Search Results

Search found 16168 results on 647 pages for 'shared state'.

Page 90/647 | < Previous Page | 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97  | Next Page >

  • tkinter frame does not show on startup

    - by Jzz
    this is my first question on SO, so correct me please if I make a fool of myself. I have this fairly complicated python / Tkinter application (python 2.7). On startup, the __init__ loads several frames, and loads a database. When that is finished, I want to set the application to a default state (there are 2 program states, 'calculate' and 'config'). Setting the state of the application means that the appropriate frame is displayed (using grid). When the program is running, the user can select a program state in the menu. Problem is, the frame is not displayed on startup. I get an empty application (menu bar and status bar are displayed). When I select a program state in the menu, the frame displays as it should. Question: What am I doing wrong? Should I update idletasks? I tried, but no result. Anything else? Background: I use the following to switch program states: def set_program_state(self, state): '''sets the program state''' #try cleaning all the frames: try: self.config_frame.grid_forget() except: pass try: self.tidal_calculations_frame.grid_forget() except: pass try: self.tidal_grapth_frame.grid_forget() except: pass if state == "calculate": print "Switching to calculation mode" self.tidal_calculations_frame.grid() #frame is preloaded self.tidal_calculations_frame.fill_data(routes=self.routing_data.routes, deviations=self.misc_data.deviations, ship_types=self.misc_data.ship_types) self.tidal_grapth_frame.grid() self.program_state = "calculate" elif state == "config": print "Switching to config mode" self.config_frame = GUI_helper.config_screen_frame(self, self.user) #load frame first (contents depend on type of user) self.config_frame.grid() self.program_state = "config" I understand that this is kind of messy to read, so I simplified things for testing, using this: def set_program_state(self, state): '''sets the program state''' #try cleaning all the frames: try: self.testlabel_1.grid_forget() except: pass try: self.testlabel_2.grid_forget() except: pass if state == "calculate": print "switching to test1" self.testlabel_1 = tk.Label(self, text="calculate", borderwidth=1, relief=tk.RAISED) self.testlabel_1.grid(row=0, sticky=tk.W+tk.E) elif state == "config": print "switching to test1" self.testlabel_2 = tk.Label(self, text="config", borderwidth=1, relief=tk.RAISED) self.testlabel_2.grid(row=0, sticky=tk.W+tk.E) But the result is the same. The frame (or label in this test) is not displayed at startup, but when the user selects the state (calling the same function) the frame is displayed. UPDATE the sample code in the comments (thanks for that!) pointed me in another direction. Further testing revealed (what I think) the cause of the problem. Disabling the display of the status bar made the program work as expected. Turns out, I used pack to display the statusbar and grid to display the frames. And they are in the same container, so problems arise. I fixed that by using only pack inside the main container. But the same problem is still there. This is what I use for the statusbar: self.status = GUI_helper.StatusBar(self.parent) self.status.pack(side=tk.BOTTOM, fill=tk.X) And if I comment out the last line (pack), the config frame loads on startup, as per this line: self.set_program_state("config") But if I let the status bar pack inside the main window, the config frame does not show. Where it does show when the user asks for it (with the same command as above).

    Read the article

  • Slicing the EDG

    - by Antony Reynolds
    Different SOA Domain Configurations In this blog entry I would like to introduce three different configurations for a SOA environment.  I have omitted load balancers and OTD/OHS as they introduce a whole new round of discussion.  For each possible deployment architecture I have identified some of the advantages. Super Domain This is a single EDG style domain for everything needed for SOA/OSB.   It extends the standard EDG slightly but otherwise assumes a single “super” domain. This is basically the SOA EDG.  I have broken out JMS servers and Coherence servers to improve scalability and reduce dependencies. Key Points Separate JMS allows those servers to be kept up separately from rest of SOA Domain, allowing JMS clients to post messages even if rest of domain is unavailable. JMS servers are only used to host application specific JMS destinations, SOA/OSB JMS destinations remain in relevant SOA/OSB managed servers. Separate Coherence servers allow OSB cache to be offloaded from OSB servers. Use of Coherence by other components as a shared infrastructure data grid service. Coherence cluster may be managed by WLS but more likely run as a standalone Coherence cluster. Benefits Single Administration Point (1 Admin Server) Closely follows EDG with addition of application specific JMS servers and standalone Coherence servers for OSB caching and application specific caches. Coherence grid can be scaled independent of OSB/SOA. JMS queues provide for inter-application communication. Drawbacks Patching is an all or nothing affair. Startup time for SOA may be slow if large number of composites deployed. Multiple Domains This extends the EDG into multiple domains, allowing separate management and update of these domains.  I see this type of configuration quite often with customers, although some don't have OWSM, others don't have separate Coherence etc. SOA & BAM are kept in the same domain as little benefit is obtained by separating them. Key Points Separate JMS allows those servers to be kept up separately from rest of SOA Domain, allowing JMS clients to post messages even if other domains are unavailable. JMS servers are only used to host application specific JMS destinations, SOA/OSB JMS destinations remain in relevant SOA/OSB managed servers. Separate Coherence servers allow OSB cache to be offloaded from OSB servers. Use of Coherence by other components as a shared infrastructure data grid service. Coherence cluster may be managed by WLS but more likely run as a standalone Coherence cluster. Benefits Follows EDG but in separate domains and with addition of application specific JMS servers and standalone Coherence servers for OSB caching and application specific caches. Coherence grid can be scaled independent of OSB/SOA. JMS queues provide for inter-application communication. Patch lifecycle of OSB/SOA/JMS are no longer lock stepped. JMS may be kept running independently of other domains allowing applications to insert messages fro later consumption by SOA/OSB. OSB may be kept running independent of other domains, allowing service virtualization to continue independent of other domains availability. All domains use same OWSM policy store (MDS-WSM). Drawbacks Multiple domains to manage and configure. Multiple Admin servers (single view requires use of Grid Control) Multiple Admin servers/WSM clusters waste resources. Additional homes needed to enjoy benefits of separate patching. Cross domain trust needs setting up to simplify cross domain interactions. Startup time for SOA may be slow if large number of composites deployed. Shared Service Environment This model extends the previous multiple domain arrangement to provide a true shared service environment.This extends the previous model by allowing multiple additional SOA domains and/or other domains to take advantage of the shared services.  Only one non-shared domain is shown, but there could be multiple, allowing groups of applications to share patching independent of other application groups. Key Points Separate JMS allows those servers to be kept up separately from rest of SOA Domain, allowing JMS clients to post messages even if other domains are unavailable. JMS servers are only used to host application specific JMS destinations, SOA/OSB JMS destinations remain in relevant SOA/OSB managed servers. Separate Coherence servers allow OSB cache to be offloaded from OSB servers. Use of Coherence by other components as a shared infrastructure data grid service Coherence cluster may be managed by WLS but more likely run as a standalone Coherence cluster. Shared SOA Domain hosts Human Workflow Tasks BAM Common "utility" composites Single OSB domain provides "Enterprise Service Bus" All domains use same OWSM policy store (MDS-WSM) Benefits Follows EDG but in separate domains and with addition of application specific JMS servers and standalone Coherence servers for OSB caching and application specific caches. Coherence grid can be scaled independent of OSB/SOA. JMS queues provide for inter-application communication. Patch lifecycle of OSB/SOA/JMS are no longer lock stepped. JMS may be kept running independently of other domains allowing applications to insert messages fro later consumption by SOA/OSB. OSB may be kept running independent of other domains, allowing service virtualization to continue independent of other domains availability. All domains use same OWSM policy store (MDS-WSM). Supports large numbers of deployed composites in multiple domains. Single URL for Human Workflow end users. Single URL for BAM end users. Drawbacks Multiple domains to manage and configure. Multiple Admin servers (single view requires use of Grid Control) Multiple Admin servers/WSM clusters waste resources. Additional homes needed to enjoy benefits of separate patching. Cross domain trust needs setting up to simplify cross domain interactions. Human Workflow needs to be specially configured to point to shared services domain. Summary The alternatives in this blog allow for patching to have different impacts, depending on the model chosen.  Each organization must decide the tradeoffs for itself.  One extreme is to go for the shared services model and have one domain per SOA application.  This requires a lot of administration of the multiple domains.  The other extreme is to have a single super domain.  This makes the entire enterprise susceptible to an outage at the same time due to patching or other domain level changes.  Hopefully this blog will help your organization choose the right model for you.

    Read the article

  • Not your usual "The multi-part identifier could not be bound" error

    - by Eugene Niemand
    I have the following query, now the strange thing is if I run this query on my development and pre-prod server it runs fine. If I run it on production it fails. I have figured out that if I run just the Select statement its happy but as soon as I try insert into the table variable it complains. DECLARE @RESULTS TABLE ( [Parent] VARCHAR(255) ,[client] VARCHAR(255) ,[ComponentName] VARCHAR(255) ,[DealName] VARCHAR(255) ,[Purchase Date] DATETIME ,[Start Date] DATETIME ,[End Date] DATETIME ,[Value] INT ,[Currency] VARCHAR(255) ,[Brand] VARCHAR(255) ,[Business Unit] VARCHAR(255) ,[Region] VARCHAR(255) ,[DealID] INT ) INSERT INTO @RESULTS SELECT DISTINCT ClientName 'Parent' ,F.ClientID 'client' ,ComponentName ,A.DealName ,CONVERT(SMALLDATETIME , ISNULL(PurchaseDate , '1900-01-01')) 'Purchase Date' ,CONVERT(SMALLDATETIME , ISNULL(StartDate , '1900-01-01')) 'Start Date' ,CONVERT(SMALLDATETIME , ISNULL(EndDate , '1900-01-01')) 'End Date' ,DealValue 'Value' ,D.Currency 'Currency' ,ShortBrand 'Brand' ,G.BU 'Business Unit' ,C.DMRegion 'Region' ,DealID FROM LTCDB_admin_tbl_Deals A INNER JOIN dbo_DM_Brand B ON A.BrandID = B.ID INNER JOIN LTCDB_admin_tbl_DM_Region C ON A.Region = C.ID INNER JOIN LTCDB_admin_tbl_Currency D ON A.Currency = D.ID INNER JOIN LTCDB_admin_tbl_Deal_Clients E ON A.DealID = E.Deal_ID INNER JOIN LTCDB_admin_tbl_Clients F ON E.Client_ID = F.ClientID INNER JOIN LTCDB_admin_tbl_DM_BU G ON G.ID = A.BU INNER JOIN LTCDB_admin_tbl_Deal_Components H ON A.DealID = H.Deal_ID INNER JOIN LTCDB_admin_tbl_Components I ON I.ComponentID = H.Component_ID WHERE EndDate != '1899-12-30T00:00:00.000' AND StartDate < EndDate AND B.ID IN ( 1 , 2 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 10 , 12 ) AND C.SalesRegionID IN ( 1 , 3 , 4 , 11 , 16 ) AND A.BU IN ( 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 8 , 9 , 11 , 12 , 15 , 16 , 19 , 20 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 26 , 28 , 30 ) AND ClientID = 16128 SELECT ... FROM @Results I get the following error Msg 8180, Level 16, State 1, Line 1 Statement(s) could not be prepared. Msg 4104, Level 16, State 1, Line 1 The multi-part identifier "Tbl1021.ComponentName" could not be bound. Msg 4104, Level 16, State 1, Line 1 The multi-part identifier "Tbl1011.Currency" could not be bound. Msg 207, Level 16, State 1, Line 1 Invalid column name 'Col2454'. Msg 207, Level 16, State 1, Line 1 Invalid column name 'Col2461'. Msg 207, Level 16, State 1, Line 1 Invalid column name 'Col2491'. Msg 207, Level 16, State 1, Line 1 Invalid column name 'Col2490'. Msg 207, Level 16, State 1, Line 1 Invalid column name 'Col2482'. Msg 207, Level 16, State 1, Line 1 Invalid column name 'Col2478'. Msg 207, Level 16, State 1, Line 1 Invalid column name 'Col2477'. Msg 207, Level 16, State 1, Line 1 Invalid column name 'Col2475'. EDIT - EDIT - EDIT - EDIT - EDIT - EDIT through a process of elimination I have found that following and wondered if anyone can shed some light on this. If I remove only the DISTINCT the query runs fine, add the DISTINCT and I get strange errors. Also I have found that if I comment the following lines then the query runs with the DISTINCT what is strange is that none of the columns in the table LTCDB_admin_tbl_Deal_Components is referenced so I don't see how the distinct will affect that. INNER JOIN LTCDB_admin_tbl_Deal_Components H ON A.DealID = H.Deal_ID

    Read the article

  • Is it possible to programmatically set the state of the shift and control keys?

    - by Stephen Harrison
    The reason I am asking is that I am thinking of building a foot switch to act as shift and control keys - well two switches, one for each foot. I'm planning on using the Arduino for this and writing a small C# application to detect when the switch has been pressed that would then set the state of shift or control. I would rather not have to write a keyboard driver for the Arduino as I would like it to do other things as well.

    Read the article

  • Deploy with rsync(or svn, git, cvs) and ignore inconsistent state during deployment?

    - by zedoo
    We are currently talking about deploying a website via rsync. However, during rsyncing the application is left in an inconsistent state, as some files may already be synced while others still are left with the old version right? How do people deal with this issue? I guess the same problem exists when deploying via svn/git/cvs. Should I just close the site, rsync, and open up again? Or do people simply ignore this inconsistency problem?

    Read the article

  • List of Django model instance foreign keys losing consistency during state changes.

    - by Joshua
    I have model, Match, with two foreign keys: class Match(model.Model): winner = models.ForeignKey(Player) loser = models.ForeignKey(Player) When I loop over Match I find that each model instance uses a unique object for the foreign key. This ends up biting me because it introduces inconsistency, here is an example: >>> def print_elo(match_list): ... for match in match_list: ... print match.winner.id, match.winner.elo ... print match.loser.id, match.loser.elo ... >>> print_elo(teacher_match_list) 4 1192.0000000000 2 1192.0000000000 5 1208.0000000000 2 1192.0000000000 5 1208.0000000000 4 1192.0000000000 >>> teacher_match_list[0].winner.elo = 3000 >>> print_elo(teacher_match_list) 4 3000 # Object 4 2 1192.0000000000 5 1208.0000000000 2 1192.0000000000 5 1208.0000000000 4 1192.0000000000 # Object 4 >>> I solved this problem like so: def unify_refrences(match_list): """Makes each unique refrence to a model instance non-unique. In cases where multiple model instances are being used django creates a new object for each model instance, even if it that means creating the same instance twice. If one of these objects has its state changed any other object refrencing the same model instance will not be updated. This method ensure that state changes are seen. It makes sure that variables which hold objects pointing to the same model all hold the same object. Visually this means that a list of [var1, var2] whose internals look like so: var1 --> object1 --> model1 var2 --> object2 --> model1 Will result in the internals being changed so that: var1 --> object1 --> model1 var2 ------^ """ match_dict = {} for match in match_list: try: match.winner = match_dict[match.winner.id] except KeyError: match_dict[match.winner.id] = match.winner try: match.loser = match_dict[match.loser.id] except KeyError: match_dict[match.loser.id] = match.loser My question: Is there a way to solve the problem more elegantly through the use of QuerySets without needing to call save at any point? If not, I'd like to make the solution more generic: how can you get a list of the foreign keys on a model instance or do you have a better generic solution to my problem? Please correct me if you think I don't understand why this is happening.

    Read the article

  • Is there a way to get a mobile Safari WebApp to "forget" its state?

    - by Alex Mcp
    I have a nascent bridge scoring app that is meant to be stored locally on an iPod touch/iPhone (iPad? Would probably be fugly...) So far so good, got a custom icon rolling and basic JS navigation laid out, but my problem is that it retains its state when I quit the app. Is there a simple magic Apple meta tag for this? Or is it achieved with javascript? Thanks for any insight.

    Read the article

  • What is the current state of the art in HTML canvas JavaScript libraries and frameworks?

    - by Toby Hede
    I am currently investigating options for working with the canvas in a new HTML 5 application, and was wondering what is the current state of the art in HTML canvas JavaScript libraries and frameworks? In particular, are there frameworks that support the kind of things needed for game development - complex animation, managing scene graphs, handling events and user interactions? Also willing to consider both commercial and open source products.

    Read the article

  • Can I use Linq-to-xml to persist my object state without having to use/know Xpath & XSD Syntax?

    - by Greg
    Hi, Can I use Linq-to-xml to persist my object state without having to use/know Xpath & XSD Syntax? ie. really looking for simple but flexible way to persist a graph of object data (e.g. have say 2 or 3 classes with associations) - if Linq-to-xml were as simple as saying "persist this graph to XML", and then you could also query it via Linq, or load it into memory again/change/then re-save to the xml file.

    Read the article

  • Msg 102, Level 15, State 1, Line 1 Incorrect syntax near ' '.

    - by sajad
    i am trying to query from a temp table,and i keep getting the message Msg 102, Level 15, State 1, Line 1 Incorrect syntax near ' '. can somebody tell me wats the problem..is it due to convert.. plz help The query is select compid,2, convert(datetime, '01/01/' + CONVERT(char(4),cal_yr) ,101) ,0,  Update_dt, th1, th2, th3_pc , Update_id, Update_dt,1 from #tmp_CTF

    Read the article

  • How do you access country/state/province polygons in google maps api?

    - by wmh1108
    I have fairly large map overlay that I am displaying over the google maps data but would still like to see the country/state/province lines through my overlay (so the lines would essentially be on top of my overlay). As I understand, these lines are simply polygons drawn over the maps. Is there any way to access these? If so, how do I get them to show up through my overlay images?

    Read the article

  • #altnetseattle &ndash; REST Services

    - by GeekAgilistMercenary
    Below are the notes I made in the REST Architecture Session I helped kick off with Andrew. RSS, ATOM, and such needed for better discovery.  i.e. there still is a need for some type of discovery. Difficult is modeling behaviors in a RESTful way.  ??  Invoking some type of state against an object.  For instance in the case of a POST vs. a GET.  The GET is easy, comes back as is, but what about a POST, which often changes some state or something. Challenge is doing multiple workflows with stateful workflows.  How does batch work.  Maybe model the batch as a resource. Frameworks aren’t particularly part of REST, REST is REST.  But point argued that REST is modeled, or part of modeling a state machine of some sort… ? Nothing is 100% reliable w/ REST – comparisons drawn with TCP/IP.  Sufficient probability is made however for the communications, but the idea of a possible failure has to be built into the usage model of REST. Ruby on Rails / RESTfully, and others used.  What were their issues, what do they do.  ATOM feeds, object serialized, using LINQ to XML w/ this.  No state machine libraries. Idempotent areas around REST and single change POST changes are inherent in the architecture. REST – one of the constrained languages is for the interaction w/ the system.  Limiting what can be done on the resources.  - disagreement, there is no agreed upon REST verbs. Sam Ruby – RESTful services.  Expanded the verbs within REST/HTTP pushes you off the web.  Of the existing verbs POST leaves the most up for debate. Robert Reem used Factory to deal with the POST to handle the new state.  The POST identifying what it just did by the return. Different states are put into POST, so that new prospective verbs, without creating verbs for REST/HTTP can be used to advantage without breaking universal clients. Biggest issue with REST services is their lack of state, yet it is also one of their biggest strengths.  What happens is that the client takes up the often onerous task of handling all state, state machines, and other extraneous resource management.  All the GETs, POSTs, DELETEs, INSERTs get all pushed into abstraction.  My 2 cents is that this in a way ends up pushing a huge proprietary burden onto the REST services often removing the point of REST to be simple and to the point. WADL does provide discovery and some state control (sort of?) Statement made, "WADL" isn't needed.  The JSON, XML, or other client side returned data handles this. I then applied the law of 2 feet rule for myself and headed to finish up these notes, post to the Wiki, and figure out what I was going to do next.  For the original Wiki entry check it out here. I will be adding more to this post with a subsequent post.  Please do feel free to post your thoughts and ideas about this, as I am sure everyone in the session will have more for elaboration.

    Read the article

  • WiX, MSDeploy and an appealing configuration/deployment paradigm

    - by alexhildyard
    I do a lot of application and server configuration; I've done this for many years and have tended to view the complexity of this strictly in terms of the complexity of the ultimate configuration to be deployed. For example, specific APIs aside, I would tend to regard installing a server certificate as a more complex activity than, say, copying a file or adding a Registry entry.My prejudice revolved around the idea of a sequential deployment script that not only had the explicit prescription to apply a specific server configuration, but also made the implicit presumption that the server in question was in a good known state. Scripts like this fail for hundreds of reasons -- the Default Website didn't exist; the application had already been deployed; the application had already been partially deployed and failed to rollback fully, and so on. And so the problem is that the more complex the configuration activity, the more scope for error in any individual part of that activity, and therefore the greater the chance the server in question will not end up at exactly the desired configuration level.Recently I was introduced to a completely different mindset, which, for want of a better turn of phrase, I will call the "make it so" mindset. It's extremely simple both to explain and to implement. In place of the head-down, imperative script you used to use, you substitute a set of checks -- much like exception handlers -- around each configuration activity, starting with a check of the current system state. Thus the configuration logic becomes: "IF these services aren't started then start them, and IF XYZ website doesn't exist then create it, and IF these shares don't exist then create them, and IF these shares aren't permissioned in some particular way, then permission them so." This works. Really well, in my experience. Scenario 1: You want to get a system into a good known state; it's already in a good known state; you quickly realise there is nothing to do.Scenario 2: You want to get the system into a good known state; your script is flawed or the system is bust; it cannot be put into that state. You know exactly where (at least part of) the problem is and why.Scenario 3: You want to get the system into a good known state; people are fiddling around with the system just now. That's fine. You do what you can, and later you come back and try it againScenario 4: No one wants to deploy anything; they want you to prove that the previous deployment was successful. So you re-run the deployment script with the "-WhatIf" flag. It reports that there was nothing to change. There's your proof.I mentioned two technologies in the title -- MSI and MSDeploy. I am thinking specifically of the conversation that took place here. Having worked with both technologies, I think Rob Mensching's response is appropriately nuanced, and in essence the difference is this: sometimes your target is either to achieve a specific new server state, or to rollback to a known good one. Then again, your target may be to configure what you can, and to understand what you can't. Implicitly MSDeploy's "rollback" is simply to redeploy the previous version, whereas a well-crafted MSI will actively put your system into that state without further intervention. Either way, if all goes well it will leave you with a system in one of two states, whereas MSDeploy could leave your system in one of many states. The key is that MSDeploy and MSI are complementary technologies; which suits you best depends as much on Operational guidance as your Configuration remit.What I wanted to say was that I have always been for atomic, transactional-based configuration, but having worked with the "make it so" paradigm, I have been favourably impressed by the actual results. I'm tempted to put a more technical post up on this in due course.

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97  | Next Page >