I think this is more of a polymorphism question but it applies to SubSonic table objects...
Here's the thing (and I love this one):
TblUser userObj = new TblUser(1);
Which fills userObj's properties with all of PK=1's goodies.
Now, I'd like to add more properties to the existing user object, for example, an ArrayList property of say, account numbers.
I've seen questions like this around - "add a property to an existing object...", but in this case, would it be most-recommended to create a user wrapper object, then have a TblUser property type, and my own other additional properties in this?
Ok, so it looks like once-again I have come up with a solution to this, but am still curious about the possibility of adding properties to existing objects.
All the generated SubSonic classes are partials so all you need to do to add extra properties/methods to them is to create your own partial class with the same name in the same namespace and the two will be merged at compile time. For example for your TblUser class:
public partial class TblUser
{
public List<AccountNumber> AccountNumbers
{
get
{
// Get and return the AccountNumbers
}
}
}
Related
Which series of XML namespaces will You use to serialize an object to XML using WCF?
For example, I have 4 types of Users (left to right) and they have data and references to members in my Users table. This way I could 1/2 have to remove functions and 2 methods because I do not have add/delete methods.
So to end up with code like
public void Save() {
microsoft.Office.Interop.Excel.Application, System.Application.Current.People, System.Runtime.Interop.Microsoft.Office.Interop.Outlook.Application,
Microsoft.Office.Interop.Outlook.Application,
Microsoft.Office.Interop.Excel.Application,
Microsoft.Office.Interop.Excel.Application,
Microsoft.Office.Interop.Outlook.
Microsoft.Office.Interop.Outlook,
Microsoft.Office.Interop.Contact,
Microsoft.Office.Interop.Outlook.
//General methods
}
It makes sense to me for someone to add the notes this method requires but that would allow me to have 2 methods.
Save a new class and create the form to save the new class
Write at least one file, Save or Open for reading?
Add a button about saving the file but then the form with some properties that the functionality should be saved to?
Is this the same? Or is there a better way?
Thanks!
I know that there are ways to access an EAttribute of an Eclipse EMF model by its featureID or by its name via different indirect approaches. For that I found the following: Eclipse EMF: How to get access EAttribute by name?
But what if I don't know the name of the attribute I want to get? Let's say, based on the design, the model has some fixed attributes by the developer, along with the features that can be set dynamically by the user.
So, for the time being I use the getEAllStructuralFeatures() and use indexes via get() to reach to the by-the-user-created attributes, since I know that the list I get will have the fixed attributes of the model as its first elements beginning with the index 0. But I find this solution unclear and inefficient. Also in some cases, that I want to work, not suitable.
E.g: IEMFEditProperty prop = EMFEditProperties.list(editingDomain, EMFMODELPackage.Literals.EMFMODEL.getEAllStructuralFeatures().get(X));
Do you know a solution or a workaround for this problem? As far as I can see, there are no direct methods to get such dynamically created features of the model.
Every help will be appreciated.
I have been working on a similar case recently where I first tried to define an EStructuralFeature to access exactly the setting/attribute of the object that I needed.
But if you look at how things work internally in ECore, you will find out, that there is no way this will ever work, since the indices are bound to the object identity of the EStructuralFeature objects created at runtime for the specific context (i.e. EClass instance).
My approach was then to either inspect the features proposed by EClass.getEAllStructuralFeatures or to iterate over the features and inspect the object returned by EObject.eGet for this very feature (where EClass eClass = eObject.eClass()).
Example: In a UML profile I have defined a UML Stereotype called "Bean" with a property called FactoryEntity. The property shall reference a UML Class with the Stereotype "Entity" that is closest to this very bean and for which a static factory method will be generated.
In the model I would then have one UML Class typed as Bean and one as Entity.
And for the Class typed as "Bean" I would then set a value for the attribute/property factoryEntity defined in the profile.
The question was then how the property value would be accessible in ECore. I ended up iterating the List of available EStructuralFeature of the EClass of the EObject and checking the type of the object returned by eGet.
final EObject eObject = (EObject) holdingClass.getValue(stereotype, stereoTypePropertyName);
final EList<EStructuralFeature> allEStructFeats = eObject.eClass().getEAllStructuralFeatures();
for(EStructuralFeature esf : allEStructFeats)
{
final Object o = eobject.eGet(esf);
if(o instanceof org.eclipse.uml2.uml.Class)
{
return (org.eclipse.uml2.uml.Class) o;
}
}
Maybe that is not the most elegant way to access structural features but it is the only one I thought was robust enough to last.
Please let me know if you have any suggestions on how to improve this.
I am having trouble posting a form that contains a Dictionary that contains an int as a key and a list of objects as a value.
Originally this was just a List of Objects and that worked fine and the type was:
List<MyObject> Fields
the working markup was
Fields_{0}__Property1
where {0} is the index of the object. To get it to post back the List of Objects I rendered the object with hidden fields like this:
#Html.HiddenFor(m => m.Property1, new { Name = string.Format("Fields[{0}].Property1", Model.Index), #id = string.Format("Fields_{0}__Property1", Model.Index) })
This worked well. Now however, we have a dictionary instead of a list and the list is inside the dictionary.
Now the type is:
Dictionary<int, List<MyObject>>.
I tested the format expected when we render the dictionary using Html.HiddenFor and so I've added hidden fields with the required format which now is:
#Html.HiddenFor(m => m.Property1, new { Name = string.Format("Fields[{0}][{1}].Property1", Model.Index, Model.Position), #id = string.Format("Fields_{0}__{1}__Property1", Model.Index, Model.Position) })
now the field id is
Fields_{0}__{1}__Property1
where {0} is the key of the dictionary and {1} is the index of the object in the list.
However on postback I now get
[InvalidCastException: Specified cast is not valid.]
System.Web.Mvc.CollectionHelpers.ReplaceDictionaryImpl(IDictionary`2 dictionary, IEnumerable`1 newContents) +131
I am guessing MVC is smart enough to render the fields of this complex object on the view but not smart enough to collect them back into the viewmodel when we post back.
I found this other guy who had a similar problem here and he solved it by not using a dictionary but instead creating a complex object. I'm wondering, however, if there's a quicker way that won't require me to rewrite the entire system.
Any ideas?
Update
I solved it by taking the source code of DefaultModelBinder and adjusting it.
I found the source here. I didn't create my own Binder because I want all the advanced functionality and validation rules to apply to all other elements.
Once I got the DefaultModelBinder compiling and working I found the part where the dictionary was failing to cast the complex items and wrote a custom Dictionary update method that solved the problem
You can always create a custom Model Binder to bind objects from request values exactly as you want. Simply create a class that implements the System.Web.Mvc.IModelBinder interface and implement the BindModel() method.
I was under the impression that Force.com eliminated the necessity of object-relational mapping.
I can't create a an object that extends a custom object like this:
class Program extends Program__C() { public Program() { super(); } }
So to "add a method to the Program__c() object" I have been doing this:
class Program {
Program__c program;
public Program() {
program = new Program__c();
}
}
But then this leads to the same ERM problems that I thought Force was supposed to eliminate by virtue of the intercourse between APEX and the DB.
Is there any way to extend custom objects, or at least add methods to custom objects, in APEX? Am I incorrect in that developers don't have to do ORM?
Thank you,
-Matthew Mosien
As far as I know (and I'm pretty certain), there is no way to extend custom objects in the manner you wish.
What you're doing seems to be a reasonable solution to the problem.
You don't have to do ORM in the sense that any objects and fields you have in your DB are already accessible in your code with no extra effort. However, you can't do much (if anything) to affect your schema programmatically in your code. You're kinda stuck with it.
Hope this helps!
I want to store Contacts on to Azure table(name and gender as a property). so I basically two classes . the one which derives from the TableSerivceContext and the other from TableServiceEntity. now I cant connect the pieces. What I will really do at the cotroller(I use MVC3)
tnx for any hint?
im assuming that you are receiving the properties (name and gender) via post from a view.
so your controller might be like this
public ActionResult DoSomething(User model)
{
}
so what you need to do is.. that. make a new ofject of the class thats derived from the TableServiceEntity. and assign the Properties.
like this
var tableUser = new TableUser(){Name = model.Name, Gender=model.Gender}
then from the class derived from TableServiceContext make an object. and use AddObject() method to add the user to the table
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/system.data.services.client.dataservicecontext.addobject.aspx
This is what I have done recently to create a very simple MVC3 + Windows Azure Table sample application:
Created a Model Class DataEntity inherit from TableServiceEntity which include all the table properties needed to store along with PartitionKey and RowKey
Created another Model class DataContext inherit from TableServiceConext which includes IQueryable sets up the Table
Created a Controller class which creates HTTPGet and HTTPPost method type ViewResult returning View. The controller also have code to create the Table first using Model DataContext type and then added code to call AddObject as DataEntity type as below:
DataContext context = new DataContext(storageAccount.TableEndpoint.AbsoluteUri, storageAccount.Credentials);
context.AddObject("DataEntryTable", dataEntity);
context.SaveChanges();
Finally you can create views from the controllers.
You would need to inherit ‘Contact’ from TableServiceEntity and a context class from TableServiceContext to provide all the methods to manage your ‘Contact’ entities. You can then invoke methods on the ‘Context’ class from anywhere (including the controller).
I have written an alternate Azure table storage client, Lucifure Stash, which does away with having to inherit from any base calls and supports additional abstractions over azure table storage. Lucifure Stash supports large data columns > 64K, arrays & lists, enumerations, composite keys, out of the box serialization, user defined morphing, public and private properties and fields and more.
It is available free for personal use at http://www.lucifure.com or via NuGet.com.
Download the Windows Azure Platform Training Kit and do the lab on Windows Azure Storage. In 15 minutes you will have a working prototype.