Search Results

Search found 24675 results on 987 pages for 'design tools'.

Page 287/987 | < Previous Page | 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294  | Next Page >

  • mysql and trigger usage question

    - by dhruvbird
    I have a situation in which I don't want inserts to take place (the transaction should rollback) if a certain condition is met. I could write this logic in the application code, but say for some reason, it has to be written in MySQL itself (say clients written in different languages will be inserting into this MySQL InnoDB table) [that's a separate discussion]. Table definition: CREATE TABLE table1(x int NOT NULL); The trigger looks something like this: CREATE TRIGGER t1 BEFORE INSERT ON table1 FOR EACH ROW IF (condition) THEN NEW.x = NULL; END IF; END; I am guessing it could also be written as(untested): CREATE TRIGGER t1 BEFORE INSERT ON table1 FOR EACH ROW IF (condition) THEN ROLLBACK; END IF; END; But, this doesn't work: CREATE TRIGGER t1 BEFORE INSERT ON table1 ROLLBACK; You are guaranteed that: Your DB will always be MySQL Table type will always be InnoDB That NOT NULL column will always stay the way it is Question: Do you see anything objectionable in the 1st method?

    Read the article

  • Table with a lot of attributes

    - by Robert
    Hi, I'm planing to build some database project. One of the tables have a lot of attributes. My question is: What is better, to divide the the class into 2 separate tables or put all of them into one table. below is an example create table User { id, name, surname,... show_name, show_photos, ...) or create table User { id, name, surname,... ) create table UserPrivacy {usr_id, show_name, show_photos, ...) The performance i suppose is similar due to i can use index.

    Read the article

  • Three level database - foreign keys

    - by poke
    I have a three level database with the following structure (simplified to only show the primary keys): Table A: a_id Table B: a_id, b_id Table C: a_id, b_id, c_id So possible values for table C would be something like this: a_id b_id c_id 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 3 1 2 1 1 2 2 2 1 1 2 2 1 2 2 2 ... I am now unsure, how foreign keys should be set; or if they should be set for the primary keys at all. My idea was to have a foreign key on table B B.a_id -> A.a_id, and two foreign key on C C.a_id -> A.a_id and ( C.a_id, C.b_id ) -> ( B.a_id, B.b_id ). Is that the way I should set up the foreign keys? Is the foreign key from C->A necessary? Or do I even need foreign keys at all given that all those columns are part of the primary keys? Thanks.

    Read the article

  • Game AI: Pattern for implementing Sense-Think-Act components?

    - by Rosarch
    I'm developing a game. Each entity in the game is a GameObject. Each GameObject is composed of a GameObjectController, GameObjectModel, and GameObjectView. (Or inheritants thereof.) For NPCs, the GameObjectController is split into: IThinkNPC: reads current state and makes a decision about what to do IActNPC: updates state based on what needs to be done ISenseNPC: reads current state to answer world queries (eg "am I being in the shadows?") My question: Is this ok for the ISenseNPC interface? public interface ISenseNPC { // ... /// <summary> /// True if `dest` is a safe point to which to retreat. /// </summary> /// <param name="dest"></param> /// <param name="angleToThreat"></param> /// <param name="range"></param> /// <returns></returns> bool IsSafeToRetreat(Vector2 dest, float angleToThreat, float range); /// <summary> /// Finds a new location to which to retreat. /// </summary> /// <param name="angleToThreat"></param> /// <returns></returns> Vector2 newRetreatDest(float angleToThreat); /// <summary> /// Returns the closest LightSource that illuminates the NPC. /// Null if the NPC is not illuminated. /// </summary> /// <returns></returns> ILightSource ClosestIlluminatingLight(); /// <summary> /// True if the NPC is sufficiently far away from target. /// Assumes that target is the only entity it could ever run from. /// </summary> /// <returns></returns> bool IsSafeFromTarget(); } None of the methods take any parameters. Instead, the implementation is expected to maintain a reference to the relevant GameObjectController and read that. However, I'm now trying to write unit tests for this. Obviously, it's necessary to use mocking, since I can't pass arguments directly. The way I'm doing it feels really brittle - what if another implementation comes along that uses the world query utilities in a different way? Really, I'm not testing the interface, I'm testing the implementation. Poor. The reason I used this pattern in the first place was to keep IThinkNPC implementation code clean: public BehaviorState RetreatTransition(BehaviorState currentBehavior) { if (sense.IsCollidingWithTarget()) { NPCUtils.TraceTransitionIfNeeded(ToString(), BehaviorState.ATTACK.ToString(), "is colliding with target"); return BehaviorState.ATTACK; } if (sense.IsSafeFromTarget() && sense.ClosestIlluminatingLight() == null) { return BehaviorState.WANDER; } if (sense.ClosestIlluminatingLight() != null && sense.SeesTarget()) { NPCUtils.TraceTransitionIfNeeded(ToString(), BehaviorState.ATTACK.ToString(), "collides with target"); return BehaviorState.CHASE; } return currentBehavior; } Perhaps the cleanliness isn't worth it, however. So, if ISenseNPC takes all the params it needs every time, I could make it static. Is there any problem with that?

    Read the article

  • Understanding MongoDB(and NoSQL in general) and How to make the best use of it

    - by Earlz
    Hello, I am beginning to think that my next project I am wanting to do would work better with a NoSQL solution. The project would either involve a ton of 2-column tables or a ton of dynamic queries with dynamically generated columns in a traditional SQL database. So I feel a NoSQL database would be much cleaner. I'm looking at MongoDB and it looks pretty promising. Anyway, I'm attempting to make sense of it all. Also, I will be using MongoMapper in Ruby. Anyway though, I'm confused as to how to layout things in such a freeform database. I've read http://stackoverflow.com/questions/2170152/nosql-best-practices and the answer there says that normalization is usually bad in a NoSQL DB. So how would be the best way of laying out say a simple blog with users, posts, and comments? My natural thought was to have 3 collections for each and then link them by a unique ID. But this apparently is wrong? So, what are some of the ways to lay out such a thing? My concern with the answer given in the other question is what if the author's name changed. You'd have to go through updating a ton of posts and comments. But is this an ok thing to do with NoSQL?

    Read the article

  • Practical rules for premature optimization

    - by DougW
    It seems that the phrase "Premature Optimization" is the buzz-word of the day. For some reason, iphone programmers in particular seem to think of avoiding premature optimization as a pro-active goal, rather than the natural result of simply avoiding distraction. The problem is, the term is beginning to be applied more and more to cases that are completely inappropriate. For example, I've seen a growing number of people say not to worry about the complexity of an algorithm, because that's premature optimization (eg http://stackoverflow.com/questions/2190275/help-sorting-an-nsarray-across-two-properties-with-nssortdescriptor/2191720#2191720). Frankly, I think this is just laziness, and appalling to disciplined computer science. But it has occurred to me that maybe considering the complexity and performance of algorithms is going the way of assembly loop unrolling, and other optimization techniques that are now considered unnecessary. What do you think? Are we at the point now where deciding between an O(n^n) and O(n!) complexity algorithm is irrelevant? What about O(n) vs O(n*n)? What do you consider "premature optimization"? What practical rules do you use to consciously or unconsciously avoid it? This is a bit vague, but I'm curious to hear other peoples' opinions on the topic.

    Read the article

  • Singleton Properties

    - by coffeeaddict
    Ok, if I create a singleton class and expose the singleton object through a public static property...I understand that. But my singleton class has other properties in it. Should those be static? Should those also be private? I just want to be able to access all properties of my singleton class by doing this: MySingletonClass.SingletonProperty.SomeProperty2 Where SingletonProperty returns me the single singleton instance. I guess my question is, how do you expose the other properties in the singleton class..make them private and then access them through your public singleton static property?

    Read the article

  • ASP.NET sets of technologies/components

    - by Maxim Gueivandov
    Just a question of pure curiosity. It happens that development teams tend to stick to the same technological set(s) for some time, for various reasons (obviously, the lack of time, money, necessity and/or willingless to adopt new technologies). So, what are your usual sets of technologies/components to build an ASP.NET application (e.g., WebForms / MVC, Automapper, NInject, NHibernate / LinqToSql, JQuery / ASP.NET Ajax, ...) or architectural frameworks (Arch#, Catharsis, ...) and in which context do you use them (site size, speed/availability requirements, etc.)?

    Read the article

  • What is the best practice in regards to building composite dtos off of an aggregate root with domain

    - by Chance
    I'm trying to figure out the best approach/practice for assembling a composite data transfer object off of an aggregate root and would love to hear people's thoughts on this. For example, lets say I have a root that has a few domain objects as children. I want to assemble a specific view dto, based on some business logic, that either has attributes or full dto's of it's objects. What I'm struggling with is trying to figure out where that assembly should happen. I can see it going on the domain object of the aggregate root as there is some business logic associated with it. The benefits of this approach from what I've deduced thus far is that it should reduce the inevitable business logic from bleeding outisde of the domain object. It also allows for private methods that take care of tasks that could become more complex from an external builder. The downsides being that the domain object becomes much more entrenched in the application's workflow and represents much more than just the domain object. It also could become very large in the scenario where you need multiple composite Dtos. Alternatively, I could also see it belonging to some form of transfer object assembler where there is a builder for each domain object. The domain objects would still be responsible for GetDto() and UpdateFromDto(dto). Outside of that, the builder would handle the construction and deconstruction of composite dtos. The downside is kind of mentioned above, where I fear this will easily lead to developers unfamiliar with DDD bleeding a ton of business logic into the assembler which is what I want to desperately avoid. Any thoughts would be greatly apperciated.

    Read the article

  • What's the standard way to organize the contents of Java packages -- specifically the location of in

    - by RenderIn
    I suppose this could go for many OO languages. I'm building my domain objects and am not sure where the best place is for the interfaces & abstract classes. If I have a pets package with various implementations of the APet abstract class: should it live side-by-side with them or in the parent package? How about interfaces? It seems like they almost have to live above the implementations in the parent package, since there could potentially be other subpackages which implement it, while there seems to be a stronger correlation between one abstract class and a subpackage. e.g. com.foo com.foo.IConsumer (interface) com.foo.APet (abstract) com.foo.pets.Dog extends APet implements IConsumer OR com.foo com.foo.IConsumer (interface) com.foo.pets.APet (abstract) com.foo.pets.Dog extends APet implements IConsumer or something else?

    Read the article

  • Creating combinations that have no more one intersecting element

    - by khuss
    I am looking to create a special type of combination in which no two sets have more than one intersecting element. Let me explain with an example: Let us say we have 9 letter set that contains A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, and I If you create the standard non-repeating combinations of three letters you will have 9C3 sets. These will contain sets like ABC, ABD, BCD, etc. I am looking to create sets that have at the most only 1 common letter. So in this example, we will get following sets: ABC, ADG, AEI, AFH, BEH, BFG, BDI, CFI, CDH, CEG, DEF, and GHI - note that if you take any two sets there are no more than 1 repeating letter. What would be a good way to generate such sets? It should be scalable solution so that I can do it for a set of 1000 letters, with sub set size of 4. Any help is highly appreciated. Thanks

    Read the article

  • Is it okay to use try catch inside finally?

    - by Hiral Lakdavala
    Hi, I am using a buffered writer and my code, closes the writer in the finally block. My code is like this. ........... BufferedWriter theBufferedWriter = null; try{ theBufferedWriter =..... .... ...... ..... } catch (IOException anException) { .... } finally { try { theBufferedWriter.close(); } catch (IOException anException) { anException.printStackTrace(); } } I have to use the try catch inside the clean up code in finally as theBufferedWriter might also throw an IOException. I do not want to throw this exception to the calling methos. Is it a good practice to use a try catch in finally? If not what is the alternative? Please suggest. Regards, Hiral

    Read the article

  • Storing year/make/model in a database?

    - by Mark
    Here's what I'm thinking (excuse the Django format): class VehicleMake(Model): name = CharField(max_length=50) class VehicleModel(Model): make = ForeignKey(VehicleMake) name = CharField(max_length=50) class VehicleYear(Model): model = ForeignKey(VehicleModel) year = PositiveIntegerField() This is going to be used in those contingent drop-down select boxes, which would visually be laid out like [- Year -][- Make -][- Model -]. So, to query the data I need I would first have to select all distinct years from the years table, sorted descending. Then I'd find all the vehicle makes that have produced a model in that year. And then all the models by that make in that year. Is this a good way to do it, or should I re-arrange the foreign keys somehow? Or use a many-to-many table for the years/models so that no year is repeated?

    Read the article

  • Pros / Cons displaying list of users at login page

    - by Radu094
    We seem to have a lot of clients asking us to change the login screen in this manner: Display a list of all available users (thumbnail picture + name) User selects a username from the list A password prompt appears near the username User enters password then presses enter This sounds remarcably similar to the Windows XP login, which is probably where they got the ideea in the first place. There are only about 4 - 5 different users that can login at any given station, so implementing that list on one screen is feasable. So I was wondering if there are any usability experts with some word on this method of login. As far as I can tell, MS droped this behaviour in Vista/Win7, didn't they?

    Read the article

  • Class hierarchy problem (with generic's variance!)

    - by devoured elysium
    The problem: class StatesChain : IState, IHasStateList { private TasksChain tasks = new TasksChain(); ... public IList<IState> States { get { return _taskChain.Tasks; } } IList<ITask> IHasTasksCollection.Tasks { get { return _taskChain.Tasks; } <-- ERROR! You can't do this in C#! I want to return an IList<ITask> from an IList<IStates>. } } Assuming the IList returned will be read-only, I know that what I'm trying to achieve is safe (or is it not?). Is there any way I can accomplish what I'm trying? I wouldn't want to try to implement myself the TasksChain algorithm (again!), as it would be error prone and would lead to code duplication. Maybe I could just define an abstract Chain and then implement both TasksChain and StatesChain from there? Or maybe implementing a Chain<T> class? How would you approach this situation? The Details: I have defined an ITask interface: public interface ITask { bool Run(); ITask FailureTask { get; } } and a IState interface that inherits from ITask: public interface IState : ITask { IState FailureState { get; } } I have also defined an IHasTasksList interface: interface IHasTasksList { List<Tasks> Tasks { get; } } and an IHasStatesList: interface IHasTasksList { List<Tasks> States { get; } } Now, I have defined a TasksChain, that is a class that has some code logic that will manipulate a chain of tasks (beware that TasksChain is itself a kind of ITask!): class TasksChain : ITask, IHasTasksList { IList<ITask> tasks = new List<ITask>(); ... public List<ITask> Tasks { get { return _tasks; } } ... } I am implementing a State the following way: public class State : IState { private readonly TaskChain _taskChain = new TaskChain(); public State(Precondition precondition, Execution execution) { _taskChain.Tasks.Add(precondition); _taskChain.Tasks.Add(execution); } public bool Run() { return _taskChain.Run(); } public IState FailureState { get { return (IState)_taskChain.Tasks[0].FailureTask; } } ITask ITask.FailureTask { get { return FailureState; } } } which, as you can see, makes use of explicit interface implementations to "hide" FailureTask and instead show FailureState property. The problem comes from the fact that I also want to define a StatesChain, that inherits both from IState and IHasStateList (and that also imples ITask and IHasTaskList, implemented as explicit interfaces) and I want it to also hide IHasTaskList's Tasks and only show IHasStateList's States. (What is contained in "The problem" section should really be after this, but I thought puting it first would be way more reader friendly). (pff..long text) Thanks!

    Read the article

  • Saving Abstract and Sub classes to database

    - by bretddog
    Hi, I have an abstract class "StrategyBase", and a set of sub classes, StrategyA/B/C etc. The sub classes use some of the properties of the base class, and have some individual properties. My question is how to save this to a database. I'm currently using SqlCE, and Linq-To-Sql by creating entity classes automatically with SqlMetal.exe. I've seen there are three solutions shown in this question, but I'm not able to see how these solutions will work or not with SqlMetal/entity classes. Though it seems to me the "concrete table inheritance" would probably work without any manual modifying. What about the other two, would they be problematic? For "Single Table Inheritance" wouldn't all classes get all variables, even though they don't need them? And for the "Class table inheritance" solution I can't really see at all how that will map into the entity-classes for a useful purpose. I may note that I extend these partial entity classes for making the classes of my business objects. I may also consider moving to EntityFramework instead of SqlMetal/Linq2Sql, so would be nice also to know if that makes any difference to what schema is easy to implement. One likely important thing to note is that I will constantly be develop new strategies, which makes me have to modify the program code, and probably the database shcema; when adding a new strategy. Sorry the question is a bit "all over the place", but hopefully it's some clear advantages/disadvantages here that you may be able to advice. ? Cheers!

    Read the article

  • Recommendations for an in memory database vs thread safe data structures

    - by yx
    TLDR: What are the pros/cons of using an in-memory database vs locks and concurrent data structures? I am currently working on an application that has many (possibly remote) displays that collect live data from multiple data sources and renders them on screen in real time. One of the other developers have suggested the use of an in memory database instead of doing it the standard way our other systems behaves, which is to use concurrent hashmaps, queues, arrays, and other objects to store the graphical objects and handling them safely with locks if necessary. His argument is that the DB will lessen the need to worry about concurrency since it will handle read/write locks automatically, and also the DB will offer an easier way to structure the data into as many tables as we need instead of having create hashmaps of hashmaps of lists, etc and keeping track of it all. I do not have much DB experience myself so I am asking fellow SO users what experiences they have had and what are the pros & cons of inserting the DB into the system?

    Read the article

  • Many-To-Many dimensional model

    - by Mevdiven
    Folks, I have a dimension table called DIM_FILE which holds information of the files we received from customers. Each file has detail records which constitutes my FACT table, CUST_DETAIL. In the main process, file is gone through several stages and each stage tags a status to it. Long in a short, I have many-to-many relationship. Any ideas around star schema dimensional modeling. A customer record only belong to a single file and a file can have multiple statuses. FACT ---- CustID FileID AmountDue DIM_FILE -------- FileID FileName DateReceived FILE_STATUS ----------- FileID StatusDateTime StatusCode

    Read the article

  • Accessing a Class Member from a First-Class Function

    - by dbyrne
    I have a case class which takes a list of functions: case class A(q:Double, r:Double, s:Double, l:List[(Double)=>Double]) I have over 20 functions defined. Some of these functions have their own parameters, and some of them also use the q, r, and s values from the case class. Two examples are: def f1(w:Double) = (d:Double) => math.sin(d) * w def f2(w:Double, q:Double) = (d:Double) => d * q * w The problem is that I then need to reference q, r, and s twice when instantiating the case class: A(0.5, 1.0, 2.0, List(f1(3.0), f2(4.0, 0.5))) //0.5 is referenced twice I would like to be able to instantiate the class like this: A(0.5, 1.0, 2.0, List(f1(3.0), f2(4.0))) //f2 already knows about q! What is the best technique to accomplish this? Can I define my functions in a trait that the case class extends? EDIT: The real world application has 7 members, not 3. Only a small number of the functions need access to the members. Most of the functions don't care about them.

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294  | Next Page >