Search Results

Search found 11838 results on 474 pages for 'adolf garlic save bbc6music'.

Page 68/474 | < Previous Page | 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75  | Next Page >

  • PDO bindparam not working.

    - by jim
    I am trying to save data into a database using PDO. All columns save correctly with the exception of one. No matter what I try, I cannot get the data to go in. myfunc($db, $data) { echo $data; // <----- Outputs my data. example: 'jim jones' $stmt = $db->prepare("CALL test(:id, :data, :ip, :expires)"); $stmt->bindParam(':id', $id, PDO::PARAM_STR); $stmt->bindParam(':data', $data, PDO::PARAM_STR); $stmt->bindParam(':ip', $ip, PDO::PARAM_STR); $stmt->bindParam(':expires', $expires, PDO::PARAM_STR); ... } So even after verifying that the data variable in fact holds my data, the bindParam method will not bind. When I echo the data variable, I can see the data is there. It will not save though. If I copy the echo'd output of the data variable to screen and paste it into a new variable, it WILL save. I'm at this now for a couple of hours. Can someone please have a look? EDIT: I want to also mention that I have tried using bindValue() in place of bindParam() and the data for the data variable will still not save.

    Read the article

  • Is it approproate it use django signals withing the same app

    - by Alex Lebedev
    Trying to add email notification to my app in the cleanest way possible. When certain fields of a model change, app should send a notification to a user. Here's my old solution: from django.contrib.auth import User class MyModel(models.Model): user = models.ForeignKey(User) field_a = models.CharField() field_b = models.CharField() def save(self, *args, **kwargs): old = self.__class__.objects.get(pk=self.pk) if self.pk else None super(MyModel, self).save(*args, **kwargs) if old and old.field_b != self.field_b: self.notify("b-changed") # Sevelar more events here # ... def notify(self, event) subj, text = self._prepare_notification(event) send_mail(subj, body, settings.DEFAULT_FROM_EMAIL, [self.user.email], fail_silently=True) This worked fine while I had one or two notification types, but after that just felt wrong to have so much code in my save() method. So, I changed code to signal-based: from django.db.models import signals def remember_old(sender, instance, **kwargs): """pre_save hanlder to save clean copy of original record into `old` attribute """ instance.old = None if instance.pk: try: instance.old = sender.objects.get(pk=instance.pk) except ObjectDoesNotExist: pass def on_mymodel_save(sender, instance, created, **kwargs): old = instance.old if old and old.field_b != instance.field_b: self.notify("b-changed") # Sevelar more events here # ... signals.pre_save.connect(remember_old, sender=MyModel, dispatch_uid="mymodel-remember-old") signals.post_save.connect(on_mymodel_save, sender=MyModel, dispatch_uid="mymodel-on-save") The benefit is that I can separate event handlers into different module, reducing size of models.py and I can enable/disable them individually. The downside is that this solution is more code and signal handlers are separated from model itself and unknowing reader can miss them altogether. So, colleagues, do you think it's worth it?

    Read the article

  • Core Data and many Entity

    - by mr.octobor
    I'm newbie and I must save "Ranking" and "Level" of user. I create file Ranking.xcdatamodel for save "Ranking" with entity name Ranking (property is Rank, Name) I can save and show it. but when I create entity Level (property is CurrentLevel) my program is crash and show this message Unresolved error Error Domain=NSCocoaErrorDomain Code=134100 UserInfo=0x60044b0 "Operation could not be completed. (Cocoa error 134100.)", { metadata = { NSPersistenceFrameworkVersion = 248; NSStoreModelVersionHashes = { Users = ; }; NSStoreModelVersionHashesVersion = 3; NSStoreModelVersionIdentifiers = ( ); NSStoreType = SQLite; NSStoreUUID = "41225AD0-B508-4AA7-A5E2-15D6990FF5E7"; "_NSAutoVacuumLevel" = 2; }; reason = "The model used to open the store is incompatible with the one used to create the store"; } I don't know how to save "Level" please suggest me.

    Read the article

  • NHibernate: how to handle entity-based validation using session-per-request pattern, without control

    - by Seth Petry-Johnson
    What is the best way to do entity-based validation (each entity class has an IsValid() method that validates its internal members) in ASP.NET MVC, with a "session-per-request" model, where the controller has zero (or limited) knowledge of the ISession? Here's the pattern I'm using: Get an entity by ID, using an IFooRepository that wraps the current NH session. This returns a connected entity instance. Load the entity with potentially invalid data, coming from the form post. Validate the entity by callings its IsValid() method. If valid, call IFooRepository.Save(entity). Otherwise, display error message. The session is currently opened when the request begins and flushed when the request ends. Since my entity is connected to a session, flushing the session attempts to save the changes even if the object is invalid. What's the best way to keep validation logic in the entity class, limit controller knowledge of NH, and avoid saving invalid changes at the end of a request? Option 1: Explicitly evict on validation failure, implicitly flush: if the validation fails, I could manually evict the invalid object in the action method. If successful, I do nothing and the session is automatically flushed. Con: error prone and counter-intuitive ("I didn't call .Save(), why are my invalid changes being saved anyways?") Option 2: Explicitly flush, do nothing by default: By default I can dispose of the session on request end, only flushing if the controller indicates success. I'd probably create a SaveChanges() method in my base controller that sets a flag indicating success, and then query this flag when closing the session at request end. Pro: More intuitive to troubleshoot if dev forgets this step [relative to option 1] Con: I have to call IRepository.Save(entity)' and SaveChanges(). Option 3: Always work with disconnected objects: I could modify my repositories to return disconnected/transient objects, and modify the Repo.Save() method to re-attach them. Pro: Most intuitive, given that controllers don't know about NH. Con: Does this defeat many of the benefits I'd get from NH?

    Read the article

  • Saving a "project"-type document (containing sub-documents)

    - by andyvn22
    I'm trying to create a "project"-like document, in that it contains subdocuments in a specified directory. I'd like a brand new save of a document to set up that directory with appropriate subdirectories. I'd like a "Save As" to copy all those subdirectories and any files within them to the new location. But I'd like a "Save" to only update certain data files and (of course) not overwrite all the subdocuments! What's the "safe" way to do this? I tried keeping track of the file's location in my document, and checking to see if it was the same or different than the save location, but it feels messy, and I'm worried that Apple is doing something behind the scenes that will make this direct URL-to-URL comparison fail in some circumstances. Is there a standard way to do something like this?

    Read the article

  • Grails pattern to reuse template on error

    - by bsreekanth
    Hello, I have a gsp template, where the data for create view is passed through the controller. def create = { def bookInstance = new Book() bookInstance .properties = params def map = getDefaultValues() render(template: "create", model: [bookInstance : bookInstance , title: map.title, somelist: somelist ....]) the gsp template <g:select optionKey="id" from="${somelist}" name="somelist.id" value="${bookInstance ?.somelist?.id}" noSelection="['null': '']"></g:select> now, in the save method, if there is an error, it returns currently populated and validated instance (default scaffold implementation) render(template: "create", model: [bookInstance : bookInstance ]) But the fields in the gsp (error page rendered from save action) is empty. I could see the reason as it looks the value in "${somelist}" , but it is not used in save method. Do i just need to check for null in the gsp and use whichever map is available, or any better method (passing all the map in the save method is not an option) .. thanks in advance..

    Read the article

  • Can't DER encode and BER decode RSA public key

    - by Mildred
    I have problems using Crypto++ to save a RSA public key (that I obtained loading a private key file in PKCS#8 format). When decoding the key, I always get a BERDecodeErr exception. Here is the code I am using: CryptoPP::RSASSA_PKCS1v15_SHA_Signer _signer; CryptoPP::RSASSA_PKCS1v15_SHA_Verifier _verifier; CryptoPP::ByteQueue bytes; //_signer.AccessPublicKey().Save(bytes); // seem to save private key instead _signer.AccessKey().DEREncodePublicKey(bytes); //_verifier.AccessKey().Load(bytes); //_verifier.AccessKey().BERDecodePublicKey(bytes, 0, 0); _verifier.AccessPublicKey().Load(bytes); I also tried with the instructions commented above, without success. How do you do to save or open the public key? The public key looks like this in hex format, is there a tool to check its format / validity (regarding what crypto++ supports) ? 3081890281810097e24f2e95504a397e90fbc56d1b330ab2ab97a0d326007b890e40013f9e1d9bd9 f54b0c0840782ddae19b5b4595d8f8b9ffe0d2120174fcbc39585c5867cd2dfba69f8e540caa2c52 de8f08278a34e9249120500117f0ba756c5bb2be660013160db9f82f75deb7ccf63742a9e945da6c cf30c2b109b73342daaabd02b872e50203010001

    Read the article

  • Receiving a JSON string & saving one of the array paramaters to the database as a full string

    - by ElTren
    Hi I have a JSON string that looks like this (Usingt Rails and a REST service) { person: { name:"Pepe", last:"Smith" hats:[ { team:"lakers", color:"purple"}, { team:"heats", color:"red" }] } } I want to be able to able to get that JSON, and save the Person to the database, but I want to save the "hats".. as a string to the database; without parsing it or anything like that i.e. I want to save this to SQL: hats = "[ { team:"lakers", color:"purple"}, { team:"heats", color:"red" }] }" Is there a way to do this in rails?

    Read the article

  • Under what circumstances would a LINQ-to-SQL Entity "lose" a changed field?

    - by John Rudy
    I'm going nuts over what should be a very simple situation. In an ASP.NET MVC 2 app (not that I think this matters), I have an edit action which takes a very small entity and makes a few changes. The key portion (outside of error handling/security) looks like this: Todo t = Repository.GetTodoByID(todoID); UpdateModel(t); Repository.Save(); Todo is the very simple, small entity with the following fields: ID (primary key), FolderID (foreign key), PercentComplete, TodoText, IsDeleted and SaleEffortID (foreign key). Each of these obviously corresponds to a field in the database. When UpdateModel(t) is called, t does get correctly updated for all fields which have changed. When Repository.Save() is called, by the time the SQL is written out, FolderID reverts back to its original value. The complete code to Repository.Save(): public void Save() { myDataContext.SubmitChanges(); } myDataContext is an instance of the DataContext class created by the LINQ-to-SQL designer. Nothing custom has been done to this aside from adding some common interfaces to some of the entities. I've validated that the FolderID is getting lost before the call to Repository.Save() by logging out the generated SQL: UPDATE [Todo].[TD_TODO] SET [TD_PercentComplete] = @p4, [TD_TodoText] = @p5, [TD_IsDeleted] = @p6 WHERE ([TD_ID] = @p0) AND ([TD_TDF_ID] = @p1) AND /* Folder ID */ ([TD_PercentComplete] = @p2) AND ([TD_TodoText] = @p3) AND (NOT ([TD_IsDeleted] = 1)) AND ([TD_SE_ID] IS NULL) /* SaleEffort ID */ -- @p0: Input BigInt (Size = -1; Prec = 0; Scale = 0) [5] -- @p1: Input BigInt (Size = -1; Prec = 0; Scale = 0) [1] /* this SHOULD be 4 and in the update list */ -- @p2: Input TinyInt (Size = -1; Prec = 0; Scale = 0) [90] -- @p3: Input NVarChar (Size = 4000; Prec = 0; Scale = 0) [changing text] -- @p4: Input TinyInt (Size = -1; Prec = 0; Scale = 0) [0] -- @p5: Input NVarChar (Size = 4000; Prec = 0; Scale = 0) [changing text foo] -- @p6: Input Bit (Size = -1; Prec = 0; Scale = 0) [True] -- Context: SqlProvider(Sql2005) Model: AttributedMetaModel Build: 4.0.30319.1 So somewhere between UpdateModel(t) (where I've validated in the debugger that FolderID updated) and the output of this SQL, the FolderID reverts. The other fields all save. (Well, OK, I haven't validated SaleEffortID yet, because that subsystem isn't really ready yet, but everything else saves.) I've exhausted my own means of research on this: Does anyone know of conditions which would cause a partial entity reset (EG, something to do with long foreign keys?), and/or how to work around this?

    Read the article

  • Fill a rails form with a hashmap

    - by Ignace
    Hey, I have a difficult situation. I let the the user create a form through a Rich Text Editor and then I save this. So for example, I save this literally into my DB: http://pastebin.com/DNdeetJp (how can you post HTML here? It gets interpreted, so now I use pastebin...) On another page I wrap this in a form_tag and it gets presented as it should be. What I want to do is save this as a template and save the answers as a hashmap to my DB. This works well, but the problem is I want to recreate what checkbox/radiobutton/... is selected when the user goes back to the page. So I want to fill the form with the answers from the hashmap. Is there a way to use a 'dummy' model or something else to accomplish this? Thanks!

    Read the article

  • Sharepoint 2007: Disabling Edit/Read Only mode?

    - by TheGambler
    If I open a doc in read only mode I'm able to press save and then it opens up a save as box and the default directory is the directory on the sharepoint server and if you press save you save it to the server. This actually makes the whole process not really "read only" mode since I could actually update the document. Is there a way to prevent this from happening so that if someone chooses read only there is no way possible to updload any changes back to the sharepoint site? Also, it has been suggested as a solution to get rid of the edit/read only option so that people have to check out the document. Is there a way to remove the edit/read only option on documents?

    Read the article

  • [Ruby on Rails] scribd_fu gsub error

    - by siulamvictor
    I have an application which allow user upload documents to Scribd. I tried to use scribd_fu in Rails. An error occurred when the controller try to save the model. NoMethodError in DocumentsController#processupload private method `gsub' called for nil:NilClass here is the related controller def processupload @document = Document.new(params[:document]) if @document.save session[:scribdid] = @document.ipaper_access_key else xxxxx and this is the related html form <form action="/documents/processupload" enctype="multipart/form-data" method="post"> <input name="authenticity_token" type="hidden" value="FqTCmlGGIvRjiaiaa+YtF50wgI7FfpxfrZsulLCbXcw=" /> <label class="label_h2">Upload a Document</label> <input id="document_document_upload" name="document[document_upload]" size="30" type="file" /></div> <div class="buttons"><button type="submit" class="positive"><img src="/images/icons/tick.png" alt="Save Document"/>Save Document</button> </form> Is there anything wrong?

    Read the article

  • ActiveRecord exceptions not rescued

    - by zoopzoop
    I have the following code block: unless User.exist?(...) begin user = User.new(...) # Set more attributes of user user.save! rescue ActiveRecord::RecordInvalid, ActiveRecord::RecordNotUnique => e # Check if that user was created in the meantime user = User.exists?(...) raise e if user.nil? end end The reason is, as you can probably guess, that multiple processes might call this method at the same time to create the user (if it doesn't already exist), so while the first one enters the block and starts initializing a new user, setting the attributes and finally calling save!, the user might already be created. In that case I want to check again if the user exists and only raise the exception if it still doesn't (= if no other process has created it in the meantime). The problem is, that regularly ActiveRecord::RecordInvalid exceptions are raised from the save! and not rescued from the rescue block. Any ideas? EDIT: Alright, this is weird. I must be missing something. I refactored the code according to Simone's tip to look like this: unless User.find_by_email(...).present? # Here we know the user does not exist yet user = User.new(...) # Set more attributes of user unless user.save # User could not be saved for some reason, maybe created by another request? raise StandardError, "Could not create user for order #{self.id}." unless User.exists?(:email => ...) end end Now I got the following exception: ActiveRecord::RecordNotUnique: Mysql::DupEntry: Duplicate entry '[email protected]' for key 'index_users_on_email': INSERT INTO `users` ... thrown in the line where it says 'unless user.save'. How can that be? Rails thinks the user can be created because the email is unique but then the Mysql unique index prevents the insert? How likely is that? And how can it be avoided?

    Read the article

  • SaveFileDialog problem (C#) (VS2008)

    - by typoknig
    Hi all, I am having an issue with SaveFileDialog for some reason. All I want to do is extract data from a text box line by line and write it to a text file, then save that text file to the desktop. The first bit of code works fine (though it doesn't save to the desktop). The second bit of code is what I want to use, but when it creates the text file the text file is empty. What did I do wrong in my second bit of code? This code works, but it does not save to the desktop and it isn't as nice as the second code. //When the Save button is clicked the contents of the text box will be written to a text file. private void saveButton_Click(object sender, EventArgs e) { int textBoxLines = textBox.Lines.Count(); if (File.Exists(saveFile)) { result = MessageBox.Show("The file " + saveFile + " already exists.\r\nDo you want to replace it?", "File Already Exists!", MessageBoxButtons.YesNo); if (result == DialogResult.Yes) { TextWriter tw1 = new StreamWriter(saveFile); for (int i = 0; i < textBoxLines; i++) { tw1.WriteLine(textBox.Lines.GetValue(i)); } tw1.Close(); } if (result == DialogResult.No) { MessageBox.Show("Please move or rename existing " + saveFile + "\r\nBefore attempting to save again.", "Message"); } } else { TextWriter tw2 = new StreamWriter(saveFile); for (int i = 0; i < textBoxLines; i++) { tw2.WriteLine(textBox.Lines.GetValue(i)); } tw2.Close(); } } This code does not work, but it is what I want to use. //When the Save button is clicked the contents of the text box will be written to a text file. private void saveButton_Click(object sender, EventArgs e) { int textBoxLines = textBox.Lines.Count(); Stream saveStream; SaveFileDialog saveDialog = new SaveFileDialog(); saveDialog.Filter = "txt files (*.txt)|*.txt|All files (*.*)|*.*"; saveDialog.FilterIndex = 2; saveDialog.RestoreDirectory = true; saveDialog.FileName = (saveFile); saveDialog.InitialDirectory = (Environment.GetFolderPath(Environment.SpecialFolder.Desktop)); if (saveDialog.ShowDialog() == DialogResult.OK) { if ((saveStream = saveDialog.OpenFile()) != null) { StreamWriter tw = new StreamWriter(saveStream); for (int i = 0; i < textBoxLines; i++) { tw.WriteLine(textBox.Lines.GetValue(i)); } saveStream.Close(); } } }

    Read the article

  • Django database caching

    - by hekevintran
    I have a Django form that uses an integer field to lookup a model object by its primary key. The form has a save() method that uses the model object referred to by the integer field. The model's manager's get() method is called twice, once in the clean method and once in the save() method: class MyForm(forms.Form): id_a = fields.IntegerField() def clean_id_a(user_id): id_a = self.cleaned_data['id_a'] try: # here is the first call to get MyModel.objects.get(id=id_a) except User.DoesNotExist: raise ValidationError('Object does not exist') def save(self): id_a = self.cleaned_data['id_a'] # here is the second call to get my_model_object = MyModel.objects.get(id=id_a) # do other stuff I wasn't sure whether this hits the database two times or one time so I returned the object itself in the clean method so that I could avoid a second get() call. Does calling get() hit the database two times? Or is the object cached in the thread? class MyForm(forms.Form): id_a = fields.IntegerField() def clean_id_a(user_id): id_a = self.cleaned_data['id_a'] try: # here is my workaround return MyModel.objects.get(id=id_a) except User.DoesNotExist: raise ValidationError('Object does not exist') def save(self): # looking up the cleaned value returns the model object my_model_object = self.cleaned_data['id_a'] # do other stuff

    Read the article

  • Resizing Images with ASP.NET and saving to Database

    - by Ryan
    I need to take an uploaded image, resize it, and save it to the database. Simple enough, except I don't have access to save any temp files to the server. I'm taking the image, resizing it as a Bitmap, and need to save it to a database field as the original image type (JPG for example). How can I get the FileBytes() like this, so I can save it to the database? Before I was using ImageUpload.FileBytes() but now that I'm resizing I'm dealing with Images and Bitmaps instead of FileUploads and can't seem find anything that will give me the bytes. Thanks!

    Read the article

  • Generating two thumbnails from the same image in Django

    - by Titus
    Hello, this seems like quite an easy problem but I can't figure out what is going on here. Basically, what I'd like to do is create two different thumbnails from one image on a Django model. What ends up happening is that it seems to be looping and recreating the same image (while appending an underscore to it each time) until it throws up an error that the filename is to big. So, you end up something like: OSError: [Errno 36] File name too long: 'someimg________________etc.jpg' Here is the code: def save(self, *args, **kwargs): if self.image: iname = os.path.split(self.image.name)[-1] fname, ext = os.path.splitext(iname) tlname, tsname = fname + '_thumb_l' + ext, fname + '_thumb_s' + ext self.thumb_large.save(tlname, make_thumb(self.image, size=(250,250))) self.thumb_small.save(tsname, make_thumb(self.image, size=(100,100))) super(Artist, self).save(*args, **kwargs) def make_thumb(infile, size=(100,100)): infile.seek(0) image = Image.open(infile) if image.mode not in ('L', 'RGB'): image.convert('RGB') image.thumbnail(size, Image.ANTIALIAS) temp = StringIO() image.save(temp, 'png') return ContentFile(temp.getvalue()) I didn't show imports for the sake of brevity. Assume there are two ImageFields on the Artist model: thumb_large, and thumb_small. If this isn't the correct way to do it, I'd appreciate any feedback. Thanks!

    Read the article

  • Is saving to database just to get an ID a bad hack?

    - by Narsil
    I hope the title is not too confusing. I am trying to make folders with linq-to-sql objects' IDs. Actually I have to create folders before I should save them. I will use them to keep user uploaded files. As you can see I have to create the folder with the FileID before I can save it there. So I just save a record which will be edited or maybe deleted File newFile = new File(); ...//add some values to fields so they don't throw rule violations db.AddFile(newFile); db.Save(); System.IO.Directory.CreateDirectory("..Uploads/"+newFile.FileId.ToString()); After that I will have to edit some fields and save again. Of course user might stop upload and I would have to delete it. I know I can write a stored procedure to get the next available FileID but some other upload happening at the same time would get the same number. So they would write in same directory which is a thing I don't want. Should I go on with this, would there be some problems? Can you think of a better way?

    Read the article

  • Django: Overriding ModelAdmin save_model not working

    - by tufelkinder
    Even after obj.save(), the obj still does not have an id, so I cannot access or manipulate the m2m records. Just keep getting a "instance needs to have a primary key value before a many-to-many relationship can be used" error. def save_model(self, request, obj, form, change): obj.save() # this doesn't work super(Table2Admin, self).save_model(request, obj, form, change) # still doesn't save for tb1 in obj.table1.all: tb1_obj = ThroughTable.objects.get(table1=bk, table2=obj) # do other stuff What am I doing wrong? Why do I need to do to save this model?

    Read the article

  • What is the best practice for adding persistence to an MVC model?

    - by etheros
    I'm in the process of implementing an ultra-light MVC framework in PHP. It seems to be a common opinion that the loading of data from a database, file etc. should be independent of the Model, and I agree. What I'm unsure of is the best way to link this "data layer" into MVC. Datastore interacts with Model //controller public function update() { $model = $this->loadModel('foo'); $data = $this->loadDataStore('foo', $model); $data->loadBar(9); //loads data and populates Model $model->setBar('bar'); $data->save(); //reads data from Model and saves } Controller mediates between Model and Datastore Seems a bit verbose and requires the model to know that a datastore exists. //controller public function update() { $model = $this->loadModel('foo'); $data = $this->loadDataStore('foo'); $model->setDataStore($data); $model->getDataStore->loadBar(9); //loads data and populates Model $model->setBar('bar'); $model->getDataStore->save(); //reads data from Model and saves } Datastore extends Model What happens if we want to save a Model extending a database datastore to a flatfile datastore? //controller public function update() { $model = $this->loadHybrid('foo'); //get_class == Datastore_Database $model->loadBar(9); //loads data and populates $model->setBar('bar'); $model->save(); //saves } Model extends datastore This allows for Model portability, but it seems wrong to extend like this. Further, the datastore cannot make use of any of the Model's methods. //controller extends model public function update() { $model = $this->loadHybrid('foo'); //get_class == Model $model->loadBar(9); //loads data and populates $model->setBar('bar'); $model->save(); //saves } EDIT: Model communicates with DAO //model public function __construct($dao) { $this->dao = $dao; } //model public function setBar($bar) { //a bunch of business logic goes here $this->dao->setBar($bar); } //controller public function update() { $model = $this->loadModel('foo'); $model->setBar('baz'); $model->save(); } Any input on the "best" option - or alternative - is most appreciated.

    Read the article

  • Working with hibernate/DAO problems

    - by Gandalf StormCrow
    Hello everyone here is my DAO class : public class UsersDAO extends HibernateDaoSupport { private static final Log log = LogFactory.getLog(UsersDAO.class); protected void initDao() { //do nothing } public void save(User transientInstance) { log.debug("saving Users instance"); try { getHibernateTemplate().saveOrUpdate(transientInstance); log.debug("save successful"); } catch (RuntimeException re) { log.error("save failed", re); throw re; } } public void update(User transientInstance) { log.debug("updating User instance"); try { getHibernateTemplate().update(transientInstance); log.debug("update successful"); } catch (RuntimeException re) { log.error("update failed", re); throw re; } } public void delete(User persistentInstance) { log.debug("deleting Users instance"); try { getHibernateTemplate().delete(persistentInstance); log.debug("delete successful"); } catch (RuntimeException re) { log.error("delete failed", re); throw re; } } public User findById( java.lang.Integer id) { log.debug("getting Users instance with id: " + id); try { User instance = (User) getHibernateTemplate() .get("project.hibernate.Users", id); return instance; } catch (RuntimeException re) { log.error("get failed", re); throw re; } } } Now I wrote a test class(not a junit test) to test is everything working, my user has these fields in the database : userID which is 5characters long string and unique/primary key, and fields such as address, dob etc(total 15 columns in database table). Now in my test class I intanciated User added the values like : User user = new User; user.setAddress("some address"); and so I did for all 15 fields, than at the end of assigning data to User object I called in DAO to save that to database UsersDao.save(user); and save works just perfectly. My question is how do I update/delete users using the same logic? Fox example I tried this(to delete user from table users): User user = new User; user.setUserID("1s54f"); // which is unique key for users no two keys are the same UsersDao.delete(user); I wanted to delete user with this key but its obviously different can someone explain please how to do these. thank you

    Read the article

  • undefined returned for currentView object in Backbone.Marionette

    - by ontk
    I am testing how a layout can listen to its subviews's custom events. I created a jsFiddle here where I have a layout, 2 regions and I instantiated 2 ItemViews and showed them in the layout's regions. The fiddle is in CoffeeScript. <div id="region"></div> <script id="layout-tmpl" type="text/_"> <h3>Heading</h3> <div id="content"></div> <div id="content2"></div> </script> <script id="item-tmpl" type="text/_"> <form> <label>Firstname:</lable> <input type="text" name="firstname" value="<%= firstname %>" /> <input type="button" value="Save" id="save" /> </form> </script> And the CoffeeScript is: SimpleLayout = Backbone.Marionette.Layout.extend template: '#layout-tmpl' regions: main: '#content' other: '#content2' initialize: () -> console.log @ onShow: () -> _.each @.regionManagers, (region, name, something) => console.log region.currentView # @.bindTo region.currentView, "custom:event", @callback callback: () -> alert "HELL YEAH" SimpleItemView = Backbone.Marionette.ItemView.extend template: "#item-tmpl" events: 'click #save': 'save' save: (evt) -> evt.preventDefault() @.trigger "custom:event" region = new Backbone.Marionette.Region el: "#region" layout = new SimpleLayout() region.show layout layout.main.show new SimpleItemView model: (new Backbone.Model firstname: "Olivier") layout.other.show new SimpleItemView model: (new Backbone.Model firstname: "Travis") I want the layout to listen to the ItemViews's custom events. In the onShow, I am looping through the region managers and trying to access the currentView object but it returns undefined. If I attach the same event handlers outside of the SimpleLayout class and after I show the itemviews, then the layout handlers the custom events properly. Thanks for your help.

    Read the article

  • What is the most elegant way to implement a business rule relating to a child collection in LINQ?

    - by AaronSieb
    I have two tables in my database: Wiki WikiId ... WikiUser WikiUserId (PK) WikiId UserId IsOwner ... These tables have a one (Wiki) to Many (WikiUser) relationship. How would I implement the following business rule in my LINQ entity classes: "A Wiki must have exactly one owner?" I've tried updating the tables as follows: Wiki WikiId (PK) OwnerId (FK to WikiUser) ... WikiUser WikiUserId (PK) WikiId UserId ... This enforces the constraint, but if I remove the owner's WikiUser record from the Wiki's WikiUser collection, I recieve an ugly SqlException. This seems like it would be difficult to catch and handle in the UI. Is there a way to perform this check before the SqlException is generated? A better way to structure my database? A way to catch and translate the SqlException to something more useful? Edit: I would prefer to keep the validation rules within the LINQ entity classes if possible. Edit 2: Some more details about my specific situation. In my application, the user should be able to remove users from the Wiki. They should be able to remove any user, except the user who is currently flagged as the "owner" of the Wiki (a Wiki must have exactly one owner at all times). In my control logic, I'd like to use something like this: wiki.WikiUsers.Remove(wikiUser); mRepository.Save(); And have any broken rules transferred to the UI layer. What I DON'T want to have to do is this: if(wikiUser.WikiUserId != wiki.OwnerId) { wiki.WikiUsers.Remove(wikiUser); mRepository.Save(); } else { //Handle errors. } I also don't particularly want to move the code to my repository (because there is nothing to indicate not to use the native Remove functions), so I also DON'T want code like this: mRepository.RemoveWikiUser(wiki, wikiUser) mRepository.Save(); This WOULD be acceptable: try { wiki.WikiUsers.Remove(wikiUser); mRepository.Save(); } catch(ValidationException ve) { //Display ve.Message } But this catches too many errors: try { wiki.WikiUsers.Remove(wikiUser); mRepository.Save(); } catch(SqlException se) { //Display se.Message } I would also PREFER NOT to explicitly call a business rule check (although it may become necessary): wiki.WIkiUsers.Remove(wikiUser); if(wiki.CheckRules()) { mRepository.Save(); } else { //Display broken rules }

    Read the article

  • What is the best way to create a wizard for web?

    - by Yan
    I want to create a wizard that includes a few steps, that in the final steps we need to include all the steps and save to the data base. What is the best design to do this ? Is there an implementation for jquery ? Do I need to save the steps in session till the final save ?

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75  | Next Page >