Search Results

Search found 40226 results on 1610 pages for 'object relational model'.

Page 10/1610 | < Previous Page | 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17  | Next Page >

  • BizTalk Pipeline Component Error: "Object reference not set to an instance of an object"

    - by Stuart Brierley
    Yesterday I posted about my BizTalk Archiving Pipeline Component, which can be found on Codeplex if anyone is interested in taking a look. During testing of this component I began to encounter an error whereby the component would throw an "Object reference not set to an instance of an object" error when processing as a part of a Custom Pipeline. This was occurring when the component was reading a ReadOnlySeekableStream so that the data can be archived to file, but the actual code throwing the error was somewhere in the depths of the Microsoft.BizTalk.Streaming stack. It turns out that there is a known issue where this exception can be thrown because the garbage collector has disposed of of the stream before execution of the custom pipeline has completed. To get around this you need to add the streams in your code to the pipeline context resource tracker.   So a block of my code goes from:                         originalStrm = bodyPart.GetOriginalDataStream();                         if (!originalStrm.CanSeek)                         {                             ReadOnlySeekableStream seekableStream = new ReadOnlySeekableStream(originalStrm);                             inmsg.BodyPart.Data = seekableStream;                             originalStrm = inmsg.BodyPart.Data;                         }                         fileArchive = new FileStream(FullPath, FileMode.Create, FileAccess.Write);                         binWriter = new BinaryWriter(fileArchive);                         byte[] buffer = new byte[bufferSize];                         int sizeRead = 0;                         while ((sizeRead = originalStrm.Read(buffer, 0, bufferSize)) != 0)                         {                             binWriter.Write(buffer, 0, sizeRead);                         } to                         originalStrm = bodyPart.GetOriginalDataStream();                         if (!originalStrm.CanSeek)                         {                             ReadOnlySeekableStream seekableStream = new ReadOnlySeekableStream(originalStrm);                             inmsg.BodyPart.Data = seekableStream;                             originalStrm = inmsg.BodyPart.Data;                         }                         pc.ResourceTracker.AddResource(originalStrm);                         fileArchive = new FileStream(FullPath, FileMode.Create, FileAccess.Write);                         binWriter = new BinaryWriter(fileArchive);                         byte[] buffer = new byte[bufferSize];                         int sizeRead = 0;                         while ((sizeRead = originalStrm.Read(buffer, 0, bufferSize)) != 0)                         {                             binWriter.Write(buffer, 0, sizeRead);                         } So far this seems to have solved the issue, the error is no more, and my archive component is continuing its way through testing.

    Read the article

  • Class hierarchy problem in this social network model

    - by Gerenuk
    I'm trying to design a class system for a social network data model - basically a link/object system. Now I have roughly the following structure (simplified and only relevant methods shown) class Data: "used to handle the data with mongodb" "can link, unlink data and also return other linked data" "is basically a proxy object that only stores _id and accesses mongodb on requests" "it looks like {_id: ..., _out: [id1, id2,...], _inc: [id3, id4, ...]}" def get_node(self, id) "create a new Data object from the underlying mongodb" "each data object can potentially create a reference object to new mongo data" "this is needed when the data returns the linked objects" class Node: """ this class proxies linking calls to .data it includes additional network logic operations whereas Data only contains a basic database solution """ def __init__(self, data): "the infrastructure realization is stored as composition by an included object data" "Node bascially proxies most calls to the infrastructure object data" def get_node(self, data): "creates a new object of class Object or Link depending on data" class Object(Node): "can have multiple connections to Link" class Link(Node): "has one 'in' and one 'out' connection to an Object" This system is working, however maybe wouldn't work outside Python. Note that after reading links Now I have two questions here: 1) I want to infrastructure of the data storage to be replacable. Earlier I had Data as a superclass of Node so that it provided the neccessary calls. But (without dirty Python tricks) you cannot replace the superclass dynamically. Is using composition therefore recommended? The drawback is that I have to proxy most calls (link, unlink etc). Any thoughts? 2) The class Node contains the common method .get_node which is used to built new Object or Link instances after reading out the data. Some attribute of data decided whether the object which is only stored by id should be instantiated as an Object or Link class. The problem here is that Node needs to know about Object and Link in advance, which seems dodgy. Do you see a different solution? Both Object and Link need to instantiate one of all possible types depending on what the find in their linked data. Are there any other ideas how to implement a flexible Object/Link structure where the underlying database storage is isolated?

    Read the article

  • Rotating object around moving object/player in 2D

    - by Boston
    I am trying to implement a camera which rotates around the world around the player. I have found many solutions online to the task of rotating an object about the origin, or about an arbitrary point. The procedure seems to be to translate the point to be rotated about to the origin, perform the rotation, translate back, then draw. I have gotten this working for rotation around the origin as well as for a fixed point. Rotation of objects around the player works as well, provided the player does not move. However, if the objects are rotated around the player by some non-zero degree, if the player moves after the rotation it causes the rotated objects to move as well. I probably have done a poor job explaining this so here's an image: http://i.imgur.com/1n63iWR.gif And here's the code for the behavior: renderx = (Ox - Px)*cos(camAngle) - (Oy - Py)*sin(camAngle) + Px; rendery = (Ox - Px)*sin(camAngle) + (Oy - Py)*cos(camAngle) + Py; Where (Ox,Oy) is the actual position of the object to be rotated and (Px,Py) is the actual position of the player. Any ideas? I am using C++ with SDL2.0.

    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

  • best way to store 1:1 user relationships in relational database

    - by aharon
    What is the best way to store user relationships, e.g. friendships, that must be bidirectional (you're my friend, thus I'm your friend) in a rel. database, e.g. MYSql? I can think of two ways: Everytime a user friends another user, I'd add two rows to a database, row A consisting of the user id of the innitiating user followed by the UID of the accepting user in the next column. Row B would be the reverse. You'd only add one row, UID(initiating user) followed by UID(accepting user); and then just search through both columns when trying to figure out whether user 1 is a friend of user 2. Surely there is something better?

    Read the article

  • Buddy List: Relational Database Table Design

    - by huntaub
    So, the modern concept of the buddy list: Let's say we have a table called Person. Now, that Person needs to have many buddies (of which each buddy is also in the person class). The most obvious way to construct a relationship would be through a join table. i.e. buddyID person1_id person2_id 0 1 2 1 3 6 But, when a user wants to see their buddy list, the program would have to check the column 'person1_id' and 'person2_id' to find all of their buddies. Is this the appropriate way to implement this kind of table, or would it be better to add the record twice.. i.e. buddyID person1_id person2_id 0 1 2 1 2 1 So that only one column has to be searched. Thanks in advance.

    Read the article

  • Strategy to structure a search index in a relational database

    - by neilc
    I am interested in suggestions for building an efficient and robust structure for indexing products in a new database I am building (i'm using MySql) When a product is entered through the form there are three parts I am interested in indexing for searching purposes. The product title The product description Tags The most important is title, followed by tags, followed by the description. I was thinking of using the following structure CREATE TABLE `searchindex` ( `id` INT NOT NULL , `word` VARCHAR( 255 ) NOT NULL , `weighting` INT NOT NULL , `product_id` INT NOT NULL , PRIMARY KEY ( `id` ) ) Then each time a product is created I would split apart the title, description and tags (removing common words) and award them a weighting. Then it is trivial to select out the words and corresponding products and order them by weighting. Is there a better way to do this? I would be worried that this strategy would slow down over time and as the database filled up.

    Read the article

  • javascript object access performance

    - by youdontmeanmuch
    In Javascript, when your getting a property of an object, is there a performance penalty to getting the whole object vs only getting a property of that object? Also Keep in mind I'm not talking about DOM access these are pure simple Javascript objects. For example: Is there some kind of performance difference between the following code: Assumed to be faster but not sure: var length = some.object[key].length; if(length === condition){ // Do something that doesnt need anything inside of some.object[key] } else{ var object = some.object[key]; // Do something that requires stuff inside of some.object[key] } I think this would be slower but not sure if it matters. var object = some.object[key]; if(object.length === condition){ // Do something that doesnt need anything inside of some.object[key] } else{ // Do something that requires stuff inside of some.object[key] }

    Read the article

  • Passing variables from Model to Model in codeigniter

    - by Craig Ward
    Hi, I need to pass a variable to model, that model needs to send another back and use that variable to query a different model. EG: I have a product_ID which I send to the product model, From that I find out the supplier_ID. I want to grab that supplier_ID to the supplier model to get the supplier name. How do you implement this in codeigniter?

    Read the article

  • Relational Database arrays (H2, Java)

    - by Daddy Warbox
    I seem to have two options on how to implement arrays, and I want to know which I should go with: Use the ARRAY data type and (from what I understand) effectively serialize data objects into the database (which in my case are just wrapped primitive types; don't know of another way to make this work). Use a separate table and map with foreign keys for each array item. If you have experience with this (especially with H2), which would you recommend?

    Read the article

  • How do I make an object a property of a model in Ruby on Rails?

    - by iTake
    I have this in my schema: create_table "robots_matches", :force => true do |t| t.integer "robot_id" t.integer "match_id" and I think I want to be able to load a robot and match from within my robots_match model so I can do something like this: robots_match.find(:id).get_robot().Name My attempt in the robots_matches model was this: def get_robot Robot.find(this.id) end I am super new to rails, so feel free to correct my architectural decision here.

    Read the article

  • Should I put actors in the Domain-Model/Class-Diagram?

    - by devoured elysium
    When designing both the domain-model and class-diagrams I am having some trouble understanding what to put in them. I'll give an example of what I mean: I am doing a vacations scheduler program, that has an Administrator and End-Users. The Administrator does a couple of things like registering End-Users in the program, changing their previleges, etc. The End-User can choose his vacations days, etc. I initially defined an Administrator and End-User as concepts in the domain-model, and later as classes in the class-diagram. In the class-diagram, both classes ended up having a couple of methods like Administrator.RegisterNewUser(); Administrator.UnregisterUser(int id); etc. Only after some time I realised that actually both Administrator and End-User are actors, and maybe I got this design totally wrong. Instead of filling Administrator and End-User classes with methods to do what my Use-Cases request, I could define other classes from the domain to do them, and have controllers handle the Use-Cases(actually, I decided to do one for each Use-Case). I could have a UserDatabase.RegisterNewUser() and UserDatabase.UnregisterUser(int id);, for example, instead of having those methods on the Administrator class. The idea would be to try to think of the whole vacation-scheduler as a "closed-program" that has a set of features and doesn't bother with things such as authentication, that should be internal/protected, being that the only public things I'd let the outside world see would be its controllers. Is this the right approach? Or am I getting this totally wrong? Is it generally bad idea to put Actors in the domain-model/class-diagrams? What are good rules of thumb for this? My lecturer is following Applying UML and Patterns, which I find awful, so I'd like to know where I could look up more info on this described actor-models situation. I'm still a bit confused about all of this, as this new approach is radically different from anything I've done before.

    Read the article

  • Entity Framework v4 examples and tutorials of conceptual model mapping

    - by Rody van Sambeek
    In an application I'm writing I have a fairly complicated Database model. I'd like to use EF4 to map this to a whole lot nicer conceptual model. However all the tutorials I've read are with samples of 2 or 3 tables which all map 1 on 1 to the conceptual model. I'd like to learn how to correctly map the database model to a different conceptual model using VS 2010. However I can't find any good tutorials or (preferabally) instruction video's. Somebody got any tips, links or even books?

    Read the article

  • Creating an object relational schema from a Class diagram

    - by Caylem
    Hi Ladies and Gents. I'd like some help converting the following UML diagram: UML Diagram The diagram shows 4 classes and is related to a Loyalty card scheme for an imaginary supermarket. I'd like to create an object relational data base schema from it for use with Oracle 10g/11g. Not sure where to begin, if somebody could give me a head start that would be great. Looking for actually starting the schema, show abstraction, constraints, types(subtypes, supertypes) methods and functions. Note: I'm not looking for anyone to make any comments regarding the actual classes and whether changes should be made to the Diagram, just the schema. Thanks

    Read the article

  • JQuery pass model to controller

    - by slandau
    I want to pass the mvc page model back to my controller within a Javascript Object. How would I do that? var urlString = "<%= System.Web.VirtualPathUtility.ToAbsolute("~/mvc/Indications.cfc/ExportToExcel")%>"; var jsonNickname = { model: Model, viewName: "<%= VirtualPathUtility.ToAbsolute("~/Views/Indications/TermSheetViews/Swap/CashFlows.aspx")%>", fileName: 'Cashflows.xls' } $.ajax({ type: "POST", url: urlString, data: jsonNickname, async: false, success: function (data) { $('#termSheetPrinted').append(data); } }); So where it says model: Model, I want the Model to be the actual page model that I declare at the top of the page: Inherits="System.Web.Mvc.ViewPage<Chatham.Web.Models.Indications.SwapModel>" How can I do that?

    Read the article

  • Loose Coupling in Object Oriented Design

    - by m3th0dman
    I am trying to learn GRASP and I found this explained (here on page 3) about Low Coupling and I was very surprised when I found this: Consider the method addTrack for an Album class, two possible methods are: addTrack( Track t ) and addTrack( int no, String title, double duration ) Which method reduces coupling? The second one does, since the class using the Album class does not have to know a Track class. In general, parameters to methods should use base types (int, char ...) and classes from the java.* packages. I tend to diasgree with this; I believe addTrack(Track t) is better than addTrack(int no, String title, double duration) due to various reasons: It is always better for a method to as fewer parameters as possible (according to Uncle Bob's Clean Code none or one preferably, 2 in some cases and 3 in special cases; more than 3 needs refactoring - these are of course recommendations not holly rules). If addTrack is a method of an interface, and the requirements need that a Track should have more information (say year or genre) then the interface needs to be changed and so that the method should supports another parameter. Encapsulation is broke; if addTrack is in an interface, then it should not know the internals of the Track. It is actually more coupled in the second way, with many parameters. Suppose the no parameter needs to be changed from int to long because there are more than MAX_INT tracks (or for whatever reason); then both the Track and the method need to be changed while if the method would be addTrack(Track track) only the Track would be changed. All the 4 arguments are actually connected with each other, and some of them are consequences from others. Which approach is better?

    Read the article

  • How should I architect my Model and Data Access layer objects in my website?

    - by Robin Winslow
    I've been tasked with designing Data layer for a website at work, and I am very interested in architecture of code for the best flexibility, maintainability and readability. I am generally acutely aware of the value in completely separating out my actual Models from the Data Access layer, so that the Models are completely naive when it comes to Data Access. And in this case it's particularly useful to do this as the Models may be built from the Database or may be built from a Soap web service. So it seems to me to make sense to have Factories in my data access layer which create Model objects. So here's what I have so far (in my made-up pseudocode): class DataAccess.ProductsFromXml extends DataAccess.ProductFactory {} class DataAccess.ProductsFromDatabase extends DataAccess.ProductFactory {} These then get used in the controller in a fashion similar to the following: var xmlProductCreator = DataAccess.ProductsFromXml(xmlDataProvider); var databaseProductCreator = DataAccess.ProductsFromXml(xmlDataProvider); // Returns array of Product model objects var XmlProducts = databaseProductCreator.Products(); // Returns array of Product model objects var DbProducts = xmlProductCreator.Products(); So my question is, is this a good structure for my Data Access layer? Is it a good idea to use a Factory for building my Model objects from the data? Do you think I've misunderstood something? And are there any general patterns I should read up on for how to write my data access objects to create my Model objects?

    Read the article

  • Is functional programming a superset of object oriented?

    - by Jimmy Hoffa
    The more functional programming I do, the more I feel like it adds an extra layer of abstraction that seems like how an onion's layer is- all encompassing of the previous layers. I don't know if this is true so going off the OOP principles I've worked with for years, can anyone explain how functional does or doesn't accurately depict any of them: Encapsulation, Abstraction, Inheritance, Polymorphism I think we can all say, yes it has encapsulation via tuples, or do tuples count technically as fact of "functional programming" or are they just a utility of the language? I know Haskell can meet the "interfaces" requirement, but again not certain if it's method is a fact of functional? I'm guessing that the fact that functors have a mathematical basis you could say those are a definite built in expectation of functional, perhaps? Please, detail how you think functional does or does not fulfill the 4 principles of OOP.

    Read the article

  • Newton Game Dynamics: Making an object not affect another object

    - by Boreal
    I'm going to be using Newton in my networked action game with Mogre. There will be two "types" of physics object: global and local. Global objects will be kept in sync for everybody; these include the players, projectiles, and other gameplay-related objects. Local objects are purely for effect, like ragdolls, debris, and particles. Is there a way to make the global objects affect the local objects without actually getting affected themselves? I'd like debris to bounce off of a tank, but I don't want the tank to respond in any way.

    Read the article

  • What is a good strategy for binding view objects to model objects in C++?

    - by B.J.
    Imagine I have a rich data model that is represented by a hierarchy of objects. I also have a view hierarchy with views that can extract required data from model objects and display the data (and allow the user to manipulate the data). Actually, there could be multiple view hierarchies that can represent and manipulate the model (e.g. an overview-detail view and a direct manipulation view). My current approach for this is for the controller layer to store a reference to the underlying model object in the View object. The view object can then get the current data from the model for display, and can send the model object messages to update the data. View objects are effectively observers of the model objects and the model objects broadcast notifications when properties change. This approach allows all the views to update simultaneously when any view changes the model. Implemented carefully, this all works. However, it does require a lot of work to ensure that no view or model objects hold any stale references to model objects. The user can delete model objects or sub-hierarchies of the model at any time. Ensuring that all the view objects that hold references to the model objects that have been deleted is time-consuming and difficult. It feels like the approach I have been taking is not especially clean; while I don't want to have to have explicit code in the controller layer for mediating the communication between the views and the model, it seems like there must be a better (implicit) approach for establishing bindings between the view and the model and between related model objects. In particular, I am looking for an approach (in C++) that understands two key points: There is a many to one relationship between view and model objects If the underlying model object is destroyed, all the dependent view objects must be cleaned up so that no stale references exist While shared_ptr and weak_ptr can be used to manage the lifetimes of the underlying model objects and allows for weak references from the view to the model, they don't provide for notification of the destruction of the underlying object (they do in the sense that the use of a stale weak_ptr allows for notification), but I need an approach that notifies the dependent objects that their weak reference is going away. Can anyone suggest a good strategy to manage this?

    Read the article

  • How do you formulate the Domain Model in Domain Driven Design properly (Bounded Contexts, Domains)?

    - by lko
    Say you have a few applications which deal with a few different Core Domains. The examples are made up and it's hard to put a real example with meaningful data together (concisely). In Domain Driven Design (DDD) when you start looking at Bounded Contexts and Domains/Sub Domains, it says that a Bounded Context is a "phase" in a lifecycle. An example of Context here would be within an ecommerce system. Although you could model this as a single system, it would also warrant splitting into separate Contexts. Each of these areas within the application have their own Ubiquitous Language, their own Model, and a way to talk to other Bounded Contexts to obtain the information they need. The Core, Sub, and Generic Domains are the area of expertise and can be numerous in complex applications. Say there is a long process dealing with an Entity for example a Book in a core domain. Now looking at the Bounded Contexts there can be a number of phases in the books life-cycle. Say outline, creation, correction, publish, sale phases. Now imagine a second core domain, perhaps a store domain. The publisher has its own branch of stores to sell books. The store can have a number of Bounded Contexts (life-cycle phases) for example a "Stock" or "Inventory" context. In the first domain there is probably a Book database table with basically just an ID to track the different book Entities in the different life-cycles. Now suppose you have 10+ supporting domains e.g. Users, Catalogs, Inventory, .. (hard to think of relevant examples). For example a DomainModel for the Book Outline phase, the Creation phase, Correction phase, Publish phase, Sale phase. Then for the Store core domain it probably has a number of life-cycle phases. public class BookId : Entity { public long Id { get; set; } } In the creation phase (Bounded Context) the book could be a simple class. public class Book : BookId { public string Title { get; set; } public List<string> Chapters { get; set; } //... } Whereas in the publish phase (Bounded Context) it would have all the text, release date etc. public class Book : BookId { public DateTime ReleaseDate { get; set; } //... } The immediate benefit I can see in separating by "life-cycle phase" is that it's a great way to separate business logic so there aren't mammoth all-encompassing Entities nor Domain Services. A problem I have is figuring out how to concretely define the rules to the physical layout of the Domain Model. A. Does the Domain Model get "modeled" so there are as many bounded contexts (separate projects etc.) as there are life-cycle phases across the core domains in a complex application? Edit: Answer to A. Yes, according to the answer by Alexey Zimarev there should be an entire "Domain" for each bounded context. B. Is the Domain Model typically arranged by Bounded Contexts (or Domains, or both)? Edit: Answer to B. Each Bounded Context should have its own complete "Domain" (Service/Entities/VO's/Repositories) C. Does it mean there can easily be 10's of "segregated" Domain Models and multiple projects can use it (the Entities/Value Objects)? Edit: Answer to C. There is a complete "Domain" for each Bounded Context and the Domain Model (Entity/VO layer/project) isn't "used" by the other Bounded Contexts directly, only via chosen paths (i.e. via Domain Events). The part that I am trying to figure out is how the Domain Model is actually implemented once you start to figure out your Bounded Contexts and Core/Sub Domains, particularly in complex applications. The goal is to establish the definitions which can help to separate Entities between the Bounded Contexts and Domains.

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17  | Next Page >