com:80 and the other is mywebsite.com:443, but i'd like to avoid submitting and maintaining 2 seperate websites on google webmaster tools.

    Read the article

  • Chrome Web Store verification

    - by Vince V.
    A couple of days ago I created an extension for Chrome and added it to the store. Now I want it to get verified. I payed the 5 dollar and added my website to Webmaster Tools. The website is also verified on those Webmaster Tools. Today I wanted to add my URL to my extension (ultimately to do online installations) but it doesn't recognize the URL I put in those Webmaster Tools. I tried refreshing and clicking add site, but it just doesn't work. Is there some step that I am missing or is this a bug in the Chrome Web Store, because I don't see any option left.

    Read the article

  • Revamped Google Webmaster Tools

    With a positive surprise I realized today that Google's Webmaster Tools had some minor overhauling and provide some more details than before. Most obvious are the changes on the dashboard where the Top Search Queries now provide information about impressions and clicktroughs instead of the rankings before. Only the links of the search expressions are missing. It seems that the Top search queries were in the focus of this update. The section is now spiced with detailed graphs about what happened during selectable periods on your site. Well, seems that the Webmaster Tools mimic a stripped-down version of Google Analytics... I was very pleased by the details that are offered when you click on a single query term. Really nice to see the search rankings and your responsible URLs at the same time. Before, you had to put two browser instances side-by-side to achieve this kind of overview. Personally, I like the approach to visualize statistics the way Google or other providers do. It gives you a quick and informative overview, and enables you to dig further into details about peaks and lows on your visits, page impressions or clickthroughs.

    Read the article

  • Webmaster Tools, www and no-www, duplicate content and subdomains

    - by Jay
    I have not come to any conclusive answers on the following after many hours of research on many websites to the specific issue that I am trying to figure out. My company has two websites a main one at www.example.com and one at subdomain.example.com which is a subdomain of the first and is our self hosted blog. The way Google sees these with the www or no-www (called naked for now on) is that each of these actually are different when the www or naked version is used/not used in the front of the domain. I completely understand this. It is also advised that both should be set up in the Google Webmaster Tools, which I have done. Correct me if I am wrong on that in regard to having both set up. Now the way it appears is that we can set a preferred domain up in Webmaster Tools only at the root domain level. The subdomain can not have this and actually says the following "Restricted to root level domains only". So it appears that the domain should follow what the root domain says which on our preferred one says to display the www.example.com. and not the naked version. That is one issue I have in that one displays one way and the other displays another. Is it that we have the wrong redirects in place for the subdomain? Another question is does this have any affect on SEO in regards to duplicate content on the web in how we have set this up?

    Read the article

  • robots.txt not updated

    - by Haridharan
    I have updated some url's and files in robots.txt file to block url's and files from google search results but, still files displaying in search results. As per a suggestion from a site I tried to update the robots.txt by below steps. In Google Webmaster tools, Health - Fetch as Google - type the url and click the fetch button. but, still files displaying in search results. Note: in Google Webmaster tools, Health - Blocked URL's - robots.txt file - downloaded date looks two dates back.

    Read the article

  • Why You Should Follow Google Webmaster Guidelines

    Creativity is one of the most important aspects of an appealing site. Unique and compelling content are vital components to any successful site, but they're rendered obsolete if the site doesn't follow basic guidelines established by the Google Webmaster Guidelines.

    Read the article

  • DNS lookup when using a CDN

    - by Steven Wu
    Using a CDN can vastly improve the load time of a website. I been thinking of using it to host all my external files like CSS, JS, Images, Videos etc. However I was thinking when linking to a CDN, wouldn't the browser have to use additional DNS lookup? So wouldn't this be counter productive? Or is the benefit to host every external files on a CDN out weighs the additional cost of a DNS lookup? What are your thoughts?

    Read the article

  • Too many access denied errors showing in Google Webmaster Tools every day

    - by user2255733
    I get 18,000 access denied error showing in Google Webmaster Tools every day! So strange it shows for URL's with www and not no-www. Fetch as Google works perfectly for pages got that error. Google starts to downgrade my website - impressions have dropped from 35,000 to 18,000. I am using cloud flair CDN and .htaccess mod_rewrite. Any help will be extremely appreciated as I am really loosing control.

    Read the article

  • Refactoring this code that produces a reverse-lookup hash from another hash

    - by Frank Joseph Mattia
    This code is based on the idea of a Form Object http://blog.codeclimate.com/blog/2012/10/17/7-ways-to-decompose-fat-activerecord-models/ (see #3 if unfamiliar with the concept). My actual code in question may be found here: https://gist.github.com/frankjmattia/82a9945f30bde29eba88 The code takes a hash of objects/attributes and creates a reverse lookup hash to keep track of their delegations to do this. delegate :first_name, :email, to: :user, prefix: true But I am manually creating the delegations from a hash like this: DELEGATIONS = { user: [ :first_name, :email ] } At runtime when I want to look up the translated attribute names for the objects, all I have to go on are the delegated/prefixed (have to use a prefix to avoid naming collisions) attribute names like :user_first_name which aren't in sync with the rails i18n way of doing it: en: activerecord: attributes: user: email: 'Email Address' The code I have take the above delegations hash and turns it into a lookup table so when I override human_attribute_name I can get back the original attribute name and its class. Then I send #human_attribute_name to the original class with the original attribute name as its argument. The code I've come up with works but it is ugly to say the least. I've never really used #inject so this was a crash course for me and am quite unsure if this code effective way of solving my problem. Could someone recommend a simpler solution that does not require a reverse lookup table or does that seem like the right way to go? Thanks, - FJM

    Read the article

  • SQL SERVER – SSIS Look Up Component – Cache Mode – Notes from the Field #028

    - by Pinal Dave
    [Notes from Pinal]: Lots of people think that SSIS is all about arranging various operations together in one logical flow. Well, the understanding is absolutely correct, but the implementation of the same is not as easy as it seems. Similarly most of the people think lookup component is just component which does look up for additional information and does not pay much attention to it. Due to the same reason they do not pay attention to the same and eventually get very bad performance. Linchpin People are database coaches and wellness experts for a data driven world. In this 28th episode of the Notes from the Fields series database expert Tim Mitchell (partner at Linchpin People) shares very interesting conversation related to how to write a good lookup component with Cache Mode. In SQL Server Integration Services, the lookup component is one of the most frequently used tools for data validation and completion.  The lookup component is provided as a means to virtually join one set of data to another to validate and/or retrieve missing values.  Properly configured, it is reliable and reasonably fast. Among the many settings available on the lookup component, one of the most critical is the cache mode.  This selection will determine whether and how the distinct lookup values are cached during package execution.  It is critical to know how cache modes affect the result of the lookup and the performance of the package, as choosing the wrong setting can lead to poorly performing packages, and in some cases, incorrect results. Full Cache The full cache mode setting is the default cache mode selection in the SSIS lookup transformation.  Like the name implies, full cache mode will cause the lookup transformation to retrieve and store in SSIS cache the entire set of data from the specified lookup location.  As a result, the data flow in which the lookup transformation resides will not start processing any data buffers until all of the rows from the lookup query have been cached in SSIS. The most commonly used cache mode is the full cache setting, and for good reason.  The full cache setting has the most practical applications, and should be considered the go-to cache setting when dealing with an untested set of data. With a moderately sized set of reference data, a lookup transformation using full cache mode usually performs well.  Full cache mode does not require multiple round trips to the database, since the entire reference result set is cached prior to data flow execution. There are a few potential gotchas to be aware of when using full cache mode.  First, you can see some performance issues – memory pressure in particular – when using full cache mode against large sets of reference data.  If the table you use for the lookup is very large (either deep or wide, or perhaps both), there’s going to be a performance cost associated with retrieving and caching all of that data.  Also, keep in mind that when doing a lookup on character data, full cache mode will always do a case-sensitive (and in some cases, space-sensitive) string comparison even if your database is set to a case-insensitive collation.  This is because the in-memory lookup uses a .NET string comparison (which is case- and space-sensitive) as opposed to a database string comparison (which may be case sensitive, depending on collation).  There’s a relatively easy workaround in which you can use the UPPER() or LOWER() function in the pipeline data and the reference data to ensure that case differences do not impact the success of your lookup operation.  Again, neither of these present a reason to avoid full cache mode, but should be used to determine whether full cache mode should be used in a given situation. Full cache mode is ideally useful when one or all of the following conditions exist: The size of the reference data set is small to moderately sized The size of the pipeline data set (the data you are comparing to the lookup table) is large, is unknown at design time, or is unpredictable Each distinct key value(s) in the pipeline data set is expected to be found multiple times in that set of data Partial Cache When using the partial cache setting, lookup values will still be cached, but only as each distinct value is encountered in the data flow.  Initially, each distinct value will be retrieved individually from the specified source, and then cached.  To be clear, this is a row-by-row lookup for each distinct key value(s). This is a less frequently used cache setting because it addresses a narrower set of scenarios.  Because each distinct key value(s) combination requires a relational round trip to the lookup source, performance can be an issue, especially with a large pipeline data set to be compared to the lookup data set.  If you have, for example, a million records from your pipeline data source, you have the potential for doing a million lookup queries against your lookup data source (depending on the number of distinct values in the key column(s)).  Therefore, one has to be keenly aware of the expected row count and value distribution of the pipeline data to safely use partial cache mode. Using partial cache mode is ideally suited for the conditions below: The size of the data in the pipeline (more specifically, the number of distinct key column) is relatively small The size of the lookup data is too large to effectively store in cache The lookup source is well indexed to allow for fast retrieval of row-by-row values No Cache As you might guess, selecting no cache mode will not add any values to the lookup cache in SSIS.  As a result, every single row in the pipeline data set will require a query against the lookup source.  Since no data is cached, it is possible to save a small amount of overhead in SSIS memory in cases where key values are not reused.  In the real world, I don’t see a lot of use of the no cache setting, but I can imagine some edge cases where it might be useful. As such, it’s critical to know your data before choosing this option.  Obviously, performance will be an issue with anything other than small sets of data, as the no cache setting requires row-by-row processing of all of the data in the pipeline. I would recommend considering the no cache mode only when all of the below conditions are true: The reference data set is too large to reasonably be loaded into SSIS memory The pipeline data set is small and is not expected to grow There are expected to be very few or no duplicates of the key values(s) in the pipeline data set (i.e., there would be no benefit from caching these values) Conclusion The cache mode, an often-overlooked setting on the SSIS lookup component, represents an important design decision in your SSIS data flow.  Choosing the right lookup cache mode directly impacts the fidelity of your results and the performance of package execution.  Know how this selection impacts your ETL loads, and you’ll end up with more reliable, faster packages. If you want me to take a look at your server and its settings, or if your server is facing any issue we can Fix Your SQL Server. Reference: Pinal Dave (http://blog.sqlauthority.com)Filed under: Notes from the Field, PostADay, SQL, SQL Authority, SQL Query, SQL Server, SQL Tips and Tricks, T SQL Tagged: SSIS

    Read the article

  • NHibernate / Fluent - Mapping multiple objects to single lookup table

    - by Al
    Hi all I am struggling a little in getting my mapping right. What I have is a single self joined table of look up values of certain types. Each lookup can have a parent, which can be of a different type. For simplicities sake lets take the Country and State example. So the lookup table would look like this: Lookups Id Key Value LookupType ParentId - self joining to Id base class public class Lookup : BaseEntity { public Lookup() {} public Lookup(string key, string value) { Key = key; Value = value; } public virtual Lookup Parent { get; set; } [DomainSignature] [NotNullNotEmpty] public virtual LookupType LookupType { get; set; } [NotNullNotEmpty] public virtual string Key { get; set; } [NotNullNotEmpty] public virtual string Value { get; set; } } The lookup map public class LookupMap : IAutoMappingOverride<DBLookup> { public void Override(AutoMapping<Lookup> map) { map.Table("Lookups"); map.References(x => x.Parent, "ParentId").ForeignKey("Id"); map.DiscriminateSubClassesOnColumn<string>("LookupType").CustomType(typeof(LookupType)); } } BASE SubClass map for subclasses public class BaseLookupMap : SubclassMap where T : DBLookup { protected BaseLookupMap() { } protected BaseLookupMap(LookupType lookupType) { DiscriminatorValue(lookupType); Table("Lookups"); } } Example subclass map public class StateMap : BaseLookupMap<State> { protected StateMap() : base(LookupType.State) { } } Now I've almost got my mappings set, however the mapping is still expecting a table-per-class setup, so is expecting a 'State' table to exist with a reference to the states Id in the Lookup table. I hope this makes sense. This doesn't seem like an uncommon approach when wanting to keep lookup-type values configurable. Thanks in advance. Al

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13  | Next Page >