Search Results

Search found 2412 results on 97 pages for 'relationship'.

Page 66/97 | < Previous Page | 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73  | Next Page >

• Doctrine 1.2 Column Naming Conventions for Many To Many Relationships

  - by Alan Storm

  I'm working with an existing database schema, and trying to setup two Doctrine models with a Many to Many relationship, as described in this document When creating tables from scratch, I have no trouble getting this working. However, the existing join tables use a different naming convention that what's described in the Doctrine document. Specifically Table 1 -------------------------------------------------- table_1_id ....other columns.... Table 2 -------------------------------------------------- table_2_id ....other columns.... Join Table -------------------------------------------------- fktable1_id fktable_2_id Basically, the previous developers prefaced all forign keys with an fk. From the examples I've seen and some brief experimenting with code, it appears that Doctrine 1.2 requires that the join table use the same column names as the tables it's joining in Is my assumption correct? If so, has the situation changed in Doctrine 2? If the answers to either of the above are true, how do you configure the models so that all the columns "line up"

  Read the article

• Hibernate and Child Objects (add versus clear)

  - by tyndall

  Lets say I have domain model with Automobile and Wheels. Wheels is a List of Wheels Wheels has a many-to-one relationship to Automobile. If I get an object back from Hibernate and it has 4 wheels. I take that object remove the 4 wheels and add 4. And then Save. If I ask Hibernate for the object again and it returns an auto with 8 wheels... what are we doing wrong? I don't have access to the source for a few days but want to give our Java devs a push in the right direction. Thanks.

  Read the article

• how to made one-to-one bidirectional relationships in grails?

  - by user369759

  I have two domain classes and want to have one-to-one BIDIRECTIONAL relation between them. I write: class Person { Book book; String name Integer age Date lastVisit static constraints = { book unique: true // "one-to-one". Without that = "Many-to-one". } } class Book { String title Date releaseDate String ISBN static belongsTo = [person:Person] // it makes relationship bi-directional regarding the grails-docs } So, i want to have bi-directional, i could NOT find link from Book to Person in generated SQL: CREATE TABLE `book` ( `id` bigint(20) NOT NULL AUTO_INCREMENT, `version` bigint(20) NOT NULL, `isbn` varchar(255) NOT NULL, `release_date` datetime NOT NULL, `title` varchar(255) NOT NULL, PRIMARY KEY (`id`) ) ENGINE=MyISAM AUTO_INCREMENT=2 DEFAULT CHARSET=latin1 So then it means it is not bidirectional then? How to make bidirectional?

  Read the article

• Storing object into cache using Linq classes and velocity

  - by Arun

  I careated couple of linq classes & marked the datacontext as unidirectional. Out of four classes; one is main class while other three are having the one to many relationship with first one; When I load the object of main class & put into the memory OR serialize it into an XML file; I never get the child class data while it is maked as DataContractAttribute. How can I force object to put the child class data into XML file or into cache ?

  Read the article

• Simplest one-to-many Map case in Hibernate doesn't work in MySQL

  - by Malvolio

  I think this is pretty much the simplest case for mapping a Map (that is, an associative array) of entities. @Entity @AccessType("field") class Member { @Id protected long id; @OneToMany(cascade = CascadeType.ALL, fetch=FetchType.LAZY) @MapKey(name = "name") private Map<String, Preferences> preferences = new HashMap<String, Preferences>(); } @Entity @AccessType("field") class Preferences { @ManyToOne Member member; @Column String name; @Column String value; } This looks like it should work, and it does, in HSQL. In MySQL, there are two problems: First, it insists that there be a table called Members_Preferences, as if this were a many-to-many relationship. Second, it just doesn't work: since it never populates Members_Preferences, it never retrieves the Preferences. [My theory is, since I only use HSQL in memory-mode, it automatically creates Members_Preferences and never really has to retrieve the preferences map. In any case, either Hibernate has a huge bug in it or I'm doing something wrong.]

  Read the article

• Drupal Views limiting content posted by group membership

  - by digital

  Hi, I have various different content types and I want to filter by using views. So say a block only displays content posted in groups that you are a member of. I've created my generic view which so far displays all content of that type, but I'm struggling with linking this to content only posted in groups your a member of. I've looked at the Organic Groups filters but no luck there. I suspect I might need to use some sort of relationship but I'm stuck there. Any help would be greatly appreciated.

  Read the article

• HQL: illegal attempt to dereference collection

  - by skip

  The situation is like this: I have an entity Book that holds a one-to-many relationship with Chapter. Now if I try the query, "from Book book inner join book.chapters chapter where chapter.title like '%hibernate%'", it gives me the desired result. But if I try, "from Book where book.chapters.title like '%hibernate%'", I get the error illegal attempt to dereference collection. The thing is that I only want the collection of Book objects in return and not a collection of pair of Book and Chapter objects in return which I get with the former query. Could someone help me understand?

  Read the article

• Using Rails and Rspec, how do you test that the database is not touched by a method

  - by Will Tomlins

  So I'm writing a test for a method which for performance reasons should achieve what it needs to achieve without using SQL queries. I'm thinking all I need to know is what to stub: describe SomeModel do describe 'a_getter_method' do it 'should not touch the database' do thing = SomeModel.create something_inside_rails.should_not_receive(:a_method_querying_the_database) thing.a_getter_method end end end EDIT: to provide a more specific example: class Publication << ActiveRecord::Base end class Book << Publication end class Magazine << Publication end class Student << ActiveRecord::Base has_many :publications def publications_of_type(type) #this is the method I am trying to test. #The test should show that when I do the following, the database is queried. self.publications.find_all_by_type(type) end end describe Student do describe "publications_of_type" do it 'should not touch the database' do Student.create() student = Student.first(:include => :publications) #the publications relationship is already loaded, so no need to touch the DB lambda { student.publications_of_type(:magazine) }.should_not touch_the_database end end end So the test should fail in this example, because the rails 'find_all_by' method relies on SQL.

  Read the article

• How to: Display multiple related classes in an ASP.NET GridView ?

  - by kversch

  I would like to display students and their grades with a GridView and LinqToSQL like this: assignment1 assignment2 Student 1 55 89 Student 2 87 56 Student 3 92 34 I found this topic but it doesn't answer my question: http://forums.asp.net/t/1557987.aspx I have a many-to-many relationship between students and assignments called "grades". The grade for the assignment is stored in that table in a "gradeNumber" column. I would also like to specify which assignments should be displayed in the grid. Btw, my LINQ entities are extended to allow me to write/get studentx.Assignments or assignmentx.Students.

  Read the article

• Mapping enum to a table with hibernate annotation

  - by Thierry-Dimitri Roy

  I have a table DEAL and a table DEAL_TYPE. I would like to map this code: public class Deal { DealType type; } public enum DealType { BASE("Base"), EXTRA("Extra"); } The problem is that the data already exist in the database. And I'm having a hard time mapping the classes to the database. The database looks something like that: TABLE DEAL { Long id; Long typeId; } TABLE DEAL_TYPE { Long id; String text; } I know I could use a simple @OneToMany relationship from deal to deal type, but I would prefer to use an enum. Is this possible? I almost got it working by using a EnumType.ORDINAL type. But unfortunately, my IDs in my deal type table are not sequential, and do not start at 1. Any suggestions?

  Read the article

• iPhone , core data, whether NSManagedObject use lazy load mechanism when it was create ?

  - by Robin

  Hi, all, I have use core data in app, I have definite a class that most like as follows: @interface Master : NSManagedObject { } @property (nonatomic, retain) NSSet* Details; .... the entity Master contains a property 'Details' that is relate to another table, this is typical Master-Details relationship, I trace the app , but I find a issue that the property 'Details' value was construct even it never be invoked ..... but I consider that the core data 'should' use some lazy mechanism to improve performance, or maybe I miss some configure step ? because the Master entity contains at least five 'Child' table properties , I have to consider this problem before use the core data .... any help ? thanks for your time!

  Read the article

• Symfony 1.4: Deleting a sfGuardUser

  - by Tom

  Hi, I'm having some trouble with the following... I have a sfGuardUser table set up normally, and it has a one-to-one relationship with a Profile table, which contains some additional user info. When a user wants to delete themselves from the site, I'd like to retain their info in the Profile table for various purposes BUT delete the sfGuardUser in order to keep that table cleaner/shorter (not just set it to inactive). I was under the impression that I could set the FK in the Profile table to NULL and then delete the sfGuardUser, but it seems the FK-constraint fails. Indeed, it seems I can't delete either and the queries fail: If I try to delete the sfGuardUser, the Profile table will have an invalid FK If I try to delete a Profile, the sfGuardUser will have an invalid FK Other than leaving outdated sfGuardUsers and Profiles in these tables, or having to use a cascaded delete to get rid of both, can anyone tell me if there's any other way around this? Thank you.

  Read the article

• Best way to model Customer <--> Address

  - by Jen

  Every Customer has a physical address and an optional mailing address. What is your preferred way to model this? Option 1. Customer has foreign key to Address Customer (id, phys_address_id, mail_address_id) Address (id, street, city, etc.) Option 2. Customer has one-to-many relationship to Address, which contains a field to describe the address type Customer (id) Address (id, customer_id, address_type, street, city, etc.) Option 3. Address information is de-normalized and stored in Customer Customer (id, phys_street, phys_city, etc. mail_street, mail_city, etc.) One of my overriding goals is to simplify the object-relational mappings, so I'm leaning towards the first approach. What are your thoughts?

  Read the article

• CakePHP HABTM Filtering

  - by James Haigh

  Hi, I've got two tables - users and servers, and for the HABTM relationship, users_servers. Users HABTM servers and vice versa. I'm trying to find a way for Cake to select the servers that a user is assigned to. I'm trying things like $this->User->Server->find('all'); which just returns all the servers, regardless of whether they belong to the user. $this->User->Server->find('all', array('conditions' => array('Server.user_id' => 1))) just gives an unknown column SQL error. I'm sure I'm missing something obvious but just need someone to point me in the right direction. Thanks!

  Read the article

• Accessing properties through Generic type parameter

  - by Veer

  I'm trying to create a generic repository for my models. Currently i've 3 different models which have no relationship between them. (Contacts, Notes, Reminders). class Repository<T> where T:class { public IQueryable<T> SearchExact(string keyword) { //Is there a way i can make the below line generic //return db.ContactModels.Where(i => i.Name == keyword) //I also tried db.GetTable<T>().Where(i => i.Name == keyword) //But the variable i doesn't have the Name property since it would know it only in the runtime //db also has a method ITable GetTable(Type modelType) but don't think if that would help me } } In MainViewModel, I call the Search method like this: Repository<ContactModel> _contactRepository = new Repository<ContactModel>(); public void Search(string keyword) { var filteredList = _contactRepository.SearchExact(keyword).ToList(); } I use Linq-To-Sql.

  Read the article

• Howto check if a object is connected to another in hibernate

  - by codevourer

  Imagine two domain object classes, A and B. A has a bidirectional one-to-many relationship to B. A is related to thousands of B. The relations must be unique, it's not possible to have a duplicate. To check if an instance of B is already connected to a given instance of A, we could perform an easy INNER JOIN but this will only ensure the already persisted relations. What about the current transient relations? class A { @OneToMany private List<B> listOfB; } If we access the listOfB and perform a check of contains() this will fetch all the connected instances of B lazy from the datasource. I only want to validate them by their primary-key. Is there an easy solution where I can do things like "Does this instance of A is connected with this instance of B?" Without loading all these data into memory and perform a based on collections?

  Read the article

• Physical Cores vs Virtual Cores in Parallelism

  - by Code Curiosity

  When it comes to virtualization, I have been deliberating on the relationship between the physical cores and the virtual cores, especially in how it effects applications employing parallelism. For example, in a VM scenario, if there are less physical cores than there are virtual cores, if that's possible, what's the effect or limits placed on the application's parallel processing? I'm asking, because in my environment, it's not disclosed as to what the physical architecture is. Is there still much advantage to parallelizing if the application lives on a dual core VM hosted on a single core physical machine?

  Read the article

• I get "stack level too deep" error when using a named scope

  - by Brian Roisentul

  I'm using ruby on rails 2.3.8 and when I write the syntax shown below I get the "stack level too deep" error message. The model is called Announcement and the line of the error looks like this: Tag.find(category_id).announcements.published Where published is named_scope :published, :conditions => "announcements.state = 'published'" I use this named scope in many other places and it works fine. What am I doing wrong? (the relationship between Tag and Announcement model is ok because if I remove the ".published" method from that line it works just fine).

  Read the article

• Reduce the number of queries in EF

  - by Gio2k

  I have the following Model: Entities: Product (Contains basic data for products: price, etc) Attribute (Contains data for all possible optional attributes) ProductAttribute (Contains data for optional attributes of a product, eg. Color, Model, Size). ProductAttribute is essentially a many to many relationship with payload (ProductId, AttributeID, Value) And this piece of code: private static void ListAttributes(Product p) { p.ProductAttributes.Load(); foreach (var att in p.ProductAttributes) { att.Attribute.load(); Console.WriteLine("\tAttribute Name:{0} - Value {1}", att.Attribute.Name, att.AttributeValue); } } This piece of code will fire a query for each time the att.Attribute.Load() method is called in the foreach loop, only so i can get display the name of the attribute. I would like to fetch the Attribute.Name together with the query that fetches all attribute values, i.e. join ProductAttribute and Attribute. Is there any way to achieve this within my method?

  Read the article

• After C++ - Python or Java?

  - by carleeto

  I'm fast approaching the point in my coding where I would like to quickly write object oriented code in languages other than C++ for a variety of reasons. After a lot of research, my choices have pretty much narrowed down to Python and Java. I'm leaning towards Python because of its relationship to C, but with Java, from what I can see, I get a good introduction to using and creating test suites with Eclipse - there is also Processing which is pulling me towards Java. I'm not the kind of guy to tackle two languages at once, so which one would you recommend and why? What I want at the end is to have an additional language I can use for rapid development. Ease of learning isn't important to me as I'm willing to put in the time regardless. Ability to use the new language widely is.

  Read the article

• 'Recursive' LINQ calls

  - by Sir Psycho

  Hi, I'm trying to build an XML tree of some data with a parent child relationship, but in the same table. The two fields of importance are CompetitionID ParentCompetitionID Some data might be CompetitionID=1, ParentCompetitionID=null CompetitionID=2, ParentCompetitionID=1 CompetitionID=3, ParentCompetitionID=1 The broken query I have simply displays results in a flat format. Seeing that I'm working with XML, some sort of recursive functionality is required. I can do this using recursion, but would like to see the linq version. Any help appreciated. var results = from c1 in comps select new { c.CompetitionID, SubComps= from sc in comps.Where (c2 => c2.CompetitionID == c1.CompetitionID) select sc };

  Read the article

• Grails - Need to restrict fetched rows based on condition on join table

  - by sector7

  Hi guys, I have these two domains Car and Driver which have many-to-many relationship. This association is defined in table tblCarsDrivers which has, not surprisingly, primary keys of both the tables BUT additionally also has a new boolean field deleted. Herein lies the problem. When I find/get query on domain Car, I am fetched all related drivers irrespective of their deleted status in tblCarsDrivers, which is expected. I need to put a clause/constraint to exclude the deleted drivers from the list of fetched records. PS: I tried using an association domain CarDriver in joinTable name but that seems not to work. Apparently it expects only table names, not maps. PPS: I know its unnatural to have any other fields besides the mapping keys in mapping table but this is how I got it and it cant be changed. Car domain is defined as such - class Car { Integer id String name static hasMany = [drivers:Driver] static mapping = { table 'tblCars' version false drivers joinTable:[name: 'tblCarsDrivers',column:'driverid',key:'carid'] } } Thanks!

  Read the article

• LINQ to Entites: How should I handle System.InvalidOperationException when checking for existance of

  - by chris

  I have a many-to-one relationship that users can edit via checkboxes. PK of Foo is ID, and fid contains the id from the checkbox. I'm checking to see if an element exists with: Foo ent; try { ent = ctx.Foo.First(f => f.ID == fid); } catch (System.InvalidOperationException ioe) { ent = new Foo(); } It seems to me that I should be able to do this without throwing an exception. What would be the best way to do this?

  Read the article

• JPA and aggregate functions. How do I use the result of the query?

  - by Bogdan

  Hey guys, I'm new to ORM stuff and I need some help understanding something. Let's assume I have the following standard SQL query: SELECT *, COUNT(test.testId) AS noTests FROM inspection LEFT JOIN test ON inspection.inspId = test.inspId GROUP BY inspection.inspId which I want to use in JPA. I have an Inspection entity with a one-to-many relationship to a Test entity. (an inspection has many tests) I tried writing this in JPQL: Query query = em.createQuery("SELECT insp, COUNT(???what???) FROM Inspection insp LEFT JOIN insp.testList " + "GROUP BY insp.inspId"); 1) How do I write the COUNT clause? I'd have to apply count to elements from the test table but testList is a collection, so I can't do smth like COUNT(insp.testList.testId) 2) Assuming 1 is resolved, what type of object will be returned. It will definitely not be an Inspection object... How do I use the result?

  Read the article

• Hibernate one-to-one: getId() without fetching entire object

  - by Rob

  I want to fetch the id of a one-to-one relationship without loading the entire object. I thought I could do this using lazy loading as follows: class Foo { @OneToOne(fetch = FetchType.LAZY, optional = false) private Bar bar; } Foo f = session.get(Foo.class, fooId); // Hibernate fetches Foo f.getBar(); // Hibernate fetches full Bar object f.getBar().getId(); // No further fetch, returns id I want f.getBar() to not trigger another fetch. I want hibernate to give me a proxy object that allows me to call .getId() without actually fetching the Bar object. What am I doing wrong?

  Read the article

< Previous Page | 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73  | Next Page >