Search Results

Search found 2563 results on 103 pages for 'collections'.

Page 9/103 | < Previous Page | 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16  | Next Page >

  • Write-only collections in MongoDB

    - by rcoder
    I'm currently using MongoDB to record application logs, and while I'm quite happy with both the performance and with being able to dump arbitrary structured data into log records, I'm troubled by the mutability of log records once stored. In a traditional database, I would structure the grants for my log tables such that the application user had INSERT and SELECT privileges, but not UPDATE or DELETE. Similarly, in CouchDB, I could write a update validator function that rejected all attempts to modify an existing document. However, I've been unable to find a way to restrict operations on a MongoDB database or collection beyond the three access levels (no access, read-only, "god mode") documented in the security topic on the MongoDB wiki. Has anyone else deployed MongoDB as a document store in a setting where immutability (or at least change tracking) for documents was a requirement? What tricks or techniques did you use to ensure that poorly-written or malicious application code could not modify or destroy existing log records? Do I need to wrap my MongoDB logging in a service layer that enforces the write-only policy, or can I use some combination of configuration, query hacking, and replication to ensure a consistent, audit-able record is maintained?

    Read the article

  • EDM -> POCO -> WCF (.NET4) But transferring Collections causes IsReadOnly set to TRUE

    - by Gary B
    Ok, this may sound a little 'unorthodox', but...using VS2010 and the new POCO t4 template for Entity Framework (http://tinyurl.com/y8wnkt2), I can generate nice POCO's. I can then use these POCO's (as DTO's) in a WCF service essentially going from EDM all the way through to the client. Kinda what this guys is doing (http://tinyurl.com/yb4bslv), except everything is generated automatically. I understand that an entity and a DTO 'should' be different, but in this case, I'm handling client and server, and there's some real advantages to having the DTO in the model and automatically generated. My problem is, that when I transfer an entity that has a relationship, the client generated collection (ICollection) has the read-only value set, so I can't manipulate that relationship. For example, retrieving an existing Order, I can't add a product to the Products collection client-side...the Products collection is read-only. I would prefer to do a bunch of client side 'order-editing' and then send the updated order back rather than making dozens of server round trips (eg AddProductToOrder(product)). I'd also prefer not to have a bunch of thunking between Entity and DTO. So all-in-all this looks good to me...except for the read-only part. Is there a solution, or is this too much against the SOA grain?

    Read the article

  • NHibernate returning duplicate object in child collections when using Fetch

    - by UpTheCreek
    When doing a query like this (using Nhibernate 2.1.2): ICriteria criteria = session.CreateCriteria<MyRootType>() .SetFetchMode("ChildCollection1", FetchMode.Eager) .SetFetchMode("ChildCollection2", FetchMode.Eager) .Add(Restrictions.IdEq(id)); I am getting multiple duplicate objects in some cartesian fashion. E.g. if ChildCollection1 has 3 elements, and ChildColection2 has 2 elements then I get results with each element in ChildColection1 one duplicated, and each element in ChildColection2 triplicated! This was a bit of a WTF moment for me... So how to do this correctly? Is using SetFetchMode like this only supported when specifying one collection? Am I just using it wrong (I've seen some references to results transformers, but imagined this would be simplier). Is this something that's different in NH3? Update: As per Felice's suggestion, I tried using the DistinctRootEntity transformer, but this is still returning duplicates. Code: ICriteria criteria = session.CreateCriteria<MyRootType>() .SetFetchMode("ChildCollection1", FetchMode.Eager) .SetFetchMode("ChildCollection2", FetchMode.Eager) .Add(Restrictions.IdEq(id)); criteria.SetResultTransformer(Transformers.DistinctRootEntity); return criteria.UniqueResult<MyRootType>();

    Read the article

  • Unique items in Hibernate collections

    - by Rickard Lindberg
    I have defined a collection in Hibernate like this: ... public class Item { ... @ElementCollection List<Object> relatedObjects; } It creates a mapping table with colums item_id and object_id. The problem is that object_id seems to be unique. In other words I can not have two different items being related to the same object. But that is what I want. I would like the combination of item_id and object_id to be unique. How do I do that?

    Read the article

  • Ruby types of collections in ActiveRecord

    - by kmorris511
    If I have an object with a collection of child objects in ActiveRecord, i.e. class Foo < ActiveRecord::Base has_many :bars, ... end and I attempt to run Array's find method against that collection: foo_instance.bars.find { ... } I receive: ActiveRecord::RecordNotFound: Couldn't find Bar without an ID I assume this is because ActiveRecord has hijacked the find method for its own purposes. Now, I can use detect and everything is fine. However to satisfy my own curiousity, I attempted to use metaprogramming to explicitly steal the find method back for one run: unbound_method = [].method('find').unbind unbound_method.bind(foo_instance.bars).call { ... } and I receive this error: TypeError: bind argument must be an instance of Array so clearly Ruby doesn't think foo_instance.bars is an Array and yet: foo_instance.bars.instance_of?(Array) -> true Can anybody help me with an explanation of this and of a way to get around it with metaprogramming?

    Read the article

  • Equals method of System.Collections.Generic.List<T>...?

    - by Sambo
    I'm creating a class that derives from List... public class MyList : List<MyListItem> {} I've overridden Equals of MyListItem... public override bool Equals(object obj) { MyListItem li = obj as MyListItem; return (ID == li.ID); // ID is a property of MyListItem } I would like to have an Equals method in the MyList object too which will compare each item in the list, calling Equals() on each MyListItem object. It would be nice to simply call... MyList l1 = new MyList() { new MyListItem(1), new MyListItem(2) }; MyList l2 = new MyList() { new MyListItem(1), new MyListItem(2) }; if (l1 == l2) { ... } ...and have the comparisons of the list done by value. What's the best way...?

    Read the article

  • WPF PropertyGrid - adding support for collections

    - by akjoshi
    Hi, I am working on wpf propertygrid(PG) control and I want the PG to support collection type(IList, ObservableCollection etc.) properties. I am bit confused on how to keep track of selected item(of that collection) and pass that to client. Any ideas? If the solution makes use of the Open Source WPF PropertyGrid (http://www.codeplex.com/wpg) I will implement the changes /additions back into the control.

    Read the article

  • multiple keys and values with google-collections

    - by flash3000
    Hello, I would like use google-collection in order to save the following file in a Hash with multiple keys and values Key1_1, Key2_1, Key3_1, data1_1, 0, 0 Key1_2, Key2_2, Key3_2, data1_2, 0, 0 Key1_3, Key2_3, Key3_3, data1_3, 0, 0 Key1_4, Key2_4, Key3_4, data1_4, 0, 0 The first three columns are the different keys and the last two integer are the two different values. I have already prepare a code which spilt the lines in chunks. import java.io.BufferedReader; import java.io.FileNotFoundException; import java.io.FileReader; import java.io.IOException; public class HashMapKey { public static void main(String[] args) throws FileNotFoundException, IOException { String inputFile = "inputData.txt"; BufferedReader br = new BufferedReader(new FileReader(inputFile)); String strLine; while ((strLine = br.readLine()) != null) { String[] line = strLine.replaceAll(" ", "").trim().split(","); for (int i = 0; i < line.length; i++) { System.out.print("[" + line[i] + "]"); } System.out.println(); } } } Unfortunately, I do not know how to save these information in google-collection? Thank you in advance. Best regards,

    Read the article

  • Using LINQ in generic collections

    - by Hugo S Ferreira
    Hi, Please consider the following snippet from an implementation of the Interpreter pattern: public override object Execute(Interpreter interpreter, object ctx) { var list = ctx as IEnumerable<string>; return (list != null) ? list.FirstOrDefault() : null; } What about if I want to use the same function for integers? public override object Execute(Interpreter interpreter, object ctx) { var list = ctx as IEnumerable<string>; if (list != null) return list.FirstOrDefault(); var list = ctx as IEnumerable<int>; return (list != null) ? list.FirstOrDefault() : null; } What I wanted was something like: public override object Execute(Interpreter interpreter, object ctx) { var list = ctx as IEnumerable; return (list != null) ? list.FirstOrDefault() : null; } But Linq doesn't act on IEnumerables. Instead, to get to this solution, I would be forced to write something like: public override object Execute(Interpreter interpreter, object ctx) { var list = ctx as IEnumerable; if (list != null) foreach(var i in list) { yield return i; return; } return null; } Or use a generic method: public override T Execute<T>(Interpreter interpreter, object ctx) { var list = ctx as IEnumerable<T>; return (list != null) ? list.FirstOrDefault() : null; } Which would break the Interpreter pattern (as it was implemented in this system). Covariance would also fail (at least in C#3), though would it work, it would be the exact behavior I wanted: public override object Execute(Interpreter interpreter, object ctx) { var list = ctx as IEnumerable<object>; return (list != null) ? list.FirstOrDefault() : null; } So, my question is: what's the best way to achieve the intended behavior? Thanks :-)

    Read the article

  • Backbone.js Model change events in nested collections not firing as expected

    - by Pallavi Kaushik
    I'm trying to use backbone.js in my first "real" application and I need some help debugging why certain model change events are not firing as I would expect. I have a web service at /employees/{username}/tasks which returns a JSON array of task objects, with each task object nesting a JSON array of subtask objects. For example, [{ "id":45002, "name":"Open Dining Room", "subtasks":[ {"id":1,"status":"YELLOW","name":"Clean all tables"}, {"id":2,"status":"RED","name":"Clean main floor"}, {"id":3,"status":"RED","name":"Stock condiments"}, {"id":4,"status":"YELLOW","name":"Check / replenish trays"} ] },{ "id":47003, "name":"Open Registers", "subtasks":[ {"id":1,"status":"YELLOW","name":"Turn on all terminals"}, {"id":2,"status":"YELLOW","name":"Balance out cash trays"}, {"id":3,"status":"YELLOW","name":"Check in promo codes"}, {"id":4,"status":"YELLOW","name":"Check register promo placards"} ] }] Another web service allows me to change the status of a specific subtask in a specific task, and looks like this: /tasks/45002/subtasks/1/status/red [aside - I intend to change this to a HTTP Post-based service, but the current implementation is easier for debugging] I have the following classes in my JS app: Subtask Model and Subtask Collection var Subtask = Backbone.Model.extend({}); var SubtaskCollection = Backbone.Collection.extend({ model: Subtask }); Task Model with a nested instance of a Subtask Collection var Task = Backbone.Model.extend({ initialize: function() { // each Task has a reference to a collection of Subtasks this.subtasks = new SubtaskCollection(this.get("subtasks")); // status of each Task is based on the status of its Subtasks this.update_status(); }, ... }); var TaskCollection = Backbone.Collection.extend({ model: Task }); Task View to renders the item and listen for change events to the model var TaskView = Backbone.View.extend({ tagName: "li", template: $("#TaskTemplate").template(), initialize: function() { _.bindAll(this, "on_change", "render"); this.model.bind("change", this.on_change); }, ... on_change: function(e) { alert("task model changed!"); } }); When the app launches, I instantiate a TaskCollection (using the data from the first web service listed above), bind a listener for change events to the TaskCollection, and set up a recurring setTimeout to fetch() the TaskCollection instance. ... TASKS = new TaskCollection(); TASKS.url = ".../employees/" + username + "/tasks" TASKS.fetch({ success: function() { APP.renderViews(); } }); TASKS.bind("change", function() { alert("collection changed!"); APP.renderViews(); }); // Poll every 5 seconds to keep the models up-to-date. setInterval(function() { TASKS.fetch(); }, 5000); ... Everything renders as expected the first time. But at this point, I would expect either (or both) a Collection change event or a Model change event to get fired if I change a subtask's status using my second web service, but this does not happen. Funnily, I did get change events to fire if I added one additional level of nesting, with the web service returning a single object that has the Tasks Collection embedded, for example: "employee":"pkaushik", "tasks":[{"id":45002,"subtasks":[{"id":1..... But this seems klugey... and I'm afraid I haven't architected my app right. I'll include more code if it helps, but this question is already rather verbose. Thoughts?

    Read the article

  • How to query collections in NHibernate

    - by user305813
    Hi, I have a class: public class User { public virtual int Id { get; set; } public virtual string Name { get; set; } public virtual IDictionary<string, string> Attributes { get; set; } } and a mapping file: <class name="User" table="Users"> <id name="Id"> <generator class="hilo"/> </id> <property name="Name"/> <map name="Attributes" table="UserAttributes"> <key column="UserId"/> <index column="AttributeName" type="System.String"/> <element column="Attributevalue" type="System.String"/> </map> </class> So now I can add many attributes and values to a User. How can I query those attributes so I can get ie. Get all the users where attributename is "Age" and attribute value is "20" ? I don't want to do this in foreach because I may have millions of users each having its unique attributes. Please help

    Read the article

  • Variable naming for arrays/lists/collections - C#

    - by David Neale
    What should I call a variable instantiated with some type of array? Is it okay to simply use a pluralised form of the type being held? IList<Person> people = new List<Person>(); or should I append something like 'List' to the name? IList<Person> personList = new List<Person>(); Is it generally acceptable to have loops like this? foreach(string item in items) { //Do something }

    Read the article

  • Intersect a collection of collections in LINQ

    - by Larsenal
    I've got a list of lists which I want to intersect: List<List<int>> input = new List<List<int>>(); input.Add(new List<int>() { 1, 2, 4, 5, 8 }); input.Add(new List<int>() { 3, 4, 5 }); input.Add(new List<int>() { 1, 4, 5, 6 }); Output should be { 4, 5 } How can this be accomplished in a terse fashion?

    Read the article

  • NHibernate: Mapping collections of value types

    - by Anry
    I have a table Order, Transaction, Payment. Class Order has the properties: public virtual Guid Id { get; set; } public virtual DateTime Created { get; set; } ... I added properties: public virtual IList<Transaction> Transactions { get; set; } public virtual IList<Payment> Payments { get; set; } These properties contain a record of tables [Transaction] and [Payment]. How to keep these lists in the database?

    Read the article

  • Iterator performance contract (and use on non-collections)

    - by polygenelubricants
    If all that you're doing is a simple one-pass iteration (i.e. only hasNext() and next(), no remove()), are you guaranteed linear time performance and/or amortized constant cost per operation? Is this specified in the Iterator contract anywhere? Are there data structures/Java Collection which cannot be iterated in linear time? java.util.Scanner implements Iterator<String>. A Scanner is hardly a data structure (e.g. remove() makes absolutely no sense). Is this considered a design blunder? Is something like PrimeGenerator implements Iterator<Integer> considered bad design, or is this exactly what Iterator is for? (hasNext() always returns true, next() computes the next number on demand, remove() makes no sense). Similarly, would it have made sense for java.util.Random implements Iterator<Double>? Should a type really implement Iterator if it's effectively only using one-third of its API? (i.e. no remove(), always hasNext())

    Read the article

  • Unmarshalling collections in JaxB

    - by Stas
    Hi, suppose I have this class: public class A { private HashMap<String, B> map; @XmlElement private void setB(ArrayList<B> col) { ... } private ArrayList<B> getB() { ... } } When trying to unmarshall an xml document to this class using JaxB I notice that instead of calling the setB() method and sending me the list of B instances JaxB actually calls the getB() and adds the B instances to the returned list. Why? The reason I want the setter to be called is that the list is actually just a temporary storage from which I want to build the map field, so I thought to do it in the setter. Thanks.

    Read the article

  • Bidirectional one-to-many associations with indexed collections in NHibernate

    - by Jørn Schou-Rode
    Last summer, I asked a question regarding how to add new object to an IList mapped as a one-to-many with NHibernate. One of the answers let me to this paragraph in the documentation: Please note that NHibernate does not support bidirectional one-to-many associations with an indexed collection (list, map or array) as the "many" end, you have to use a set or bag mapping. While I am pretty sure I understand what this paragraph says, I have no idea why or how to work around this limitation. As I am now again working with a model that seems to require a "bidirectional one-to-many association with an index collection", I figured the time was right for follow-up questions: Why does NHibernate have this limitation on associations? It is my impression that the guys behind NHibernate are quite clever, so I assume there is a pretty good reason. What are the common workarounds for this shortcoming? Making the collection a non-indexed bag and adding an explicit Position property to the child class? Any better solutions?

    Read the article

  • Saving child collections with NHibernate

    - by Ben
    Hi, I am in the process or learning NHibernate so bare with me. I have an Order class and a Transaction class. Order has a one to many association with transaction. The transaction table in my database has a not null constraint on the OrderId foreign key. Order class: public class Order { public virtual Guid Id { get; set; } public virtual DateTime CreatedOn { get; set; } public virtual decimal Total { get; set; } public virtual ICollection<Transaction> Transactions { get; set; } public Order() { Transactions = new HashSet<Transaction>(); } } Order Mapping: <class name="Order" table="Orders"> <cache usage="read-write"/> <id name="Id"> <generator class="guid"/> </id> <property name="CreatedOn" type="datetime"/> <property name="Total" type="decimal"/> <set name="Transactions" table="Transactions" lazy="false" inverse="true"> <key column="OrderId"/> <one-to-many class="Transaction"/> </set> Transaction Class: public class Transaction { public virtual Guid Id { get; set; } public virtual DateTime ExecutedOn { get; set; } public virtual bool Success { get; set; } public virtual Order Order { get; set; } } Transaction Mapping: <class name="Transaction" table="Transactions"> <cache usage="read-write"/> <id name="Id" column="Id" type="Guid"> <generator class="guid"/> </id> <property name="ExecutedOn" type="datetime"/> <property name="Success" type="bool"/> <many-to-one name="Order" class="Order" column="OrderId" not-null="true"/> Really I don't want a bidirectional association. There is no need for my transaction objects to reference their order object directly (I just need to access the transactions of an order). However, I had to add this so that Order.Transactions is persisted to the database: Repository: public void Update(Order entity) { using (ISession session = NHibernateHelper.OpenSession()) { using (ITransaction transaction = session.BeginTransaction()) { session.Update(entity); foreach (var tx in entity.Transactions) { tx.Order = entity; session.SaveOrUpdate(tx); } transaction.Commit(); } } } My problem is that this will then issue an update for every transaction on the order collection (regardless of whether it has changed or not). What I was trying to get around was having to explicitly save the transaction before saving the order and instead just add the transactions to the order and then save the order: public void Can_add_transaction_to_existing_order() { var orderRepo = new OrderRepository(); var order = orderRepo.GetById(new Guid("aa3b5d04-c5c8-4ad9-9b3e-9ce73e488a9f")); Transaction tx = new Transaction(); tx.ExecutedOn = DateTime.Now; tx.Success = true; order.Transactions.Add(tx); orderRepo.Update(order); } Although I have found quite a few articles covering the set up of a one-to-many association, most of these discuss retrieving of data and not persisting back. Many thanks, Ben

    Read the article

  • Returning large collections from WCF Serivce

    - by Nate Bross
    I'm trying to determine the best approach for building a WCF Service, and the area I'm struggling with most is returning lists of objects. The built-in maxMessageSize of 64k seems pretty high, and I really don't want to bump it up (quick googling finds 100s of places bumping the maxMessageSize up to multi-gigabyte range which seems foolish). But, when I'm returning a collection of objects (~150 items) I am exceeding the default 64k. I'm almost to the point of returning my own class which inherits IEnumerable and has properties for hasNext, hasPrevious and PageSize so that I can implement paging on the client side -- this seems like alot of code. The other option is to jackup the maxMessageSize and hope for the best, but that feels wrong. All other aspects of my service are working great, its just returning large collectiosn where I'm having issues. For background, there are two types of consumers of this service, UI applications which will be primarly web and/or wpf applications, and data processing applications, .NET console apps, and maybe some other non-UI apps. For the UI applications, I would like to keep them responsive and keep the messageSize low, on the console apps it doesn't matter as much as they are just pulling data down to do processing and push it back up to the service.

    Read the article

  • RESTful Design: Paging Collections

    - by Koen Bok
    I am designing a REST api that needs paging (per x) enforces from the server side. What would be the right way to page through any collection of resources: Option 1: GET /resource/page/<pagenr> GET /resource/tags/<tag1>,<tag2>/page/<pagenr> GET /resource/search/<query>/page/<pagenr> Option 2: GET /resource/?page=<pagenr> GET /resource/tags/<tag1>,<tag2>?page=<pagenr> GET /resource/search/<query>?page=<pagenr> If 1, what should I do with GET /resource? Redirect to /resource/page/0, reply with some error or reply with the exact same as /resource/page/0 without redirecting?

    Read the article

  • Collections of generics

    - by Luis Sep
    According to what I've read, I think this can't be done, but I'd like to be sure. I have a class OpDTO and several other *DTO extends OpDTO. Then, I want to have a method to extract just certain elements from lists of these child DTOs, and return the extracted elements in another list: public List<? extends OpDTO> getLastOp (List<? extends OpDTO> listDTOs) { List<? extends OpDTO> last = new ArrayList<? extends OpDTO>(); //compile error: Cannot instantiate the type ArrayList<? extends OpDTO> //processing return last; } I want ult to be a list of elements of the same kind as elements in listDTOs, and use only OpDTO's methods, but it produces a compile error: Cannot instantiate the type ArrayList<? extends OpDTO> I also tried doing something like: public <T> List<T> getLastOp (List<T> listDTOs) { List<T> last = new ArrayList<T>(); //processing return last; } But then I can't enforce elements in listDTOs to be a subclass of OpDTO, and can't instantiate T. Any idea?

    Read the article

  • Modify action names for route collections in Symfony?

    - by James Skidmore
    When creating an sfPropelRouteCollection, how can I edit the action names that the collection will generate? For example: # Routing for "product" CRUD product: class: sfPropelRouteCollection options: model: Product module: product actions: [new, create, edit, update, delete] How can I change the actual action that is called for any of the new/create/edit/update/delete methods? I'd like for them to call "ajaxNew," "ajaxCreate," etc. so the URL would look something like "product/ajaxNew", or the action for "update" would be "ajaxUpdate". Let me know if I need to clarify further. Thanks.

    Read the article

  • Are there public domain collections of translations for strings commonly used in software applicatio

    - by Malcolm
    It seems to me that there must be some public domain collection of gettext compatible PO files that we could search for 1:1 or fuzzy translations for strings commonly used in software applications? Is there a technical and copyright friendly way to query services like Google's Translator Toolkit, LaunchPad, Mygengo, etc. to find translations for common strings? Thank you, Malcolm

    Read the article

  • Read text file into listbox collections

    - by Arcadian
    Hi, i'm new to C#. I need my program to show different parts of the data contained in a txt file into different listboxs (which are on different tabs of a form) so that the user can see the particular block of data they are interested in. the data contained in the txt file looks like this: G30:39:03:31 JG06 G32:56:36:10 JG04 G31:54:69:52 JG04 G36:32:53:11 JG05 G33:50:05:11 JG06 G39:28:81:21 JG01 G39:22:74:11 JG06 G39:51:44:21 JG03 G39:51:52:22 JG01 G39:51:73:21 JG01 G35:76:24:20 JG06 G35:76:55:11 JG01 G36:31:96:11 JG02 G36:31:96:23 JG02 G36:31:96:41 JG03 though much more of it :) The separate listboxes will contain only the lines who's first integer pair matches that listbox's name. For example, all the lines that start "G32" will be added to the G32 listbox. I think the code would start something like: private void ReadToBox() { FileInfo file = new FileInfo("Jumpgate List.JG"); StreamReader objRead = file.OpenText(); while (!objRead.EndOfStream) but i'm not sure where to start in terms of getting it sorted yet. Any help? There's some rep in it for you :D

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16  | Next Page >