Search Results

Search found 17940 results on 718 pages for 'algorithm design'.

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 291/718 | < Previous Page | 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298  | Next Page >

  • document.getElementById not working in IE

    - by Alloi
    Hi, I am using the below js code in order to change the class when a link is clicked. document.getElementById("gifts").setAttribute("class", "gkvSprite selected"); This is not working in IE but it does in FF and Chrome Then I changed the code to : document.getElementById("gifts").setAttribute("className", "gkvSprite selected"); Then it worked in IE stopped working in FF and Chrome. Could someone please help me out here? Thanks in Advance Alloi

    Read the article

  • How implement the Open Session in View pattern in NHibernate?

    - by MCardinale
    I'm using ASP.NET MVC + NHibernate + Fluent NHibernate and having a problem with lazy loading. Through this question (http://stackoverflow.com/questions/2519964/how-to-fix-a-nhibernate-lazy-loading-error-no-session-or-session-was-closed), I've discovered that I have to implement the Open Session in View pattern , but I don't know how. In my repositories classes, I use methods like this public ImageGallery GetById(int id) { using(ISession session = NHibernateSessionFactory.OpenSession()) { return session.Get<ImageGallery>(id); } } public void Add(ImageGallery imageGallery) { using(ISession session = NHibernateSessionFactory.OpenSession()) { using(ITransaction transaction = session.BeginTransaction()) { session.Save(imageGallery); transaction.Commit(); } } } And this is my Session Factory helper class: public class NHibernateSessionFactory { private static ISessionFactory _sessionFactory; private static ISessionFactory SessionFactory { get { if(_sessionFactory == null) { _sessionFactory = Fluently.Configure() .Database(MySQLConfiguration.Standard.ConnectionString(MyConnString)) .Mappings(m => m.FluentMappings.AddFromAssemblyOf<ImageGalleryMap>()) .ExposeConfiguration(c => c.Properties.Add("hbm2ddl.keywords", "none")) .BuildSessionFactory(); } return _sessionFactory; } } public static ISession OpenSession() { return SessionFactory.OpenSession(); } } Someone could help me to implements Open Session in View pattern? Thank you.

    Read the article

  • Should this even be a has_many :through association?

    - by GoodGets
    A Post belongs_to a User, and a User has_many Posts. A Post also belongs_to a Topic, and a Topic has_many Posts. class User < ActiveRecord::Base has_many :posts end class Topic < ActiveRecord::Base has_many :posts end class Post < ActiveRecord::Base belongs_to :user belongs_to :topic end Well, that's pretty simple and very easy to set up, but when I display a Topic, I not only want all of the Posts for that Topic, but also the user_name and the user_photo of the User that made that Post. However, those attributes are stored in the User model and not tied to the Topic. So how would I go about setting that up? Maybe it can already be called since the Post model has two foreign keys, one for the User and one for the Topic? Or, maybe this is some sort of "one-way" has_many through assiociation. Like the Post would be the join model, and a Topic would has_many :users, :through = :posts. But the reverse of this is not true. Like a User does NOT has_many :topics. So would this even need to be has_many :though association? I guess I'm just a little confused on what the controller would look like to call both the Post and the User of that Post for a give Topic. Edit: Seriously, thank you to all that weighed in. I chose tal's answer because I used his code for my controller; however, I could have just as easily chosen either j.'s or tim's instead. Thank you both as well. This was so damn simple to implement, and I think today marks the day that I'm beginning to fall in love with rails.

    Read the article

  • Building a many-to-many db schema using only an unpredictable number of foreign keys

    - by user1449855
    Good afternoon (at least around here), I have a many-to-many relationship schema that I'm having trouble building. The main problem is that I'm only working with primary and foreign keys (no varchars or enums to simplify things) and the number of many-to-many relationships is not predictable and can increase at any time. I looked around at various questions and couldn't find something that directly addressed this issue. I split the problem in half, so I now have two one-to-many schemas. One is solved but the other is giving me fits. Let's assume table FOO is a standard, boring table that has a simple primary key. It's the one in the one-to-many relationship. Table BAR can relate to multiple keys of FOO. The number of related keys is not known beforehand. An example: From a query FOO returns ids 3, 4, 5. BAR needs a unique key that relates to 3, 4, 5 (though there could be any number of ids returned) The usual join table does not work: Table FOO_BAR primary_key | foo_id | bar_id | Since FOO returns 3 unique keys and here bar_id has a one-to-one relationship with foo_id. Having two join tables does not seem to work either, as it still can't map foo_ids 3, 4, 5 to a single bar_id. Table FOO_TO_BAR primary_key | foo_id | bar_to_foo_id | Table BAR_TO_FOO primary_key | foo_to_bar_id | bar_id | What am I doing wrong? Am I making things more complicated than they are? How should I approach the problem? Thanks a lot for the help.

    Read the article

  • Teradata equivalent of persisted computed column (in SQL Server)

    - by Cade Roux
    We have a few tables with persisted computed columns in SQL Server. Is there an equivalent of this in Teradata? And, if so, what is the syntax and are there any limitations? The particular computed columns I am looking at conform some account numbers by removing leading zeros - an index is also created on this conformed account number: ACCT_NUM_std AS ISNULL(CONVERT(varchar(39), SUBSTRING(LTRIM(RTRIM([ACCT_NUM])), PATINDEX('%[^0]%', LTRIM(RTRIM([ACCT_NUM])) + '.' ), LEN(LTRIM(RTRIM([ACCT_NUM]))) ) ), '' ) PERSISTED With the Teradata TRIM function, the trimming part would be a little simpler: ACCT_NUM_std AS COALESCE(CAST(TRIM(LEADING '0' FROM TRIM(BOTH FROM ACCT_NUM))) AS varchar(39)), '' ) I guess I could just make this a normal column and put the code to standardize the account numbers in all the processes which insert into the table. We did this to put the standardization code in one place.

    Read the article

  • Builder pattern and singletons

    - by Berryl
    Does anyone have any links to some code they like that shows a good example of this in c#? As an example of bad code, here is what a builder I have now looks like. I'm trying to have a way to keep the flexibility of the builder pattern but not rebuild the properties. Cheers, Berryl public abstract class ActivityBuilder { public abstract ActivityBuilder Build(); public bool IsBuilt { get; protected set; } public IEnumerable<Project> Projects { get { if(_projects==null) { Build(); } return _projects; } } protected IEnumerable<Project> _projects; // .. other properties }

    Read the article

  • Flex: Push the Button

    - by Rachel
    For what real time scenarios/use cases one should go to Flex Technology ? What real time problems you have solved using Flex Technology ? What real time problems have you faced because of using Flex Technology and what was your work around for that use case ?

    Read the article

  • Why eGet() in EMF returns Object rather than EObject?

    - by Gabriel Šcerbák
    I am working on some code using the EMF framework in Java, but it is really hard to use, e.g. I cannot implement OCL-like query API on top of EMF which would be type-safe. One of the reasons is that eGet() for a EStructuralFeature return just an Object, not EObject. So anything I would write must use much of null checking, type checking and type casting which is unsafe, not performant and cannot be generalized in a reusable way. Why doesn't EMF generate dummy implementations with EObject wrappers for arbitrary Object value? Implementing the EObject and hence the EClass interfaces even with simple throw UnsupportedOperationException is really a pain (the APIs are too big). The same holds for the eContainer() method which makes navigatinng the model upwards painful.

    Read the article

  • How to properly name record creation(insertion) datetime field ?

    - by alpav
    If I create a table with datetime default getdate() field that is intended to keep date&time of record insertion, which name is better to use for that field ? I like to use Created and I've seen people use DateCreated or CreateDate. Other possible candidates that I can think of are: CreatedDate, CreateTime, TimeCreated, CreateDateTime, DateTimeCreated, RecordCreated, Inserted, InsertedDate, ... From my point of view anything with Date inside name looks bad because it can be confused with date part in case if I have 2 fields: CreateDate,CreateTime, so I wonder if there are any specific recommendations/standards in that area based on real reasons, not just style, mood or consistency. Of course, if there are 100 existing tables and this is table 101 then I would use same naming convention as used in those 100 tables for the sake of consistency, but this question is about first table in first database in first server in first application.

    Read the article

  • Idiom vs. pattern

    - by Roger Pate
    In the context of programming, how do idioms differ from patterns? I use the terms interchangeably and normally follow the most popular way I've heard something called, or the way it was called most recently in the current conversation, e.g. "the copy-swap idiom" and "singleton pattern". The best difference I can come up with is code which is meant to be copied almost literally is more often called pattern while code meant to be taken less literally is more often called idiom, but such isn't even always true. This doesn't seem to be more than a stylistic or buzzword difference. Does that match your perception of how the terms are used? Is there a semantic difference?

    Read the article

  • Reasons to start a new project in COBOL

    - by luvieere
    Are there any feasible reasons to start a new project in COBOL? What benefits of this language one would find convincing enough to start a new project in it? I'm thinking more about viewing the language in terms of Behavior Driven Development, something related to the steps involved in using a framework such as Cucumber, only that behavior description and step definition would be integrated into one unit by using tha language's features.

    Read the article

  • Best solution for a comment table for multiple content types

    - by KRTac
    I'm currently designing a comments table for a site I'm building. Users will be able to upload images, link videos and add audio files to the profile. Each of these types of content must be commentable. Now I'm wondering what's the best approach to this. My current options are: 1. to have one big comments table and a link tables for every content type (comments_videos, ...) with comment_id and _id. 2. to have comments separated by the type of content their for. So each type of content would have his own comments table with the comments for that type.

    Read the article

  • best practices - multiple functions vs single function with switch case

    - by Amit
    I have a situation where I need to perform several small (but similar) tasks. I can think of two ways to achieve this. First Approach: function doTask1(); function doTask2(); function doTask3(); function doTask4(); Second Approach: // TASK1, TASK2, ... TASK4 are all constants function doTask(TASK) { switch(TASK) { case TASK1: // do task1 break; case TASK2: // do task2 break; case TASK3: // do task3 break; case TASK4: // do task4 break; } } A few more tasks may be added in future (though the chances are rare. but this cannot be ruled out) Please suggest which of the two approaches (or if any other) is a best practice in such a situation.

    Read the article

  • Providing multi-version databases for backward compatibility for production applications/databases.

    - by JavaRocky
    How can I manage multiple versions of a database easily? I have some data (as views as selects for data originating in tables from other schemas), which other database may reference using various means including database synonyms & links. I wish to provide a sort of interface/guarantee in-case future for applications/databases which use this data. All of this is for in the event i need to update the views for correctness or applicability inside my database. How can i achieve this in a maintained, controlled and easy way? I am using Oracle 10g if that matters.

    Read the article

  • Schemas and tables versus user-ids in a single table using PostgreSQL

    - by gvkv
    I'm developing a web app and I've come to a fork in the road with respect to database structure and I don't know which direction to take. I have a database with user information that I can structure one of two ways. The first is to create a schema and a set of tables for each user (duplicating the structure for each user) and the second is to create a single set of tables and query information based on user-id. Suppose 100000 users. Here are my questions: Considering security, performance, scalability and administration where does each choice lie? Would the answers change for 1000000 or 10000? Is there a set of best practices that lead to one choice or the other? It seems to me that multiple schemas are more secure since it's trivial to restrict user privileges but what about performance and scalability? Administration seems like a wash since dumping (and restoring) lots of schemas isn't any more difficult than dumping a few.

    Read the article

  • GORM ID generation and belongsTo association ?

    - by fabien-barbier
    I have two domains : class CodeSetDetail { String id String codeSummaryId static hasMany = [codes:CodeSummary] static constraints = { id(unique:true,blank:false) } static mapping = { version false id column:'code_set_detail_id', generator: 'assigned' } } and : class CodeSummary { String id String codeClass String name String accession static belongsTo = [codeSetDetail:CodeSetDetail] static constraints = { id(unique:true,blank:false) } static mapping = { version false id column:'code_summary_id', generator: 'assigned' } } I get two tables with columns: code_set_detail: code_set_detail_id code_summary_id and code_summary: code_summary_id code_set_detail_id (should not exist) code_class name accession I would like to link code_set_detail table and code_summary table by 'code_summary_id' (and not by 'code_set_detail_id'). Note : 'code_summary_id' is define as column in code_set_detail table, and define as primary key in code_summary table. To sum-up, I would like define 'code_summary_id' as primary key in code_summary table, and map 'code_summary_id' in code_set_detail table. How to define a primary key in a table, and also map this key to another table ?

    Read the article

  • How to manage and capture database changes across several developers?

    - by Matt Greer
    We have three developers and one tester all working against the same database. We change the schema of the database quite often, and every time we do it tends to have a ripple effect of headaches for everyone else. Are there good practices in place for .NET oriented development against MS SQL Server 2008 for managing this? I am thinking something similar to Rails Migrations and each dev and tester has their own local database. Or is that overkill? It'd at least be nice to have separate test and dev databases, but currently manually keeping two databases in sync is probably worse than our current predicament. LiquiBase seems promising, has anyone successfully used it in a similar environment? Or are there better approaches? We are using SQL Server 2008, VS 2008 and .NET 3.5 if that matters at all.

    Read the article

  • What is your custom exception hierrarchy?

    - by bonefisher
    My question is: how would you create exception hierarchy in your application? Designing the architecture of an application, from my perspective, we could have three types of exceptions: the built-in (e.g.: InvalidOperationException) custom internal system faults (DB transaction failed on commit, DbTransactionFailedException) custom business exceptions (BusinessRuleViolationException) Class hierarchy: Exception MyAppInternalException DbTransactionFailedException MyServerTimeoutException ... MyAppBusinessRuleViolationException UsernameAlreadyExistsException ... where only MyAppInternalException & MyAppBusinessRuleViolationException would be catched.

    Read the article

  • In .NET, Why Can I Access Private Members of a Class Instance within the Class?

    - by AMissico
    While cleaning some code today written by someone else, I changed the access modifier from Public to Private on a class variable/member/field. I expected a long list of compiler errors that I use to "refactor/rework/review" the code that used this variable. Imagine my surprise when I didn't get any errors. After reviewing, it turns out that another instance of the Class can access the private members of another instance declared within the Class. Totally unexcepted. Is this normal? I been coding in .NET since the beginning and never ran into this issue, nor read about it. I may have stumbled onto it before, but only "vaguely noticed" and move on. Can anyone explain this behavoir to me? I would like to know the "why" I can do this. Please explain, don't just tell me the rule. Am I doing something wrong? I found this behavior in both C# and VB.NET. The code seems to take advantage of the ability to access private variables. Sincerely, Totally Confused Class Jack Private _int As Integer End Class Class Foo Public Property Value() As Integer Get Return _int End Get Set(ByVal value As Integer) _int = value * 2 End Set End Property Private _int As Integer Private _foo As Foo Private _jack As Jack Private _fred As Fred Public Sub SetPrivate() _foo = New Foo _foo.Value = 4 'what you would expect to do because _int is private _foo._int = 3 'TOTALLY UNEXPECTED _jack = New Jack '_jack._int = 3 'expected compile error _fred = New Fred '_fred._int = 3 'expected compile error End Sub Private Class Fred Private _int As Integer End Class End Class

    Read the article

  • Historical / auditable database

    - by Mark
    Hi all, This question is related to the schema that can be found in one of my other questions here. Basically in my database I store users, locations, sensors amongst other things. All of these things are editable in the system by users, and deletable. However - when an item is edited or deleted I need to store the old data; I need to be able to see what the data was before the change. There are also non-editable items in the database, such as "readings". They are more of a log really. Readings are logged against sensors, because its the reading for a particular sensor. If I generate a report of readings, I need to be able to see what the attributes for a location or sensor was at the time of the reading. Basically I should be able to reconstruct the data for any point in time. Now, I've done this before and got it working well by adding the following columns to each editable table: valid_from valid_to edited_by If valid_to = 9999-12-31 23:59:59 then that's the current record. If valid_to equals valid_from, then the record is deleted. However, I was never happy with the triggers I needed to use to enforce foreign key consistency. I can possibly avoid triggers by using the extension to the "PostgreSQL" database. This provides a column type called "period" which allows you to store a period of time between two dates, and then allows you to do CHECK constraints to prevent overlapping periods. That might be an answer. I am wondering though if there is another way. I've seen people mention using special historical tables, but I don't really like the thought of maintainling 2 tables for almost every 1 table (though it still might be a possibility). Maybe I could cut down my initial implementation to not bother checking the consistency of records that aren't "current" - i.e. only bother to check constraints on records where the valid_to is 9999-12-31 23:59:59. Afterall, the people who use historical tables do not seem to have constraint checks on those tables (for the same reason, you'd need triggers). Does anyone have any thoughts about this? PS - the title also mentions auditable database. In the previous system I mentioned, there is always the edited_by field. This allowed all changes to be tracked so we could always see who changed a record. Not sure how much difference that might make. Thanks.

    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 | 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298  | Next Page >