Search Results

Search found 13799 results on 552 pages for 'responsive 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 204/552 | < Previous Page | 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211  | Next Page >

  • Conditional Styling In Silverlight?

    - by DeanMc
    Hi, While I'm fine with standard control styling in silverlight I have recently began using more dynamic methods of fetching data to be displayed in items controls. One of the controls I am reworking is a collection of links. The issue I am having is that each link is coloured differently when moused over. One red, one blue, one green, etc. Is there a way to style these items without sacrificing the dynamics of using an items control with a data template?

    Read the article

  • Tables as relations in ER diagrams

    - by Richard Mar.
    Assume I have the following tables (**bold** - primary key, *italics* - foreign key): patient(**patient_id**, name) disease(**disease_id**, name) patient_disease(**p_d_id**, *patient_id*, *disease,_id* ) I want to draw the ER diagram for this. My idea is to make two entities, one for patient and one for disease, then make a n-to-n relation between them, with p_d_id as its attribute. Is that how it's supposed to be?

    Read the article

  • Modeling a Generic Relationship (expressed in C#) in a Database

    - by StevenH
    This is most likely one for all you sexy DBAs out there: How would I effieciently model a relational database whereby I have a field in an "Event" table which defines a "SportType"? This "SportsType" field can hold a link to different sports tables E.g. "FootballEvent", "RubgyEvent", "CricketEvent" and "F1 Event". Each of these Sports tables have different fields specific to that sport. My goal is to be able to genericly add sports types in the future as required, yet hold sport specific event data (fields) as part of my Event Entity. Is it possible to use an ORM such as NHibernate / Entity framework / DataObjects.NET which would reflect such a relationship? I have thrown together a quick C# example to express my intent at a higher level: public class Event<T> where T : new() { public T Fields { get; set; } public Event() { EventType = new T(); } } public class FootballEvent { public Team CompetitorA { get; set; } public Team CompetitorB { get; set; } } public class TennisEvent { public Player CompetitorA { get; set; } public Player CompetitorB { get; set; } } public class F1RacingEvent { public List<Player> Drivers { get; set; } public List<Team> Teams { get; set; } } public class Team { public IEnumerable<Player> Squad { get; set; } } public class Player { public string Name { get; set; } public DateTime DOB { get; set;} }

    Read the article

  • Common one-to-many table for multiple entities

    - by Ben V
    Suppose I have two tables, Customer and Vendor. I want to have a common address table for customer and vendor addresses. Customers and Vendors can both have one to many addresses. Option 1 Add columns for the AddressID to the Customer and Vendor tables. This just doesn't seem like a clean solution to me. Customer Vendor Address -------- --------- --------- CustomerID VendorID AddressID AddressID1 AddressID1 Street AddressID2 AddressID2 City... Option 2 Move the foreign key to the Address table. For a Customer, Address.CustomerID will be populated. For a Vendor, Address.VendorID will be populated. I don't like this either - I shouldn't need to modify the address table every time I want to use it for another entity. Customer Vendor Address -------- --------- --------- CustomerID VendorID AddressID CustomerID VendorID Option 3 I've also seen this - only 1 foreign key column on the Address table with another column to identify which foreign key table the address belongs to. I don't like this one because it requires all the foreign key tables to have the same type of ID. It also seems messy once you start coding against it. Customer Vendor Address -------- --------- --------- CustomerID VendorID AddressID FKTable FKID So, am I just too picky, or is there something I haven't thought of?

    Read the article

  • How to easily substitute a Base class

    - by JTom
    Hi, I have the following hierarchy of classes class classOne { virtual void abstractMethod() = 0; }; class classTwo : public classOne { }; class classThree : public classTwo { }; All classOne, classTwo and classThree are abstract classes, and I have another class that is defining the pure virtual methods class classNonAbstract : public classThree { void abstractMethod(); // Couple of new methods void doIt(); void doItToo(); }; And right now I need it differently...I need it like class classNonAbstractOne : public classOne { void abstractMethod(); // Couple of new methods void doIt(); void doItToo(); }; class classNonAbstractTwo : public classTwo { void abstractMethod(); // Couple of new methods void doIt(); void doItToo(); }; and class classNonAbstractThree : public classThree { void abstractMethod(); // Couple of new methods void doIt(); void doItToo(); }; But all the nonAbstract classes have the same new methods, with the same code...and I would like to avoid copying all the methods and it's code to every nonAbstract class. How could I accomplish that? Hopefully it's understandable...

    Read the article

  • Is there any reason for an object pool to not be treated as a singleton?

    - by Chris Charabaruk
    I don't necessarily mean implemented using the singleton pattern, but rather, only having and using one instance of a pool. I don't like the idea of having just one pool (or one per pooled type). However, I can't really come up with any concrete situations where there's an advantage to multiple pools for mutable types, at least not any where a single pool can function just as well. What advantages are there to having multiple pools over a singleton pool?

    Read the article

  • Fowler Analysis Patterns lately?

    - by Berryl
    As much as I've always loved this one is how much I always wished there were more meaty examples of how to apply some of the concepts available. Is anyone aware of anything out there worth looking at that attempts to that? Cheers, Berryl

    Read the article

  • PHP Classes Extend

    - by John
    I have two classes that work seperate from another, but they extend the same class. Is it possible to have them work the same instance of the extended class. I'm wanting the constructor of the extended class to run only once. I know this isn't right but something like this: <?php $oApp = new app; class a extends $oApp {} class b extends $oApp {}

    Read the article

  • In symfony/doctrine's schema.yml, where should I put onDelete: CASCADE for a many-to-many relationsh

    - by nselikoff
    I have a many-to-many relationship defined in my Symfony (using doctrine) project between Orders and Upgrades (an Order can be associated with zero or more Upgrades, and an Upgrade can apply to zero or more Orders). # schema.yml Order: columns: order_id: {...} relations: Upgrades: class: Upgrade local: order_id foreign: upgrade_id refClass: OrderUpgrade Upgrade: columns: upgrade_id: {...} relations: Orders: class: Order local: upgrade_id foreign: order_id refClass: OrderUpgrade OrderUpgrade: columns: order_id: {...} upgrade_id: {...} I want to set up delete cascade behavior so that if I delete an Order or an Upgrade, all of the related OrderUpgrades are deleted. Where do I put onDelete: CASCADE? Usually I would put it at the end of the relations section, but that would seem to imply in this case that deleting Orders would cascade to delete Upgrades. Is Symfony + Doctrine smart enough to know what I'm wanting if I put onDelete: CASCADE in the above relations sections of schema.yml?

    Read the article

  • How extensible should code actually be?

    - by griegs
    I've just started a new job and one of the things my new boss talked to me about was code longevity. I've always coded to make my code infinently extensible and adaptable. I figured that if someone was going to change my code in the future then it should be easy to do. But I never really had a clear idea on how far into the future that should be. So my new boss told me not to bother coding for anything more that 3 years into the future and his reasoning was that technology changes, programs expire etc. At first I was kinda taken aback and thought he was a whack job but the longer I think about it the more I'm warming to the concept. Does anyone else have an opinion on how far into the future you should code to?

    Read the article

  • Learning Modelling

    - by me1234
    Is there a good book which I can follow to learn modelling/doing architecture? Good samples? What would you do if you have to learn modelling from very basics? Thanks

    Read the article

  • When is it better to use a method versus a property for a class definition?

    - by ccomet
    Partially related to an earlier question of mine, I have a system in which I have to store complex data as a string. Instead of parsing these strings as all kinds of separate objects, I just created one class that contains all of those objects, and it has some parser logic that will encode all properties into strings, or decode a string to get those objects. That's all fine and good. This question is not about the parser itself, but about where I should house the logic for the parser. Is it a better choice to put it as a property, or as a method? In the case of a property, say public string DataAsString, the get accessor would house the logic to encode all of the data into a string, while the set accessor would decode the input value and set all of the data in the class instance. It seems convenient because the input/output is indeed a string. In the case of a method, one method would be Encode(), which returns the encoded string. Then, either the constructor itself would house the logic for the decoding a string and require the string argument, or I write a Decode(string str) method which is called separately. In either case, it would be using a method instead of a property. So, is there a functional difference between these paths, in terms of the actual running of the code? Or are they basically equivalent and it then boils down to a choice of personal preference or which one looks better? And in that kind of question... which would look cleaner anyway?

    Read the article

  • Is it bad practice to make a setter return "this"?

    - by Ken Liu
    Is it a good or bad idea to make setters in java return "this"? public Employee setName(String name){ this.name = name; return this; } This pattern can be useful because then you can chain setters like this: list.add(new Employee().setName("Jack Sparrow").setId(1).setFoo("bacon!")); instead of this: Employee e = new Employee(); e.setName("Jack Sparrow"); ...and so on... list.add(e); ...but it sort of goes against standard convention. I suppose it might be worthwhile just because it can make that setter do something else useful. I've seen this pattern used some places (e.g. JMock, JPA), but it seems uncommon, and only generally used for very well defined APIs where this pattern is used everywhere. Update: What I've described is obviously valid, but what I am really looking for is some thoughts on whether this is generally acceptable, and if there are any pitfalls or related best practices. I know about the Builder pattern but it is a little more involved then what I am describing - as Josh Bloch describes it there is an associated static Builder class for object creation.

    Read the article

  • Need alternative field names for these reserved words

    - by MattSlay
    “type” and “class” are likely reserved or problematic words in C# and/or Ruby, two languages I may use to program against my new database schema in the future. So, in order to avoid potential conflicts with those languages, I’m looking for alternative names for these field names in my tables. In this case, it is from my Machines table, where I have: “class” field (values would be something like “manual” or “computerized”) and “type” field (values would be “lathe” or “mill”) I could call the fields “machineclass” and “machinetype”, but that is inconsistent with naming scheme in the rest of my schema (meaning, I do not re-use the table name in the field… For instance, I use Machine.name, not Machine.machinename) Any thought on this madness?

    Read the article

  • Cpp some basic problems

    - by DevAno1
    Hello. My task was as follows : Create class Person with char*name and int age. Implement contructor using dynamic allocation of memory for variables, destructor, function init and friend function show. Then transform this class to header and cpp file and implement in other program. Ok so I've almost finished my Person class, but I get error after destructor. First question is how to write this properly ? #include <iostream> using namespace std; class Person { char* name; int age; public: int * take_age(); Person(){ int size=0; cout << "Give length of char*" << endl; cin >> size; name = new char[size]; age = 0; } ~Person(){ cout << "Destroying resources" << endl; delete *[] name; delete * take_age(); } friend void(Person &p); int * Person::take_age(){ return age; } void init(char* n, int a) { name = n; age = a; } void show(Person &p){ cout << "Name: " << p.name << "," << "age: " << p.age << endl; } }; int main(void) { Person *p = new Person; p->init("Mary", 25); p.show(); system("PAUSE"); return 0; } And now with header/implementation part : - do I need to introduce constructor in header/implementation files ? If yes - how? - my show() function is a friendly function. Should I take it into account somehow ? I already failed to return this task on my exam, but still I'd like to know how to implement it.

    Read the article

  • Is Form validation and Business validation too much?

    - by Robert Cabri
    I've got this question about form validation and business validation. I see a lot of frameworks that use some sort of form validation library. You submit some values and the library validates the values from the form. If not ok it will show some errors on you screen. If all goes to plan the values will be set into domain objects. Here the values will be or, better said, should validated (again). Most likely the same validation in the validation library. I know 2 PHP frameworks having this kind of construction Zend/Kohana. When I look at programming and some principles like Don't Repeat Yourself (DRY) and single responsibility principle (SRP) this isn't a good way. As you can see it validates twice. Why not create domain objects that do the actual validation. Example: Form with username and email form is submitted. Values of the username field and the email field will be populated in 2 different Domain objects: Username and Email class Username {} class Email {} These objects validate their data and if not valid throw an exception. Do you agree? What do you think about this aproach? Is there a better way to implement validations? I'm confused about a lot of frameworks/developers handling this stuff. Are they all wrong or am I missing a point? Edit: I know there should also be client side kind of validation. This is a different ballgame in my Opinion. If You have some comments on this and a way to deal with this kind of stuff, please provide.

    Read the article

  • How to reference a specific object in an array of objects using jTemplates

    - by Travis
    I am using the excellent jTemplates plugin to generate content. Given a data object like this... var data = { name: 'datatable', table: [ {id: 1, name: 'Anne'}, {id: 2, name: 'Amelie'}, {id: 3, name: 'Polly'}, {id: 4, name: 'Alice'}, {id: 5, name: 'Martha'} ] }; ..I'm wondering if it is possible to directly specify an object in an array of objects using $T. (I'm hoping there is something like $T.table:3 available) Currently the only way I can think of to access a specific object in an array is to do something like this... {#foreach $T.table as record} {#if $T.record$iteration == 3} This is record 3! Name: {$T.record.name} {#/if} {#/for} However that seems clumsy... Any suggestions? Thanks

    Read the article

  • What should layers in dotnet application ? Pleas guide me

    - by haansi
    Hi, I am using layered architecture in dotnet (mostly I work on web projects). I am confuse what layers should I use ? I have small idea that there should be the following layers. user interface customer types (custom entities) business logic layer data access layer My purpose is sure quality of work and maximum re-usability of code. some one suggested to add common types layer in it. Please guide me what should be layers ? and in each layer what part should go ? thanks for your precious time and advice. haansi

    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 | 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211  | Next Page >