Search Results

Search found 40386 results on 1616 pages for 'object 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 396/1616 | < Previous Page | 392 393 394 395 396 397 398 399 400 401 402 403  | Next Page >

  • Can I set ignore_dup_key on for a primary key?

    - by Mr. Flibble
    I have a two-column primary key on a table. I have attempted to alter it to set the ignore_dup_key to on with this command: ALTER INDEX PK_mypk on MyTable SET (IGNORE_DUP_KEY = ON); But I get this error: Cannot use index option ignore_dup_key to alter index 'PK_mypk' as it enforces a primary or unique constraint. How else should I set IGNORE_DUP_KEY to on?

    Read the article

  • Is there anything wrong with having a few private methods exposing IQueryable<T> and all public meth

    - by Nate Bross
    I'm wondering if there is a better way to approach this problem. The objective is to reuse code. Let’s say that I have a Linq-To-SQL datacontext and I've written a "repository style" class that wraps up a lot of the methods I need and exposes IQueryables. (so far, no problem). Now, I'm building a service layer to sit on top of this repository, many of the service methods will be 1<-1 with repository methods, but some will not. I think a code sample will illustrate this better than words. public class ServiceLayer { MyClassDataContext context; IMyRepository rpo; public ServiceLayer(MyClassDataContext ctx) { context = ctx; rpo = new MyRepository(context); } private IQueryable<MyClass> ReadAllMyClass() { // pretend there is some complex business logic here // and maybe some filtering of the current users access to "all" // that I don't want to repeat in all of the public methods that access // MyClass objects. return rpo.ReadAllMyClass(); } public IEnumerable<MyClass> GetAllMyClass() { // call private IQueryable so we can do attional "in-database" processing return this.ReadAllMyClass(); } public IEnumerable<MyClass> GetActiveMyClass() { // call private IQueryable so we can do attional "in-database" processing // in this case a .Where() clause return this.ReadAllMyClass().Where(mc => mc.IsActive.Equals(true)); } #region "Something my class MAY need to do in the future" private IQueryable<MyOtherTable> ReadAllMyOtherTable() { // there could be additional constrains which define // "all" for the current user return context.MyOtherTable; } public IEnumerable<MyOtherTable> GetAllMyOtherTable() { return this.ReadAllMyOtherTable(); } public IEnumerable<MyOtherTable> GetInactiveOtherTable() { return this.ReadAllMyOtherTable.Where(ot => ot.IsActive.Equals(false)); } #endregion } This particular case is not the best illustration, since I could just call the repository directly in the GetActiveMyClass method, but let’s presume that my private IQueryable does some extra processing and business logic that I don't want to replicate in both of my public methods. Is that a bad way to attack an issue like this? I don't see it being so complex that it really warrants building a third class to sit between the repository and the service class, but I'd like to get your thoughts. For the sake of argument, lets presume two additional things. This service is going to be exposed through WCF and that each of these public IEnumerable methods will be calling a .Select(m => m.ToViewModel()) on each returned collection which will convert it to a POCO for serialization. The service will eventually need to expose some context.SomeOtherTable which wont be wrapped into the repository.

    Read the article

  • which is better, creating a view or a new table?

    - by Carson
    I have some demanding mysql queries that are needed to grap same datasets from several mysql tables. I am thinking of creating a table or view to gather all demanding columns from other tables, so as to increase performance. If I create that table, I may need to do extra insert / update / delete operation each time other tables updated. if I create view, I am worrying if the performance can be greatly improved. Because data from other tables are changing very frequently. Most likely, the view may need to be created first everytime before selecting it. Any ideas? e.g. how to cache? other extra measures I can do?

    Read the article

  • I built my rails app with sqlite and without specifying any db field sizes, Is my app now foobared for production?

    - by Tim Santeford
    I've been following a lot of good tutorials on building rails apps but I seem to be missing the whole specifying and validating db field sizes part. I love not needing to have to think about it when roughing out an app (I would have never done this with a PHP or ASP.net app). However, now that I'm ready to go to production, I think I might have done myself a disservice by not specifying field sizes as I went. My production db will be MySQL. What is the best practice here? Do I need to go through all of my migration files and specify sizes, update all the models with validation, and update all my form partial views with input max widths? or am I missing a critical step in my development process?

    Read the article

  • What to do when using Contract.Assert(true) and the method must return something?

    - by devoured elysium
    I have a bit of code with the following logic: //pseudo-code foreach (element in elementList) { if (element is whatever) return element; } } In theory, there is always one element that is whatever, so this method should pose no problems. In any case, I've put an assertion on the end of the method just to be sure: //pseudo-code foreach (element in elementList) { if (element is whatever) return element; } } Contract.Assert(true, "Invalid state!"); The problem is that as this method has to return something, and the compiler doesn't understand that the assertion will break the program execution. Before using Contracts, in these kind of situations, I used to throw an Exception, which solved the problem. How would you handle this with Contract.Assert()? Returning null or default(element_type) after the Contract.Assert() call knowing it will never be called and shutting up the compiler? Or is there any other more elegant way of doing this? Thanks

    Read the article

  • How much to put in a Repository class?

    - by chobo
    When using the repository pattern is it recommended to have one Repository class for each database table? Would I also map one service layer class to one repository class. I'm having a hard time trying to understand how much stuff one repository or service layer class should have. Thanks!

    Read the article

  • Which of these methods provides for the fastest page loading?

    - by chromedude
    I am building a database in MySQL that will be accessed by PHP scripts. I have a table that is the activity stream. This includes everything that goes on on the website (following of many different things, liking, upvoting etc.). From this activity stream I am going to run an algorithm for each user depending on their activity and display relevant activity. Should I create another table that stores the activity for each user once the algorithm has been run on the activity or should I run the algorithm on the activity table every time the user accesses the site? UPDATE:(this is what is above except rephrased hopefully in an easier to understand way) I have a database table called activity. This table creates a new row every time an action is performed by a user on the website. Every time a user logs in I am going to run an algorithm on the new rows (since the users last login) in the table (activity) that apply to them. For example if the user is following a user who upvoted a post in the activity stream that post will be displayed when the user logs in. I want the ability for the user to be able to access previous content applying to them. Would it be easiest to create another table that saved the rows that have already been run over with the algorithm except attached to individual users names? (a row can apply to multiple different users)

    Read the article

  • What's wrong with foreign keys?

    - by kronoz
    I remember hearing Joel mention in the podcast that he'd barely ever used a foreign key (if I remember correctly). However, to me they seem pretty vital to avoid duplication and subsequent data integrity problems throughout your database. Do people have some solid reasons as to why (to avoid a discussion in lines with SO principals)? Edit: "I've yet to have a reason to create a foreign key, so this might be my first reason to actually set up one."

    Read the article

  • What difference between Web Apps & Descktop app shoud one keep in mind to model the system right?

    - by simple
    Sometimes it seems like some architectural techniques are not for the Web application I am building and then I just go and code =(, Though I really want to make a habit to architect system before moving to the code, as when I just code I endup writing some useless components which then I rewrite =(, So can you just point out some differences between web apps and desktop ones ?

    Read the article

  • Separation of business logic

    - by bruno
    When I was optimizing my architecture of our applications in our website, I came to a problem that I don't know the best solution for. Now at the moment we have a small dll based on this structure: Database <-> DAL <-> BLL the Dal uses Business Objects to pass to the BLL that will pass it to the applications that uses this dll. Only the BLL is public so any application that includes this dll, can see the bll. In the beginning, this was a good solution for our company. But when we are adding more and more applications on that Dll, the bigger the Bll is getting. Now we dont want that some applications can see Bll-logic from other applications. Now I don't know what the best solution is for that. The first thing I thought was, move and separate the bll to other dll's which i can include in my application. But then must the Dal be public, so the other dll's can get the data... and that I seems like a good solution. My other solution, is just to separate the bll in different namespaces, and just include only the namespaces you need in the applications. But in this solution, you can get directly access to other bll's if you want. So I'm asking for your opinions.

    Read the article

  • How to handle request/response propagation up and down a widget hierarchy in a GUI app?

    - by fig-gnuton
    Given a GUI application where widgets can be composed of other widgets: If the user triggers an event resulting in a lower level widget needing data from a model, what's the cleanest way to be able to send that request to a controller (or the datastore itself)? And subsequently get the response back to that widget? Presumably one wouldn't want the controller or datastore to be a singleton directly available to all levels of widgets, or is this an acceptable use of singleton? Or should a top level controller be injected as a dependency through a widget hierarchy, as far down as the lowest level widget that might need that controller? Or a different approach entirely?

    Read the article

  • Static assembly initialization

    - by ph0enix
    I'm attempting to develop an Interceptor framework (in C#) where I can simply implement some interfaces, and through the use of some static initialization, register all my Interceptors with a common Dispatcher to be invoked at a later time. The problem lies in the fact that my Interceptor implementations are never actually referenced by my application so the static constructors never get called, and as a result, the Interceptors are never registered. If possible, I would like to keep all references to my Interceptor libraries out of my application, as this is my way of (hopefully) enforcing loose coupling across different modules. Hopefully this makes some sense. Let me know if there's anything I can clarify... Does anyone have any ideas, or perhaps a better way to go about implementing my Interceptor pattern? TIA, Jeremy

    Read the article

  • I need to create a contest....

    - by creocare
    I'm working on a contest where users vote for contestants. Each contestant will have a bio. I was wondering what would be the best way to approach this? Should I do this in php or javascript? Should I use a database to collect data? Should I use sqlite3? If I use sqlite3 how do i install that on my mac? I'm very new to all this but I'm a quick learner. Thanks for any advice.

    Read the article

  • How to construct objects based on XML code?

    - by the_drow
    I have XML files that are representation of a portion of HTML code. Those XML files also have widget declarations. Example XML file: <message id="msg"> <p> <Widget name="foo" type="SomeComplexWidget" attribute="value"> inner text here, sets another attribute or inserts another widget to the tree if needed... </Widget> </p> </message> I have a main Widget class that all of my widgets inherit from. The question is how would I create it? Here are my options: Create a compile time tool that will parse the XML file and create the necessary code to bind the widgets to the needed objects. Advantages: No extra run-time overhead induced to the system. It's easy to bind setters. Disadvantages: Adds another step to the build chain. Hard to maintain as every widget in the system should be added to the parser. Use of macros to bind the widgets. Complex code Find a method to register all widgets into a factory automatically. Advantages: All of the binding is done completely automatically. Easier to maintain then option 1 as every new widget will only need to call a WidgetFactory method that registers it. Disadvantages: No idea how to bind setters without introducing a maintainability nightmare. Adds memory and run-time overhead. Complex code What do you think is better? Can you guys suggest a better solution?

    Read the article

  • Sharing logic across different platforms

    - by Pranz
    Hello all, We have a business logic that works with the file systems on OS that we want to implement on both Linux and Windows platforms. The language we have selected is Python for Linux and C# for Windows. GUI is not a priority for now. We were looking for ways to abstract the business logic in a way that we dont have to repeat the business logic (ofcourse I understand since it is related to file system, some code will differ from platform to platform). Any ideas on how to implement it? Is C/C++ the only option. We dont want to use Java. Thanks, Pranz

    Read the article

  • Voting Script, Possiblity of Simplifying Database Queries

    - by Sev
    I have a voting script which stores the post_id and the user_id in a table, to determine whether a particular user has already voted on a post and disallow them in the future. To do that, I am doing the following 3 queries. SELECT user_id, post_id from votes_table where postid=? AND user_id=? If that returns no rows, then: UPDATE post_table set votecount = votecount-1 where post_id = ? Then SELECT votecount from post where post_id=? To display the new votecount on the web page Any better way to do this? 3 queries are seriously slowing down the user's voting experience

    Read the article

  • Organizing development teams

    - by Patrick
    A long time ago, when my company was much smaller, dividing the development work over teams was quite easy: the 'application' team developed the applications-specific logic, often requiring a deep insight of specific industry problems) the 'generic' team developed the parts that were common/generic for all applications (user interface related stuff, database access, low-level Windows stuff, ...) Over the years the boundaries between the teams have become fuzzy: the 'application' teams often write application-specific functionality with a 'generic' part, so instead of asking the 'generic' team to write that part for them, they write it themselves to speed up the developments; then donate it to the 'generic' team the 'generic' team's focus seems to be more 'maintenance oriented'. All of the 'very generic' code has already been written, so no new developments are needed in it, but instead they continuously have to support all the functionality donated by the application teams. All this seems to indicate that it's not a good idea anymore to have this split in teams. Maybe the 'generic' team should evolve into a 'software quality' team (defining and guarding the rules for writing good quality software), or into a 'software deployment' team (defining how software should be deployed, installed, ...). How do you split up the work in different teams if you have different applications? everybody can write generic code and donates it to a central 'generic' team? everybody can write generic code, but nobody 'manages' this generic code (everybody is the owner) generic code is written by a 'generic' team only and the applications have to wait until the 'generic' team delivers the generic part (via a library, via a DLL) there is no overlap in code between the different applications some other way? Notice that thee advantage of having the mix (allowing everybody to write everywhere in the code) is that: code is written in a more flexible way it's easier to debug the code since you can easily step into the 'generic' code in the debugger But the big (and maybe only) disadvantage is that this generic code may become nobody's responsibility if there is no clear team that manages it anymore. What is your vision?

    Read the article

  • Is throwing an exception a healthy way to exit?

    - by ramaseshan
    I have a setup that looks like this. class Checker { // member data Results m_results; // see below public: bool Check(); private: bool Check1(); bool Check2(); // .. so on }; Checker is a class that performs lengthy check computations for engineering analysis. Each type of check has a resultant double that the checker stores. (see below) bool Checker::Check() { // initilisations etc. Check1(); Check2(); // ... so on } A typical Check function would look like this: bool Checker::Check1() { double result; // lots of code m_results.SetCheck1Result(result); } And the results class looks something like this: class Results { double m_check1Result; double m_check2Result; // ... public: void SetCheck1Result(double d); double GetOverallResult() { return max(m_check1Result, m_check2Result, ...); } }; Note: all code is oversimplified. The Checker and Result classes were initially written to perform all checks and return an overall double result. There is now a new requirement where I only need to know if any of the results exceeds 1. If it does, subsequent checks need not be carried out(it's an optimisation). To achieve this, I could either: Modify every CheckN function to keep check for result and return. The parent Check function would keep checking m_results. OR In the Results::SetCheckNResults(), throw an exception if the value exceeds 1 and catch it at the end of Checker::Check(). The first is tedious, error prone and sub-optimal because every CheckN function further branches out into sub-checks etc. The second is non-intrusive and quick. One disadvantage is I can think of is that the Checker code may not necessarily be exception-safe(although there is no other exception being thrown anywhere else). Is there anything else that's obvious that I'm overlooking? What about the cost of throwing exceptions and stack unwinding? Is there a better 3rd option?

    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 | 392 393 394 395 396 397 398 399 400 401 402 403  | Next Page >