Search Results

Search found 40393 results on 1616 pages for 'single table inheritance'.

facebook twitter digg google delicious technorati stumbleupon myspace wordpress linkedin gmail igoogle windows live tumblr viadeo yahoo buzz yahoo mail yahoo bookmarks favorites email print

Page 91/1616 | < Previous Page | 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98  | Next Page >

  • Cannot drop a table in SQL 2005

    - by David George
    I have a SQL Server 2005 SP3 box that one of my developers created a temp table on that we cannot seem to remove because it somehow got brackets in the name of the table? SELECT Name, object_id FROM sys.objects WHERE Name LIKE '%#example%' Results: Name object_id [#example] 123828384 Anyone know how we can get rid of this? Thanks!

    Read the article

  • ORA-00942: table or view does not exist & ORA-01031: insufficient privileges

    - by Forza
    I can't access any tables on my oracle database. When selecting the table product I get ORA-00942: table or view does not exist I have tried this solution but I don't have sufficiënt rights to add a new user. I get ORA-01031: insufficient privileges I am logged on as ADMIN to oracle application express. The environment we use is windows server 2003. What can I do to 1) access my tables and 2) get back the administration rights I am supposed to have?

    Read the article

  • Validate a single property with the Fluent Validation Library for .Net

    - by Blegger
    Can you validate just a single property with the Fluent Validation Library, and if so how? I thought this discussion thread from January of 2009 showed me how to do it via the following syntax: validator.Validate(new Person(), x => x.Surname); Unfortunately it doesn't appear this works in the current version of the library. One other thing that led me to believe that validating a single property might be possible is the following quote from Jeremy Skinners' blog post: "Finally, I added the ability to be able to execute some of FluentValidation’s Property Validators without needing to validate the entire object. This means it is now possible to stop the default “A value was required” message from being added to ModelState. " However I do not know if that necessarily means it supports just validating a single property or the fact that you can tell the validation library to stop validating after the first validation error.

    Read the article

  • Eliminating code duplication in a single file

    - by Jon
    Sadly, a project that I have been working on lately has a large amount of copy-and-paste code, even within single files. Are there any tools or techniques that can detect duplication or near-duplication within a single file? I have Beyond Compare 3 and it works well for comparing separate files, but I am at a loss for comparing single files. Thanks in advance. Edit: Thanks for all the great tools! I'll definitely check them out. This project is an ASP.NET/C# project, but I work with a variety of languages including Java; I'm interested in what tools are best (for any language) to remove duplication.

    Read the article

  • How to get the path of a derived class from an inherited method?

    - by Jacco
    How to get the path of the current class, from an inherited method? I have the following: <?php // file: /parentDir/class.php class Parent { protected function getDir() { return dirname(__FILE__); } } ?> and <?php // file: /childDir/class.php class Child extends Parent { public function __construct() { echo $this->getDir(); } } $tmp = new Child(); // output: '/parentDir' ?> The __FILE__ constant always points to the source-file of the file it is in, regardless of inheritance. I would like to get the name of the path for the derived class. Is there any elegant way of doing this? I could do something along the lines of $this->getDir(__FILE__); but that would mean that I have to repeat myself quite often. I'm looking for a method that puts all the logic in the parent class, if possible. Update: Accepted solution (by Palantir): <?php // file: /parentDir/class.php class Parent { protected function getDir() { $reflector = new ReflectionClass(get_class($this)); return dirname($reflector->getFileName()); } } ?>

    Read the article

  • OpenLayers, Layers: Tiled vs. single tile

    - by Chau
    Each time we add a new layer to our OpenLayers based website (data provided primarily by a GeoServer server), we discuss whether to use a single-tile or a tiled approach. Some of the parameters we evaluate are the following: Using the tiled approach we get: Slow but continuous buildup of the viewport Lots of small images Client side caching possibilities Blocking of the loading pipeline (6 requests at a time) Jerky feeling when navigating during load Using the single-tile approach we get: Smoother feeling when navigating during load Time delay before layer is loaded One large image for each layer No caching of the single tile We have a lot of data editing in the layers, thus a tile-cache might not be that efficient. Are there any best-practices when it comes to tiling? Progressing towards infinitely fast hardware and unlimited data connections, the discussion becomes irrelevant, but what configuration do you percieve as the most user-pleasing?

    Read the article

  • How to store arrays in single array

    - by Jessy
    How can I store arrays in single array? e.g. I have four different arrays, I want to store it in single array int storeAllArray [] and when I call e.g. storeAllArray[1] , I will get this output [11,65,4,3,2,9,7]instead of single elements? int array1 [] = {1,2,3,4,5,100,200,400}; int array2 [] = {2,6,5,7,2,5,10}; int array3 [] = {11,65,4,3,2,9,7}; int array4 [] = {111,33,22,55,77}; int storeAllArray [] = {array1,array2,array3,array2} // I want store all array in on array for (int i=0; i<storeAllArray; i++){ System.out.println(storeAllArray.get[0]); // e.g. will produce --> 1,2,3,4,5,100,200,400 , how can I do this? }

    Read the article

  • How to generate two XML files from a single HL7 file and insert both into two different columns as a single record?

    - by Vivek Ratnaparkhi
    I have Source Connector Type as 'File Reader' which is reading HL7 files and Destination Connector Type as 'Database Writer'. My database table has two columns Participant_Information SPR_Information I want to transform a single HL7 file into two XML files one for Participant_Information column and other for SPR_Information column and need to insert both as a single record into the database table. I'm able to insert one XML at a time but not able to find the way to insert both the XMLs as a single record into the database table. Any help is really greatly appreciated!

    Read the article

  • Accessing Static Methods on a Generic class in c#

    - by mrlane
    Hello, I have the following situation in code, which I suspect may be a bit dodgey: I have a class: abstract class DataAccessBase<T> : IDataAccess where T : AnotherAbstractClass This class DataAccessBase also has a static factory method which creates instances of derived classes of itself using an enum value in a which statement to decide which derived type to create: static IDataAccess CreateInstance(TypeToCreateEnum) Now, the types derived from DataAccessBase<T> are themselves NOT generic, they specify a type for T: class PoLcZoneData : DataAccessBase<PoLcZone> // PoLcZone is derived from AnotherAbstractClass So far I am not sure if this is pushing the limits of good use of generics, but what I am really concerned about is how to access the static CreateInstance() method in the first place: The way I am doing this at the moment is to simply pass any type T where T : AnotherAbstractClass. In particular I am passing AnotherAbstractClass itself. This allows compilation just fine, but it does seem to me that passing any type to a generic class just to get at the statics is a bit dodgey. I have actually simplified the situation somewhat as DataAccessBase<T> is the lower level in the inheritance chain, but the static factory methods exists in a middle tier with classes such as PoLcZoneData being the most derived on the only level that is not generic. What are peoples thoughts on this arrangement?

    Read the article

  • Best approach for a multi-tab ASP.NET AJAX control?

    - by NovaJoe
    Looking for some implementation advice: I have a page that has a 3-tab ajaxToolkit:TabContainer. The purpose of the page is to expose a calculator that has two basic inputs: geo-location and date. The three tabs are labeled "City and State", "Postal Code", and "GPS Coordinates". The layout of each tab container is the same for each tab, with the exception of the location section; the location section changes because each type of location has different inputs. For example, to specify city/state, there will be three fields: city, country, and state (country and state will use cascading drop-down lists). But Postal code requires only one field (which will validate via regular expression for allowed countries). See the example design mockup: So, what I WOULD LIKE to do (in order to minimize duplicate code), is to have a common control that contains the layout and structure of the calculator without specifying anything about the location section. Then, I'd like to be able to pull in each of the unique location controls based on what tab is selected. The tab structure exists at the page level, not in a control. Any advice? I was looking at templated controls (see MSDN article here), but I'm not convinced that it's the right solution. If I HAVE to create three separate controls with similar layouts and common elements, then that's what I have to do. But REALLY, I'd prefer a more elegant, inheritance-based solution. Any advice would be greatly appreciated. Thanks.

    Read the article

  • How do I so a select input for a STI column in a Rails model?

    - by James A. Rosen
    I have a model with single-table inheritance on the type column: class Pet < ActiveRecord::Base TYPES = [Dog, Cat, Hamster] validates_presence_of :name end I want to offer a <select> dropdown on the new and edit pages: <% form_for @model do |f| %> <%= f.label :name %> <%= f.text_input :name %> <%= f.label :type %> <%= f.select :type, Pet::TYPES.map { |t| [t.human_name, t.to_s] } %> <% end %> That gives me the following error: ActionView::TemplateError (wrong argument type String (expected Module)) I read a suggestion to use an alias for the field #type since Ruby considers that a reserved word that's the same as #class. I tried both class Pet < ActiveRecord::Base ... alias_attribute :klass, :type end and class Pet < ActiveRecord::Base ... def klass self.type end def klass=(k) self.type = k end end Neither worked. Any suggestions? Oddly, it works fine on my machine (MRI 1.8.6 on RVM), but fails on the staging server (MRI 1.8.7 not on RVM).

    Read the article

  • Console appliction with Multithreading on Single core.

    - by Harsha
    Hello all, I am reposting my question on Multithreading on Single core processor. Original question is: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/2856239/will-multi-threading-increase-the-speed-of-the-calculation-on-single-processor I have been asked a question, At any given time, only one thread is allowed to run on a single core. If so, why people use multithreading in a application. Lets say you are running console application and It is very much possible to write the application to run on the main thread. But still people go for multithreading.

    Read the article

  • syntax for single row MERGE / upsert in SQL Server

    - by Jacob
    I'm trying to do a single row insert/update on a table but all the examples out there are for sets. Can anyone fix my syntax please: MERGE member_topic ON mt_member = 0 AND mt_topic = 110 WHEN MATCHED THEN UPDATE SET mt_notes = 'test' WHEN NOT MATCHED THEN INSERT (mt_member, mt_topic, mt_notes) VALUES (0, 110, 'test') Resolution per marc_s is to convert the single row to a subquery - which makes me think the MERGE command is not really intended for single row upserts. MERGE member_topic USING (SELECT 0 mt_member, 110 mt_topic) as source ON member_topic.mt_member = source.mt_member AND member_topic.mt_topic = source.mt_topic WHEN MATCHED THEN UPDATE SET mt_notes = 'test' WHEN NOT MATCHED THEN INSERT (mt_member, mt_topic, mt_notes) VALUES (0, 110, 'test');

    Read the article

  • Getting the name of a child class in the parent class (static context)

    - by Benoit Myard
    Hi everybody, I'm building an ORM library with reuse and simplicity in mind; everything goes fine except that I got stuck by a stupid inheritance limitation. Please consider the code below: class BaseModel { /* * Return an instance of a Model from the database. */ static public function get (/* varargs */) { // 1. Notice we want an instance of User $class = get_class(parent); // value: bool(false) $class = get_class(self); // value: bool(false) $class = get_class(); // value: string(9) "BaseModel" $class = __CLASS__; // value: string(9) "BaseModel" // 2. Query the database with id $row = get_row_from_db_as_array(func_get_args()); // 3. Return the filled instance $obj = new $class(); $obj->data = $row; return $obj; } } class User extends BaseModel { protected $table = 'users'; protected $fields = array('id', 'name'); protected $primary_keys = array('id'); } class Section extends BaseModel { // [...] } $my_user = User::get(3); $my_user->name = 'Jean'; $other_user = User::get(24); $other_user->name = 'Paul'; $my_user->save(); $other_user->save(); $my_section = Section::get('apropos'); $my_section->delete(); Obviously, this is not the behavior I was expecting (although the actual behavior also makes sense).. So my question is if you guys know of a mean to get, in the parent class, the name of child class.

    Read the article

  • Encapsulate update method inside of object or have method which accepts an object to update

    - by Tom
    Hi, I actually have 2 questions related to each other: I have an object (class) called, say MyClass which holds data from my database. Currently I have a list of these objects ( List < MyClass ) that resides in a singleton in a "communal area". I feel it's easier to manage the data this way and I fail to see how passing a class around from object to object is beneficial over a singleton (I would be happy if someone can tell me why). Anyway, the data may change in the database from outside my program and so I have to update the data every so often. To update the list of the MyClass I have a method called say, Update, written in another class which accepts a list of MyClass. This updates all the instances of MyClass in the list. However would it be better instead to encapulate the Update() method inside the MyClass object, so instead I would say foreach(MyClass obj in MyClassList) { obj.update(); } What is a better implementation and why? The update method requires a XML reader. I have written an XML reader class which is basically a wrapper over the standard XML reader the language natively provides which provides application specific data collection. Should the XML reader class be in anyway in the "inheritance path" of the MyClass object - the MyClass objects inherits from the XML reader because it uses a few methods. I can't see why it should. I don't like the idea of declaring an instance of the XML Reader class inside of MyClass and an MyClass object is meant to be a simple "record" from the database and I feel giving it loads of methods, other object instances is a bit messy. Perhaps my XML reader class should be static but C#'s native XMLReader isn't static.? Any comments would be greatly appreciated Thanks Thomas

    Read the article

  • The new operator in C# isn't overriding base class member

    - by Dominic Zukiewicz
    I am confused as to why the new operator isn't working as I expected it to. Note: All classes below are defined in the same namespace, and in the same file. This class allows you to prefix any content written to the console with some provided text. public class ConsoleWriter { private string prefix; public ConsoleWriter(string prefix) { this.prefix = prefix; } public void Write(string text) { Console.WriteLine(String.Concat(prefix,text)); } } Here is a base class: public class BaseClass { protected static ConsoleWriter consoleWriter = new ConsoleWriter(""); public static void Write(string text) { consoleWriter.Write(text); } } Here is an implemented class: public class NewClass : BaseClass { protected new static ConsoleWriter consoleWriter = new ConsoleWriter("> "); } Now here's the code to execute this: class Program { static void Main(string[] args) { BaseClass.Write("Hello World!"); NewClass.Write("Hello World!"); Console.Read(); } } So I would expect the output to be Hello World! > Hello World! But the output is Hello World Hello World I do not understand why this is happening. Here is my thought process as to what is happening: The CLR calls the BaseClass.Write() method The CLR initialises the BaseClass.consoleWriter member. The method is called and executed with the BaseClass.consoleWriter variable Then The CLR calls the NewClass.Write() The CLR initialises the NewClass.consoleWriter object. The CLR sees that the implementation lies in BaseClass, but the method is inherited through The CLR executes the method locally (in NewClass) using the NewClass.consoleWriter variable I thought this is how the inheritance structure works? Please can someone help me understand why this is not working?

    Read the article

  • sql server 2005 - return single row when 2 records in right table

    - by Peanut
    Hi, I have two related sql server tables ... TableA and TableB. ***TableA - Columns*** TableA_ID INT VALUE VARCHAR(100) ***TableB - Columns*** TableB_ID INT TableA_ID INT VALUE VARCHAR(100) For every single record in TableA there are always 2 records in TableB. Therefore TableA has a one-to-many relationship with TableB. How could I write a single sql statement to join these tables and return a single row for each row in TableA that includes: a column for the VALUE column in the first related row in table B a column for the VALUE column in the second related row in table B? Thanks.

    Read the article

  • What is happening in Crockford's object creation technique?

    - by Chris Noe
    There are only 3 lines of code, and yet I'm having trouble fully grasping this: Object.create = function (o) { function F() {} F.prototype = o; return new F(); }; newObject = Object.create(oldObject); (from Prototypal Inheritance) 1) Object.create() starts out by creating an empty function called F. I'm thinking that a function is a kind of object. Where is this F object being stored? Globally I guess. 2) Next our oldObject, passed in as o, becomes the prototype of function F. Function (i.e., object) F now "inherits" from our oldObject, in the sense that name resolution will route through it. Good, but I'm curious what the default prototype is for an object, Object? Is that also true for a function-object? 3) Finally, F is instantiated and returned, becoming our newObject. Is the "new" operation strictly necessary here? Doesn't F already provide what we need, or is there a critical difference between function-objects and non-function-objects? Clearly it won't be possible to have a constructor function using this technique. What happens the next time Object.create() is called? Is global function F overwritten? Surely it is not reused, because that would alter previously configured objects. And what happens if multiple threads call Object.create(), is there any sort of synchronization to prevent race conditions on F?

    Read the article

  • using STI and ActiveRecordBase<> with full FindAll

    - by oillio
    Is it possible to use generic support with single table inheritance, and still be able to FindAll of the base class? As a bonus question, will I be able to use ActiveRecordLinqBase< as well? I do love those queries. More detail: Say I have the following classes defined: public interface ICompany { int ID { get; set; } string Name { get; set; } } [ActiveRecord("companies", DiscriminatorColumn="type", DiscriminatorType="String", DiscriminatorValue="NA")] public abstract class Company<T> : ActiveRecordBase<T>, ICompany { [PrimaryKey] private int Id { get; set; } [Property] public String Name { get; set; } } [ActiveRecord(DiscriminatorValue="firm")] public class Firm : Company<Firm> { [Property] public string Description { get; set; } } [ActiveRecord(DiscriminatorValue="client")] public class Client : Company<Client> { [Property] public int ChargeRate { get; set; } } This works fine for most cases. I can do things like: var x = Client.FindAll(); But sometimes I want all of the companies. If I was not using generics I could do: var x = (Company[]) FindAll(Company); Client a = (Client)x[0]; Firm b = (Firm)x[1]; Is there a way to write a FindAll that returns an array of ICompany's that can then be typecast into their respective types? Something like: var x = (ICompany[]) FindAll(Company<ICompany>); Client a = (Client)x[0]; Or maybe I am going about implementing the generic support all wrong?

    Read the article

  • Specifying different initial values for fields in inherited models (django)

    - by Shawn Chin
    Question : What is the recommended way to specify an initial value for fields if one uses model inheritance and each child model needs to have different default values when rendering a ModelForm? Take for example the following models where CompileCommand and TestCommand both need different initial values when rendered as ModelForm. # ------ models.py class ShellCommand(models.Model): command = models.Charfield(_("command"), max_length=100) arguments = models.Charfield(_("arguments"), max_length=100) class CompileCommand(ShellCommand): # ... default command should be "make" class TestCommand(ShellCommand): # ... default: command = "make", arguments = "test" I am aware that one can used the initial={...} argument when instantiating the form, however I would rather store the initial values within the context of the model (or at least within the associated ModelForm). My current approach What I'm doing at the moment is storing an initial value dict within Meta, and checking for it in my views. # ----- forms.py class CompileCommandForm(forms.ModelForm): class Meta: model = CompileCommand initial_values = {"command":"make"} class TestCommandForm(forms.ModelForm): class Meta: model = TestCommand initial_values = {"command":"make", "arguments":"test"} # ------ in views FORM_LOOKUP = { "compile": CompileCommandFomr, "test": TestCommandForm } CmdForm = FORM_LOOKUP.get(command_type, None) # ... initial = getattr(CmdForm, "initial_values", {}) form = CmdForm(initial=initial) This feels too much like a hack. I am eager for a more generic / better way to achieve this. Suggestions appreciated. Other attempts I have toyed around with overriding the constructor for the submodels: class CompileCommand(ShellCommand): def __init__(self, *args, **kwargs): kwargs.setdefault('command', "make") super(CompileCommand, self).__init__(*args, **kwargs) and this works when I try to create an object from the shell: >>> c = CompileCommand(name="xyz") >>> c.save() <CompileCommand: 123> >>> c.command 'make' However, this does not set the default value when the associated ModelForm is rendered, which unfortunately is what I'm trying to achieve. Update 2 (looks promising) I now have the following in forms.py which allow me to set Meta.default_initial_values without needing extra code in views. class ModelFormWithDefaults(forms.ModelForm): def __init__(self, *args, **kwargs): if hasattr(self.Meta, "default_initial_values"): kwargs.setdefault("initial", self.Meta.default_initial_values) super(ModelFormWithDefaults, self).__init__(*args, **kwargs) class TestCommandForm(ModelFormWithDefaults): class Meta: model = TestCommand default_initial_values = {"command":"make", "arguments":"test"}

    Read the article

  • Javascript Getting Objects to Fallback to One Another

    - by Ian
    Here's a ugly bit of Javascript it would be nice to find a workaround. Javascript has no classes, and that is a good thing. But it implements fallback between objects in a rather ugly way. The foundational construct should be to have one object that, when a property fails to be found, it falls back to another object. So if we want a to fall back to b we would want to do something like: a = {sun:1}; b = {dock:2}; a.__fallback__ = b; then a.dock == 2; But, Javascript instead provides a new operator and prototypes. So we do the far less elegant: function A(sun) { this.sun = sun; }; A.prototype.dock = 2; a = new A(1); a.dock == 2; But aside from elegance, this is also strictly less powerful, because it means that anything created with A gets the same fallback object. What I would like to do is liberate Javascript from this artificial limitation and have the ability to give any individual object any other individual object as its fallback. That way I could keep the current behavior when it makes sense, but use object-level inheritance when that makes sense. My initial approach is to create a dummy constructor function: function setFallback(from_obj, to_obj) { from_obj.constructor = function () {}; from_obj.constructor.prototype = to_obj; } a = {sun:1}; b = {dock:2}; setFallback(a, b); But unfortunately: a.dock == undefined; Any ideas why this doesn't work, or any solutions for an implementation of setFallback? (I'm running on V8, via node.js, in case this is platform dependent)

    Read the article

  • OOP design issue: Polymorphism

    - by Graham Phillips
    I'm trying to solve a design issue using inheritance based polymorphism and dynamic binding. I have an abstract superclass and two subclasses. The superclass contains common behaviour. SubClassA and SubClassB define some different methods: SubClassA defines a method performTransform(), but SubClassB does not. So the following example 1 var v:SuperClass; 2 var b:SubClassB = new SubClassB(); 3 v = b; 4 v.performTransform(); would cause a compile error on line 4 as performTransform() is not defined in the superclass. We can get it to compile by casting... (v as SubClassA).performTransform(); however, this will cause a runtime exception to be thrown as v is actually an instance of SubClassB, which also does not define performTransform() So we can get around that by testing the type of an object before casting it: if( typeof v == SubClassA) { (cast v to SubClassA).performTransform(); } That will ensure that we only call performTransform() on v's that are instances of SubClassA. That's a pretty inelegant solution to my eyes, but at least its safe. I have used interface based polymorphism (interface meaning a type that can't be instantiated and defines the API of classes that implement it) in the past, but that also feels clunky. For the above case, if SubClassA and SubClassB implemented ISuperClass that defined performTransform, then they would both have to implement performTransform(). If SubClassB had no real need for a performTransform() you would have to implement an empty function. There must be a design pattern out there that addresses the issue.

    Read the article

  • How am i overriding this C++ inherited member function without the virtual keyword being used?

    - by Gary Willoughby
    I have a small program to demonstrate simple inheritance. I am defining a Dog class which is derived from Mammal. Both classes share a simple member function called ToString(). How is Dog overriding the implementation in the Mammal class, when i'm not using the virtual keyword? (Do i even need to use the virtual keyword to override member functions?) mammal.h #ifndef MAMMAL_H_INCLUDED #define MAMMAL_H_INCLUDED #include <string> class Mammal { public: std::string ToString(); }; #endif // MAMMAL_H_INCLUDED mammal.cpp #include <string> #include "mammal.h" std::string Mammal::ToString() { return "I am a Mammal!"; } dog.h #ifndef DOG_H_INCLUDED #define DOG_H_INCLUDED #include <string> #include "mammal.h" class Dog : public Mammal { public: std::string ToString(); }; #endif // DOG_H_INCLUDED dog.cpp #include <string> #include "dog.h" std::string Dog::ToString() { return "I am a Dog!"; } main.cpp #include <iostream> #include "dog.h" using namespace std; int main() { Dog d; std::cout << d.ToString() << std::endl; return 0; } output I am a Dog! I'm using MingW on Windows via Code::Blocks.

    Read the article

  • Failed to specialize function template

    - by citizencane
    This is homework, although it's already submitted with a different approach. I'm getting the following from Visual Studio 2008 error C2893: Failed to specialize function template 'void std::sort(_RanIt,_RanIt,_Pr)' The code is as follows main.cpp Database<> db; db.loadDatabase(); db.sortDatabase(sort_by_title()); Database.cpp void Database<C>::sortDatabase(const sort_by &s) { std::sort(db_.begin(), db_.end(), s); } And the function objects are defined as struct sort_by : public std::binary_function<const Media *, const Media *, bool> { virtual bool operator()(const Media *l, const Media *r) const = 0; }; struct sort_by_title : public sort_by { bool operator()(const Media *l, const Media *r) const { ... } }; ... What's the cure here? [Edit] Sorry, maybe I should have made the inheritance clear template <typename C = std::vector<Media *> > class Database : public IDatabase<C> [/Edit]

    Read the article

facebook twitter digg google delicious technorati stumbleupon myspace wordpress linkedin gmail igoogle windows live tumblr viadeo yahoo buzz yahoo mail yahoo bookmarks favorites email print

< Previous Page | 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98  | Next Page >