Re: ERXRestEntityDelegate
This one should be on the Wonder list, but: Is that a class that extends ERXStandardRestEntityDelegate? Yes I'm confused because the methods in ERXStandardRestEntityDelegate appear to require an EOEntity be passed in, but the name PersonRestEntityDelegate implies that it only handles the Person Entity. The reason for the entity is that you COULD register the same delegate for multiple entities (for instance, a more generic delegate that might use a centralized ACL system for permissions). If you're registering one-to-one, then you can just ignore the entity because it will always correspond to the entity you registered for. ms ___ Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored. Webobjects-dev mailing list (Webobjects-dev@lists.apple.com) Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription: http://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/webobjects-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com This email sent to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
ERXRestEntityDelegate
Thanks Mike and Chuck for your quick responses to my development flag question. I got the test running and it's pretty slick. Now I want to do it right. Looking at the API I understand that I need to create an Authentication Delegate and an Entity Delegate (at least) and the documentation is pretty clear on how to register and use those. I'm a little fuzzy on what, for example, the PersonRestEntityDelegate would look like from the Javadoc example. Is that a class that extends ERXStandardRestEntityDelegate? I'm confused because the methods in ERXStandardRestEntityDelegate appear to require an EOEntity be passed in, but the name PersonRestEntityDelegate implies that it only handles the Person Entity. Any advice would be greatly appreciated. Jeremy -- Jeremy Rosenberg Application Developer Institutional, Collaborative, and Academic Technologies IT Services Simon Fraser University Burnaby, BC, Canada V5A 1S6 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] "The first rule of WebObjects, you do not talk about WebObjects" ___ Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored. Webobjects-dev mailing list (Webobjects-dev@lists.apple.com) Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription: http://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/webobjects-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com This email sent to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Best Way® to test for existence of a rela tionship
Unfortunately, no. There's _lots_ of differences. There are a number
of attributes that they share, but they each have completely different
business logic for deriving those values, and they each have
attributes that are unique to themselves that would make no sense to
have on the other.
As uncommon as it is to actually need inheritance in the Model, the
amount of work I would have to do to not use it would far exceed the
amount of work I have to do to use it.
Believe me, I'm not using it just because it is a cool OO concept. Not
that I don't do that in other places in my app - just not here. :-)
Dave
On Apr 7, 2008, at 3:18 PM, Alexander Spohr wrote:
What are the other differences between RawMaterial and
ManufacturedPart?
Wouldn’t it be enough to just flag the RawMaterial ones as such and
just have one class for both?
atze
Am 07.04.2008 um 18:02 schrieb David Avendasora:
You know, I was hoping to avoid the whole question if the domain
was actually well-modeled or not, but with such dispersions cast on
my flawless modeling skills, I must respond! :-P
I have 2 types of Parts. One purchased from an outside vendor
(RawMaterial), and ones that are manufactured (ManufacturedPart).
A ManufacturedPart is made up of any number of component Parts.
These component Parts can be _either_ a RawMaterial or another
ManufacturedPart.
So I have modeled it like this:
ManufacturedPart ->> BillOfMaterial ->> BOMComponent -> Part
To make things more complicated each given Manufactured Part can
have one or more ways of making it and therefor have multiple
BillsOfMaterial.
Hence, I have a branching, recursive relationship tree that can be
any number of levels deep:
ManufacturedPart ->> BillOfMaterial ->> BOMComponent ->
ManufacturedPart ->> BillOfMaterial ->> BOMComponent ->
ManufacturedPart ->> Rinse, lather, repeat.
Or it can be very simple
ManufacturedPart ->> BillOfMaterial ->> BOMComponent ->> RawMaterial
What all this comes down to is that billsOfMaterial() does _not_
belong on Part as it does not belong on RawMaterial because a
RawMaterial is NOT manufactured by us so it will never have a
BillOfMaterial.
But there are several places in my code that I want to recursively
navigate this tree and I just don't see a "right" way to do that
without some variation of instanceOf (in code or in a fetch), a
case statement or adding the method to Part.
The simplicity of one simple method returning NSArray.emptyArray
wins. Even though it sullies my object graph, it does so in a much
less complicated, fragile way.
Dave
On Apr 7, 2008, at 11:26 AM, Chuck Hill wrote:
The real question is whether it makes sense in the domain for a
Part to have a bill of materials. The default implementation
could be
public NSArray billOfMaterials() { return this; }
With complex parts overriding it as appropriate. It could just be
that the model / design is incomplete and leading David into doing
Bad Things in code.
Otherwise, (a) the model is just wrong, or (b) David's processing
is just wrong.
___
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
Webobjects-dev mailing list (Webobjects-dev@lists.apple.com)
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
http://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/webobjects-dev/atze%40freeport.de
This email sent to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
Alexander Spohr
Freeport & Soliversum
Fax: +49 40 303 757 99
Web: http://www.freeport.de/
Box: http://dropbox.letsfile.com/02145299-4347-4671-aab9-1d3004eac51d
---
___
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
Webobjects-dev mailing list (Webobjects-dev@lists.apple.com)
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
http://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/webobjects-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
This email sent to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: stateless component
pageWithName called for stateless com.foo.bar.SomePage, new instance being created. Chuck On Apr 7, 2008, at 12:38 PM, Tonny Staunsbrink wrote: Hi Pierre and Chuck Could you give an example of what a warning log messsage should look like? /Tonny On Fri, Apr 4, 2008 at 3:00 AM, Mr. Pierre Frisch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: May be we should log a warning for this? Pierre -- Pierre Frisch [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Apr 3, 2008, at 10:39, Chuck Hill wrote: On Apr 3, 2008, at 10:28 AM, Tonny Staunsbrink wrote: The top level component is allways created, subcomponents are reused, not sure why Because they have to go in the page cache as unique instances recording page state. Stateless and page state don't mix. Chuck Cheers Tonny On Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 11:37 PM, Archibald Singleton <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote: Hello, >From the WO API docs: "For extra efficiency, you can create stateless components: components that can be shared between sessions. Stateless components aren't replicated each time they're needed; rather, a single shared instance is referenced each time the component is used." But logging calls to my stateless component constructor (subclass of ERXStatelessComponent), I see that's it's being called for every request and that new instances are created for each request. Maybe worth noting is the fact that the component is instantiated by a direct action (hence there are no sessions). I basically replicated what David showed in his lastest screencast re: the first hit to the app being a default action instead of a component action. I would have thought that that "shared instance" business means it's created once and reused all along? Could someone please be kind enough to enlighten me as to what's happening? TIA = tmk = ___ Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored. Webobjects-dev mailing list (Webobjects-dev@lists.apple.com) Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription: http://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/webobjects-dev/mezz.dk%40gmail.com This email sent to [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored. Webobjects-dev mailing list (Webobjects-dev@lists.apple.com) Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription: http://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/webobjects-dev/chill%40global-village.net This email sent to [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Practical WebObjects - for developers who want to increase their overall knowledge of WebObjects or who are trying to solve specific problems. http://www.global-village.net/products/practical_webobjects ___ Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored. Webobjects-dev mailing list (Webobjects-dev@lists.apple.com) Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription: http://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/webobjects-dev/pierre%40apple.com This email sent to [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Practical WebObjects - for developers who want to increase their overall knowledge of WebObjects or who are trying to solve specific problems. http://www.global-village.net/products/practical_webobjects ___ Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored. Webobjects-dev mailing list (Webobjects-dev@lists.apple.com) Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription: http://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/webobjects-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com This email sent to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: stateless component
Hi Pierre and Chuck Could you give an example of what a warning log messsage should look like? /Tonny On Fri, Apr 4, 2008 at 3:00 AM, Mr. Pierre Frisch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > May be we should log a warning for this? > > Pierre > -- > Pierre Frisch > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > On Apr 3, 2008, at 10:39, Chuck Hill wrote: > > > > On Apr 3, 2008, at 10:28 AM, Tonny Staunsbrink wrote: > > > > > The top level component is allways created, subcomponents are reused, > > > not sure why > > > > > > > Because they have to go in the page cache as unique instances recording > > page state. Stateless and page state don't mix. > > > > > > Chuck > > > > > > > > > Cheers > > > Tonny > > > > > > On Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 11:37 PM, Archibald Singleton < > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Hello, > > > > > > >From the WO API docs: "For extra efficiency, you can create stateless > > > components: components that can be shared between sessions. Stateless > > > components aren't replicated each time they're needed; rather, a single > > > shared instance is referenced each time the component is used." > > > > > > But logging calls to my stateless component constructor (subclass of > > > ERXStatelessComponent), I see that's it's being called for every request > > > and > > > that new instances are created for each request. > > > > > > Maybe worth noting is the fact that the component is instantiated by a > > > direct action (hence there are no sessions). > > > > > > I basically replicated what David showed in his lastest screencast re: > > > the first hit to the app being a default action instead of a component > > > action. > > > > > > I would have thought that that "shared instance" business means it's > > > created once and reused all along? > > > > > > Could someone please be kind enough to enlighten me as to what's > > > happening? > > > > > > TIA > > > > > > = tmk = > > > > > > > > > ___ > > > Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored. > > > Webobjects-dev mailing list (Webobjects-dev@lists.apple.com) > > > Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription: > > > > > > http://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/webobjects-dev/mezz.dk%40gmail.com > > > > > > This email sent to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > ___ > > > Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored. > > > Webobjects-dev mailing list (Webobjects-dev@lists.apple.com) > > > Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription: > > > > > > http://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/webobjects-dev/chill%40global-village.net > > > > > > This email sent to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > -- > > > > Practical WebObjects - for developers who want to increase their overall > > knowledge of WebObjects or who are trying to solve specific problems. > > http://www.global-village.net/products/practical_webobjects > > > > > > > > > > > > ___ > > Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored. > > Webobjects-dev mailing list (Webobjects-dev@lists.apple.com) > > Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription: > > http://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/webobjects-dev/pierre%40apple.com > > > > This email sent to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > ___ Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored. Webobjects-dev mailing list (Webobjects-dev@lists.apple.com) Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription: http://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/webobjects-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com This email sent to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Best Way® to test for existence of a rela tionship
What are the other differences between RawMaterial and ManufacturedPart?
Wouldn’t it be enough to just flag the RawMaterial ones as such and
just have one class for both?
atze
Am 07.04.2008 um 18:02 schrieb David Avendasora:
You know, I was hoping to avoid the whole question if the domain was
actually well-modeled or not, but with such dispersions cast on my
flawless modeling skills, I must respond! :-P
I have 2 types of Parts. One purchased from an outside vendor
(RawMaterial), and ones that are manufactured (ManufacturedPart). A
ManufacturedPart is made up of any number of component Parts. These
component Parts can be _either_ a RawMaterial or another
ManufacturedPart.
So I have modeled it like this:
ManufacturedPart ->> BillOfMaterial ->> BOMComponent -> Part
To make things more complicated each given Manufactured Part can
have one or more ways of making it and therefor have multiple
BillsOfMaterial.
Hence, I have a branching, recursive relationship tree that can be
any number of levels deep:
ManufacturedPart ->> BillOfMaterial ->> BOMComponent ->
ManufacturedPart ->> BillOfMaterial ->> BOMComponent ->
ManufacturedPart ->> Rinse, lather, repeat.
Or it can be very simple
ManufacturedPart ->> BillOfMaterial ->> BOMComponent ->> RawMaterial
What all this comes down to is that billsOfMaterial() does _not_
belong on Part as it does not belong on RawMaterial because a
RawMaterial is NOT manufactured by us so it will never have a
BillOfMaterial.
But there are several places in my code that I want to recursively
navigate this tree and I just don't see a "right" way to do that
without some variation of instanceOf (in code or in a fetch), a case
statement or adding the method to Part.
The simplicity of one simple method returning NSArray.emptyArray
wins. Even though it sullies my object graph, it does so in a much
less complicated, fragile way.
Dave
On Apr 7, 2008, at 11:26 AM, Chuck Hill wrote:
The real question is whether it makes sense in the domain for a
Part to have a bill of materials. The default implementation could
be
public NSArray billOfMaterials() { return this; }
With complex parts overriding it as appropriate. It could just be
that the model / design is incomplete and leading David into doing
Bad Things in code.
Otherwise, (a) the model is just wrong, or (b) David's processing
is just wrong.
___
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
Webobjects-dev mailing list (Webobjects-dev@lists.apple.com)
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
http://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/webobjects-dev/atze%40freeport.de
This email sent to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
Alexander Spohr
Freeport & Soliversum
Fax: +49 40 303 757 99
Web: http://www.freeport.de/
Box: http://dropbox.letsfile.com/02145299-4347-4671-aab9-1d3004eac51d
---
___
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
Webobjects-dev mailing list (Webobjects-dev@lists.apple.com)
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
http://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/webobjects-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
This email sent to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Best Way® to test for existence of a rela tionship
On Apr 7, 2008, at 1:23 PM, Chuck Hill wrote: I have 2 types of Parts. One purchased from an outside vendor (RawMaterial), and ones that are manufactured (ManufacturedPart). A ManufacturedPart is made up of any number of component Parts. These component Parts can be _either_ a RawMaterial or another ManufacturedPart. Consider it from a different point of view. You have parts that can be composed of sub-parts. There are two sub-classes, 1. SimplePart (aka RawMaterial). This never has any sub-parts. 2. ComplexPart (aka ManufacturedPart). This has one or more sub- parts. In this scenario, Part.subParts() makes sense for all types. I'm not sure how this is much different conceptually than what I have already. The problem is that I cannot simplify it that far because there may be 5 or more ways of making a given part depending upon which Manufacturing Line is being used, the time of year, wether or not a piece of equipment on the manufacturing line is broken-down or not, etc. I do have the concept of the "default" BillOfMaterial for a given Part, but that is controlled by the user setting a flag on the one they want to be default. So, in theory I could have convenience methods that return the "subParts" of the default BillOfMaterial for the given Part, but in most cases, that is not useful information for my users. I need to know much more before I can say what the subParts are. So I have modeled it like this: ManufacturedPart ->> BillOfMaterial ->> BOMComponent -> Part What is BOMComponent? Why not just ManufacturedPart ->> BillOfMaterial ->> Part Or, in my terminology ComplexPart ->> ConstructionDescription ->> Part It's actually even more complicated because there are "Steps" between the BillOfMaterial and BOMComponents like so: BillOfMaterial ->> Step ->> BOMComponent Think of the BillOfMaterial as a recipe to make a specific Part. In "Step 1" you will use 5 different BOMComponents. Each Step has attributes such as instructions, tools used, etc. Each BOMComponent has attributes like quantity, unit of measure, etc as well as the part. To make things more complicated each given Manufactured Part can have one or more ways of making it and therefor have multiple BillsOfMaterial. Hence, I have a branching, recursive relationship tree that can be any number of levels deep: ManufacturedPart ->> BillOfMaterial ->> BOMComponent -> ManufacturedPart ->> BillOfMaterial ->> BOMComponent -> ManufacturedPart ->> Rinse, lather, repeat. Or it can be very simple ManufacturedPart ->> BillOfMaterial ->> BOMComponent ->> RawMaterial What all this comes down to is that billsOfMaterial() does _not_ belong on Part as it does not belong on RawMaterial because a RawMaterial is NOT manufactured by us so it will never have a BillOfMaterial. Why are you iterating over Parts calling billOfMaterial()? What is the goal? What exactly are you doing with this information? I have an idea of what you are missing, but I will wait for an answer to this. In this specific example, I'm adding the specified Part to a Manufacturing Schedule and I need to know what subParts (using your terminology) need to be scheduled in addition to the Part that was ordered. The way I find the subParts that need to be scheduled is to open the selected BillOfMaterial for the Part, drill down to the components and step through them to see if they need to be scheduled as well. But there are several places in my code that I want to recursively navigate this tree and I just don't see a "right" way to do that without some variation of instanceOf (in code or in a fetch), a case statement or adding the method to Part. The simplicity of one simple method returning NSArray.emptyArray wins. Even though it sullies my object graph, it does so in a much less complicated, fragile way. Still seems wrong. Tell me how to do it right. I'm all ears. Thanks! Dave ___ Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored. Webobjects-dev mailing list (Webobjects-dev@lists.apple.com) Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription: http://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/webobjects-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com This email sent to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Development vs Deployment Error
If you're using ERXApplication it should know automatically (from a param WOLips sets). If you're not, you need to set the property: er.extensions.ERXApplication.developmentMode=true ms On Apr 7, 2008, at 1:29 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm experimenting with ERRest and I got the following error: You attempted to create an unsafe request handler when you were not in development mode! Which is a good thing as I understand it from reading the API. But I am just testing and running it from Intellij. Is there a flag I am supposed to set somewhere to let it know that I am only in development and that I can be trusted to use this unsafe request handler? Many thanks, Jeremy -- Jeremy Rosenberg Application Developer Institutional, Collaborative, and Academic Technologies IT Services Simon Fraser University Burnaby, BC, Canada V5A 1S6 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] "The first rule of WebObjects, you do not talk about WebObjects" ___ Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored. Webobjects-dev mailing list (Webobjects-dev@lists.apple.com) Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription: http://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/webobjects-dev/mschrag%40mdimension.com This email sent to [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored. Webobjects-dev mailing list (Webobjects-dev@lists.apple.com) Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription: http://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/webobjects-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com This email sent to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Development vs Deployment Error
Hi Jeremy, I have not used it, but I would guess the standard Wonder property is what you want: er.extensions.ERXApplication.developmentMode=true Chuck On Apr 7, 2008, at 10:29 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm experimenting with ERRest and I got the following error: You attempted to create an unsafe request handler when you were not in development mode! Which is a good thing as I understand it from reading the API. But I am just testing and running it from Intellij. Is there a flag I am supposed to set somewhere to let it know that I am only in development and that I can be trusted to use this unsafe request handler? Many thanks, Jeremy -- Jeremy Rosenberg Application Developer Institutional, Collaborative, and Academic Technologies IT Services Simon Fraser University Burnaby, BC, Canada V5A 1S6 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] "The first rule of WebObjects, you do not talk about WebObjects" ___ Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored. Webobjects-dev mailing list (Webobjects-dev@lists.apple.com) Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription: http://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/webobjects-dev/chill%40global-village.net This email sent to [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Practical WebObjects - for developers who want to increase their overall knowledge of WebObjects or who are trying to solve specific problems. http://www.global-village.net/products/practical_webobjects ___ Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored. Webobjects-dev mailing list (Webobjects-dev@lists.apple.com) Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription: http://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/webobjects-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com This email sent to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Development vs Deployment Error
I'm experimenting with ERRest and I got the following error: You attempted to create an unsafe request handler when you were not in development mode! Which is a good thing as I understand it from reading the API. But I am just testing and running it from Intellij. Is there a flag I am supposed to set somewhere to let it know that I am only in development and that I can be trusted to use this unsafe request handler? Many thanks, Jeremy -- Jeremy Rosenberg Application Developer Institutional, Collaborative, and Academic Technologies IT Services Simon Fraser University Burnaby, BC, Canada V5A 1S6 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] "The first rule of WebObjects, you do not talk about WebObjects" ___ Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored. Webobjects-dev mailing list (Webobjects-dev@lists.apple.com) Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription: http://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/webobjects-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com This email sent to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Best Way® to test for existence of a rela tionship
On Apr 7, 2008, at 9:02 AM, David Avendasora wrote:
You know, I was hoping to avoid the whole question if the domain was
actually well-modeled or not, but with such dispersions cast on my
flawless modeling skills, I must respond! :-P
:-)
I have 2 types of Parts. One purchased from an outside vendor
(RawMaterial), and ones that are manufactured (ManufacturedPart). A
ManufacturedPart is made up of any number of component Parts. These
component Parts can be _either_ a RawMaterial or another
ManufacturedPart.
Consider it from a different point of view. You have parts that can
be composed of sub-parts. There are two sub-classes,
1. SimplePart (aka RawMaterial). This never has any sub-parts.
2. ComplexPart (aka ManufacturedPart). This has one or more sub-parts.
In this scenario, Part.subParts() makes sense for all types.
So I have modeled it like this:
ManufacturedPart ->> BillOfMaterial ->> BOMComponent -> Part
What is BOMComponent? Why not just ManufacturedPart ->>
BillOfMaterial ->> Part
Or, in my terminology ComplexPart ->> ConstructionDescription ->> Part
To make things more complicated each given Manufactured Part can
have one or more ways of making it and therefor have multiple
BillsOfMaterial.
Hence, I have a branching, recursive relationship tree that can be
any number of levels deep:
ManufacturedPart ->> BillOfMaterial ->> BOMComponent ->
ManufacturedPart ->> BillOfMaterial ->> BOMComponent ->
ManufacturedPart ->> Rinse, lather, repeat.
Or it can be very simple
ManufacturedPart ->> BillOfMaterial ->> BOMComponent ->> RawMaterial
What all this comes down to is that billsOfMaterial() does _not_
belong on Part as it does not belong on RawMaterial because a
RawMaterial is NOT manufactured by us so it will never have a
BillOfMaterial.
Why are you iterating over Parts calling billOfMaterial()? What is
the goal? What exactly are you doing with this information? I have
an idea of what you are missing, but I will wait for an answer to this.
But there are several places in my code that I want to recursively
navigate this tree and I just don't see a "right" way to do that
without some variation of instanceOf (in code or in a fetch), a case
statement or adding the method to Part.
The simplicity of one simple method returning NSArray.emptyArray
wins. Even though it sullies my object graph, it does so in a much
less complicated, fragile way.
Still seems wrong.
Chuck
On Apr 7, 2008, at 11:26 AM, Chuck Hill wrote:
The real question is whether it makes sense in the domain for a
Part to have a bill of materials. The default implementation could
be
public NSArray billOfMaterials() { return this; }
With complex parts overriding it as appropriate. It could just be
that the model / design is incomplete and leading David into doing
Bad Things in code.
Otherwise, (a) the model is just wrong, or (b) David's processing
is just wrong.
--
Practical WebObjects - for developers who want to increase their
overall knowledge of WebObjects or who are trying to solve specific
problems.
http://www.global-village.net/products/practical_webobjects
___
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
Webobjects-dev mailing list (Webobjects-dev@lists.apple.com)
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
http://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/webobjects-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
This email sent to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: File name issue
Thanks Chuck.
It works as expected.
Yury Peskin
Director of IT Services
Cycle Software Services
8711 Lyndale Ave S.
Bloomington, MN 55420
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Chuck Hill
Sent: Monday, April 07, 2008 11:50 AM
To: Yury Peskin
Cc: webobjects-dev@lists.apple.com
Subject: Re: File name issue
On Apr 7, 2008, at 9:17 AM, Yury Peskin wrote:
> Hello list,
> I'm having a problem with the file download. I'd like to be able to
> have the name of the file show up in the save as box, but right now
> I'm getting the webobjects form id instead. This is on any windows
> browser: Firefox, or IE 7.
> Any ideas?
> Thanks,
> Yury
>
> Here's my code:
>
> public void appendToResponse(WOResponse r, WOContext c) {
> // super.appendToResponse(r, c);
> if(proof != null && proof.pdfPath().length() > 0)
> {
> File f = new File(Application.PROOFSDIR +
> File.separator +
> proof.pdfPath());
> try
> {
> NSData resultData = new NSData(new
> FileInputStream(f),
> (int)f.length());
> if(resultData != null)
> {
> r.disableClientCaching();
> r.removeHeadersForKey("Cache-Control");
> r.removeHeadersForKey("pragma");
> r.setHeader("application/pdf",
> "content-type");
> r.setHeader("inline; filename=\"" +
> Application.PROOFSDIR +
> proof.pdfPath() + "\"", "content-disposition");
Try attachment; instead of inline;
>
> r.setHeader(Integer.toString(resultData.length()), "content-
> length");
> r.setContent(resultData);
> }
> }
> catch(Exception e)
> {
> }
> }
> }
>
> ___
> Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
> Webobjects-dev mailing list (Webobjects-dev@lists.apple.com)
> Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
> http://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/webobjects-dev/chill%40global-village.net
>
> This email sent to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
Practical WebObjects - for developers who want to increase their
overall knowledge of WebObjects or who are trying to solve specific
problems.
http://www.global-village.net/products/practical_webobjects
___
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
Webobjects-dev mailing list (Webobjects-dev@lists.apple.com)
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
http://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/webobjects-dev/ypeskin%40cyclesoftware.com
This email sent to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
___
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
Webobjects-dev mailing list (Webobjects-dev@lists.apple.com)
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
http://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/webobjects-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
This email sent to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: File name issue
On Apr 7, 2008, at 9:17 AM, Yury Peskin wrote:
Hello list,
I'm having a problem with the file download. I'd like to be able to
have the name of the file show up in the save as box, but right now
I'm getting the webobjects form id instead. This is on any windows
browser: Firefox, or IE 7.
Any ideas?
Thanks,
Yury
Here's my code:
public void appendToResponse(WOResponse r, WOContext c) {
// super.appendToResponse(r, c);
if(proof != null && proof.pdfPath().length() > 0)
{
File f = new File(Application.PROOFSDIR + File.separator +
proof.pdfPath());
try
{
NSData resultData = new NSData(new FileInputStream(f),
(int)f.length());
if(resultData != null)
{
r.disableClientCaching();
r.removeHeadersForKey("Cache-Control");
r.removeHeadersForKey("pragma");
r.setHeader("application/pdf",
"content-type");
r.setHeader("inline; filename=\"" + Application.PROOFSDIR +
proof.pdfPath() + "\"", "content-disposition");
Try attachment; instead of inline;
r.setHeader(Integer.toString(resultData.length()), "content-
length");
r.setContent(resultData);
}
}
catch(Exception e)
{
}
}
}
___
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
Webobjects-dev mailing list (Webobjects-dev@lists.apple.com)
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
http://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/webobjects-dev/chill%40global-village.net
This email sent to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
Practical WebObjects - for developers who want to increase their
overall knowledge of WebObjects or who are trying to solve specific
problems.
http://www.global-village.net/products/practical_webobjects
___
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
Webobjects-dev mailing list (Webobjects-dev@lists.apple.com)
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
http://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/webobjects-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
This email sent to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Best Way® to test for existence of a rela tionship
You know, I was hoping to avoid the whole question if the domain was
actually well-modeled or not, but with such dispersions cast on my
flawless modeling skills, I must respond! :-P
I have 2 types of Parts. One purchased from an outside vendor
(RawMaterial), and ones that are manufactured (ManufacturedPart). A
ManufacturedPart is made up of any number of component Parts. These
component Parts can be _either_ a RawMaterial or another
ManufacturedPart.
So I have modeled it like this:
ManufacturedPart ->> BillOfMaterial ->> BOMComponent -> Part
To make things more complicated each given Manufactured Part can have
one or more ways of making it and therefor have multiple
BillsOfMaterial.
Hence, I have a branching, recursive relationship tree that can be any
number of levels deep:
ManufacturedPart ->> BillOfMaterial ->> BOMComponent ->
ManufacturedPart ->> BillOfMaterial ->> BOMComponent ->
ManufacturedPart ->> Rinse, lather, repeat.
Or it can be very simple
ManufacturedPart ->> BillOfMaterial ->> BOMComponent ->> RawMaterial
What all this comes down to is that billsOfMaterial() does _not_
belong on Part as it does not belong on RawMaterial because a
RawMaterial is NOT manufactured by us so it will never have a
BillOfMaterial.
But there are several places in my code that I want to recursively
navigate this tree and I just don't see a "right" way to do that
without some variation of instanceOf (in code or in a fetch), a case
statement or adding the method to Part.
The simplicity of one simple method returning NSArray.emptyArray wins.
Even though it sullies my object graph, it does so in a much less
complicated, fragile way.
Dave
On Apr 7, 2008, at 11:26 AM, Chuck Hill wrote:
The real question is whether it makes sense in the domain for a Part
to have a bill of materials. The default implementation could be
public NSArray billOfMaterials() { return this; }
With complex parts overriding it as appropriate. It could just be
that the model / design is incomplete and leading David into doing
Bad Things in code.
Otherwise, (a) the model is just wrong, or (b) David's processing is
just wrong.
___
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
Webobjects-dev mailing list (Webobjects-dev@lists.apple.com)
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
http://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/webobjects-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
This email sent to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
File name issue
Hello list,
I'm having a problem with the file download. I'd like to be able to
have the name of the file show up in the save as box, but right now
I'm getting the webobjects form id instead. This is on any windows
browser: Firefox, or IE 7.
Any ideas?
Thanks,
Yury
Here's my code:
public void appendToResponse(WOResponse r, WOContext c) {
// super.appendToResponse(r, c);
if(proof != null && proof.pdfPath().length() > 0)
{
File f = new File(Application.PROOFSDIR + File.separator +
proof.pdfPath());
try
{
NSData resultData = new NSData(new FileInputStream(f), (int)
f.length());
if(resultData != null)
{
r.disableClientCaching();
r.removeHeadersForKey("Cache-Control");
r.removeHeadersForKey("pragma");
r.setHeader("application/pdf",
"content-type");
r.setHeader("inline; filename=\"" + Application.PROOFSDIR +
proof.pdfPath() + "\"", "content-disposition");
r.setHeader(Integer.toString(resultData.length()), "content-
length");
r.setContent(resultData);
}
}
catch(Exception e)
{
}
}
}
___
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
Webobjects-dev mailing list (Webobjects-dev@lists.apple.com)
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
http://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/webobjects-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
This email sent to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Best Way® to test for existence of a rela tionsh ip
On Apr 7, 2008, at 8:45 AM, Mike Schrag wrote: Using instanceof on a member of an inheritance hierarchy is a bad code smell. It is the code's ways of telling you that your design is wrong. IMO. I was going to say in my original that instanceof is a code smell, also, actually, but we disagree on the level of ugliness :) You're just cheating -- avoiding an instanceof by mucking up your object model doesn't fix the problem, it just hides it, and makes your object model more confusing at the same time. If there are classes in your hierarchy that don't implement the method, it's not part of the interface. This implies to me that the original design is wrong, unless it really is the case that it's reasonable to ask the other part types their billsOfMaterials, and they just don't have any. Yes, that is what I was assuming by his trying to call billOfMaterials on a collection of Parts. But given the original description, I'm assuming the model is right and that's not the case. Bob's suggestion of declaring an additional interface that defines that method definitely seems better, but it doesn't clean up the instanceof check. Even better would be to construct your original fetch to only fetch the objects that this check actually applies to (though as I think about it, this is really just a variation on instanceof -- you push the instanceof, conceptually, into the fetch instead of in Java, but if the model doesn't allow incorrect traversal, that seems better to me). If the original design is correct, then somehow selecting the appropriate subset of objects to iterate over seems like the correct solution. If there is more than one disjoint class that has billOfMaterials, that again suggests a design flaw. Chuck -- Practical WebObjects - for developers who want to increase their overall knowledge of WebObjects or who are trying to solve specific problems. http://www.global-village.net/products/practical_webobjects ___ Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored. Webobjects-dev mailing list (Webobjects-dev@lists.apple.com) Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription: http://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/webobjects-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com This email sent to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re:[SOLVED] ERXMigration Problem with Multiple Models
I updated Wonder using last night's build, and it does in fact fix the exception I was seeing. Thanks again Mike. Aleksey On Apr 6, 2008, at 6:52 PM, Aleksey Novicov wrote: Thanks Mike. Where is the signup for the Wonder list? I do have a third model for accessing legacy data in a separate database, but on the same MySQL server. There are a couple of relationships that traverse models to the legacy data. But that third model does not use migrations at all. I tried explicitly listing the third model in the model names list, and... it works! That fixed it. Thanks! Aleksey This should really be on the Wonder list rather than wo-dev, but I just committed a fix for this ... I saw this once before but didn't end up looking into it. Is it possible you are depending on another framework that is bringing in a migration that only is being discovered because of a relationship to a 3rd model? For instance, you are declaring Model1 and Model2, but do you have a relationship to a Model3 that also uses migrations (like ERAttachment or ERTaggable, maybe?). Anyway, that was the scenario that would cause this ... If you can track down that 3rd model and list it explicitly in the modelNames list, it would probably fix the problem for you also, or you can update Wonder after tonight's build and it should be properly fixed. As an aside, you no longer have to declare MigrationClassPrefix for your models if the class name matches your EOModel name ... ms On Apr 6, 2008, at 4:43 PM, Aleksey Novicov wrote: I love ERXMigration! But I seem to be having a problem when I use it for multiple models. The models do not have any dependency on each other, so I don't bother to implement modelDependencies() in either of my Migration classes. If I configure the settings so that the migration for only one model runs, and not the other, everything runs fine. So it seems to be gagging on the fact there are multiple models. Do I need to configure some sort of default model dependency, even if there is none? Both models refer to the same database, and the migrations are both migration0. Thanks, Aleksey ___ Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored. Webobjects-dev mailing list (Webobjects-dev@lists.apple.com) Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription: http://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/webobjects-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com This email sent to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Best Way® to test for existence of a rela tionship
Fetch only ManufacturedParts. Don’t use the relationship to Parts (if that’s what you do) to get the NSArray. Either create a relationship to ManufacturedParts or fetch them using a qualifier. Iterating over a mixed NSArray wanting only one special class is bad design. Filter it before you use it for such a task. atze Am 07.04.2008 um 15:12 schrieb David Avendasora: Hi all, This is more of a Java question than a WO-specific one I have an Inheritance structure in my app: Part (abstract Superclass) RawMaterial (subclass of Part) ManufacturedPart (subclass of Part) I have an NSArray of Parts that could be, RawMaterial instances, ManufacturedPart instances, or most likely, a mixture of the two. I want to iterate through the Array and get the contents of the Part.billsOfMaterial() (toMany) relationship. The problem is that while ManufacturedParts have this relationship, RawMaterials do not. Right now, I'm using a try-catch block that catches the exception on RawMaterial.billsOfMaterial() and just ignores it. I could also add a billsOfMaterial() method to the RawMaterial class that simply returns NSArray.emptyArray. Is one way better than the other for any reason? Thanks, Dave ___ Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored. Webobjects-dev mailing list (Webobjects-dev@lists.apple.com) Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription: http://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/webobjects-dev/atze%40freeport.de This email sent to [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Alexander Spohr Freeport & Soliversum Fax: +49 40 303 757 99 Web: http://www.freeport.de/ Box: http://dropbox.letsfile.com/02145299-4347-4671-aab9-1d3004eac51d --- ___ Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored. Webobjects-dev mailing list (Webobjects-dev@lists.apple.com) Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription: http://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/webobjects-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com This email sent to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Best Way® to test for existence of a rela tionsh ip
On Apr 7, 2008, at 8:45 AM, Ken Anderson wrote: Using instanceof on a member of an inheritance hierarchy is a bad code smell. It is the code's ways of telling you that your design is wrong. IMO. Almost as bad as using case statements! (doh!) Case statements are right out! Chuck -- Practical WebObjects - for developers who want to increase their overall knowledge of WebObjects or who are trying to solve specific problems. http://www.global-village.net/products/practical_webobjects ___ Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored. Webobjects-dev mailing list (Webobjects-dev@lists.apple.com) Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription: http://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/webobjects-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com This email sent to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Best Way® to test for existence of a rela tionsh ip
Using instanceof on a member of an inheritance hierarchy is a bad code smell. It is the code's ways of telling you that your design is wrong. IMO. I was going to say in my original that instanceof is a code smell, also, actually, but we disagree on the level of ugliness :) You're just cheating -- avoiding an instanceof by mucking up your object model doesn't fix the problem, it just hides it, and makes your object model more confusing at the same time. If there are classes in your hierarchy that don't implement the method, it's not part of the interface. This implies to me that the original design is wrong, unless it really is the case that it's reasonable to ask the other part types their billsOfMaterials, and they just don't have any. But given the original description, I'm assuming the model is right and that's not the case. Bob's suggestion of declaring an additional interface that defines that method definitely seems better, but it doesn't clean up the instanceof check. Even better would be to construct your original fetch to only fetch the objects that this check actually applies to (though as I think about it, this is really just a variation on instanceof -- you push the instanceof, conceptually, into the fetch instead of in Java, but if the model doesn't allow incorrect traversal, that seems better to me). ms ___ Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored. Webobjects-dev mailing list (Webobjects-dev@lists.apple.com) Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription: http://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/webobjects-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com This email sent to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Best Way® to test for existence of a rela tionsh ip
On Apr 7, 2008, at 11:28 AM, Chuck Hill wrote: On Apr 7, 2008, at 8:26 AM, Bob Stuart wrote: At 11:20 AM -0400 4/7/08, David Avendasora wrote: On Apr 7, 2008, at 10:36 AM, Mike Schrag wrote: I'd expect the instanceof check will be much more efficient than catching an exception. By far ... From an OO design point of view, I'd add a billsOfMaterial() method to the Part class that simply returns NSArray.emptyArray. ManufacturedPart will then override this to return the correct result for a ManufacturedPart. Ew gross ... By far one of my favorite technical arguments. If it's not an attribute of all Parts, then from an OO design standpoint it shouldn't be on Part. I agree if your argument is based on "the convenience of being able to call billsOfMaterial on the entire array," though. Yeah, I'm getting the impression that there's no really "ungross" OO way to do this. I think this and instanceOf are equally "gross" because if I add other classes that have a billsOfMaterial() relationship, then I'd have to remember to come here and add it to the list of things instanceOf checks. I think I'll go with adding the billsOfMaterial() method to Part because then I can use this same logic in more places without having to write the instanceOf check every time. If you want to avoid adding the method to Part you could create an interface and have the instance of check that. Then only the classes that have this would implement the interface. That way you only have to change things when you make the new class and only in the class not however many places you might do the instanceof check. Using instanceof on a member of an inheritance hierarchy is a bad code smell. It is the code's ways of telling you that your design is wrong. IMO. Almost as bad as using case statements! (doh!) Chuck -- Practical WebObjects - for developers who want to increase their overall knowledge of WebObjects or who are trying to solve specific problems. http://www.global-village.net/products/practical_webobjects ___ Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored. Webobjects-dev mailing list (Webobjects-dev@lists.apple.com) Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription: http://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/webobjects-dev/kenlists%40anderhome.com This email sent to [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored. Webobjects-dev mailing list (Webobjects-dev@lists.apple.com) Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription: http://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/webobjects-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com This email sent to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[Meeting] Chicago CocoaHeads / Cawug - MacRuby
The Chicago CocoaHeads / Chicago Cocoa and WebObjects User Group (CAWUG) is holding our next meeting Tuesday, April 8th, at 7:00 PM at the Apple Store on Michigan Ave. Agenda: - Introductions & Announcements - Chuck Remes on MacRuby - adjournment to O'Toole's When: Tuesday, April 8th, 7:00 PM Where: Apple Store Michigan Avenue 679 North Michigan Ave. (at the corner of Huron & Michigan Ave.) Chicago, IL 60611 http://maps.yahoo.com/maps_result? ed=gYbE5Op_0Tokf_p7h61dwjbWtjC2r1YehzWw&csz=60611 http://tinyurl.com/26z5nb (in case long URL gets cut) - Chuck will be presenting on MacRuby Development He has been doing a bunch of MacRuby development recently and will present an overview of MacRuby and discuss the positives and negatives of MacRuby development. - O'Tooles We will continue the discussion at our local watering hold Timothy O'Toole's at 622 Fairbanks (2 blocks east of the store). We also wish to thank the folks who run the theater space at the Apple store for letting us have our meetings there, and Jonathan 'Wolf' Rentzsch for hosting the new and revived CAWUG web site. Thanks all. Also, if you are working on a project and would like to talk about it briefly / promote it, I think it would be fun for people to hear about other people's projects. Please email me off line and you can talk at a future meeting or would like a book to review we would welcome that too. Future meetings dates and tentative topics: 5/13/08, 7/8/08 NOTE: There will be no June Meeting due to WWDC. April - Chuck Remes on MacRuby May - Bob on WO development with Eclipse, part II CAWUG Resources Mail list: http://groups.google.com/group/cawug Google Site: http://groups.google.com/group/cawug Web Site: http://www.cawug.org/ RSS feed: http://www.cawug.org/rss.xml iCal: http://ical.mac.com/chicagobob/ Chicago-CocoaHeads-CAWUG (view on the web) iCal: webcal://ical.mac.com/chicagobob/Chicago-CocoaHeads-CAWUG.ics (subscribe to in iCal) Cocoa Heads web site: http://cocoaheads.org/us/ChicagoIllinois/index.html Hope to see you at the meeting. -Bob ___ Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored. Webobjects-dev mailing list (Webobjects-dev@lists.apple.com) Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription: http://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/webobjects-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com This email sent to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Best Way® to test for existence of a rela tionsh ip
On Apr 7, 2008, at 8:26 AM, Bob Stuart wrote: At 11:20 AM -0400 4/7/08, David Avendasora wrote: On Apr 7, 2008, at 10:36 AM, Mike Schrag wrote: I'd expect the instanceof check will be much more efficient than catching an exception. By far ... From an OO design point of view, I'd add a billsOfMaterial() method to the Part class that simply returns NSArray.emptyArray. ManufacturedPart will then override this to return the correct result for a ManufacturedPart. Ew gross ... By far one of my favorite technical arguments. If it's not an attribute of all Parts, then from an OO design standpoint it shouldn't be on Part. I agree if your argument is based on "the convenience of being able to call billsOfMaterial on the entire array," though. Yeah, I'm getting the impression that there's no really "ungross" OO way to do this. I think this and instanceOf are equally "gross" because if I add other classes that have a billsOfMaterial() relationship, then I'd have to remember to come here and add it to the list of things instanceOf checks. I think I'll go with adding the billsOfMaterial() method to Part because then I can use this same logic in more places without having to write the instanceOf check every time. If you want to avoid adding the method to Part you could create an interface and have the instance of check that. Then only the classes that have this would implement the interface. That way you only have to change things when you make the new class and only in the class not however many places you might do the instanceof check. Using instanceof on a member of an inheritance hierarchy is a bad code smell. It is the code's ways of telling you that your design is wrong. IMO. Chuck -- Practical WebObjects - for developers who want to increase their overall knowledge of WebObjects or who are trying to solve specific problems. http://www.global-village.net/products/practical_webobjects ___ Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored. Webobjects-dev mailing list (Webobjects-dev@lists.apple.com) Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription: http://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/webobjects-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com This email sent to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Best Way® to test for existence of a rela tionsh ip
On Apr 7, 2008, at 7:36 AM, Mike Schrag wrote:
I'd expect the instanceof check will be much more efficient than
catching an exception.
By far ...
From an OO design point of view, I'd add a billsOfMaterial() method
to the Part class that simply returns NSArray.emptyArray.
ManufacturedPart will then override this to return the correct
result for a ManufacturedPart.
Ew gross ...
Less gross than doing instanceof, hands down.
If it's not an attribute of all Parts, then from an OO design
standpoint it shouldn't be on Part. I agree if your argument is
based on "the convenience of being able to call billsOfMaterial on
the entire array," though.
The real question is whether it makes sense in the domain for a Part
to have a bill of materials. The default implementation could be
public NSArray billOfMaterials() { return this; }
With complex parts overriding it as appropriate. It could just be
that the model / design is incomplete and leading David into doing Bad
Things in code.
Otherwise, (a) the model is just wrong, or (b) David's processing is
just wrong.
Chuck
--
Practical WebObjects - for developers who want to increase their
overall knowledge of WebObjects or who are trying to solve specific
problems.
http://www.global-village.net/products/practical_webobjects
___
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
Webobjects-dev mailing list (Webobjects-dev@lists.apple.com)
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
http://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/webobjects-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
This email sent to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Best Way® to test for existence of a rela t ionsh ip
At 11:20 AM -0400 4/7/08, David Avendasora wrote: On Apr 7, 2008, at 10:36 AM, Mike Schrag wrote: I'd expect the instanceof check will be much more efficient than catching an exception. By far ... From an OO design point of view, I'd add a billsOfMaterial() method to the Part class that simply returns NSArray.emptyArray. ManufacturedPart will then override this to return the correct result for a ManufacturedPart. Ew gross ... By far one of my favorite technical arguments. If it's not an attribute of all Parts, then from an OO design standpoint it shouldn't be on Part. I agree if your argument is based on "the convenience of being able to call billsOfMaterial on the entire array," though. Yeah, I'm getting the impression that there's no really "ungross" OO way to do this. I think this and instanceOf are equally "gross" because if I add other classes that have a billsOfMaterial() relationship, then I'd have to remember to come here and add it to the list of things instanceOf checks. I think I'll go with adding the billsOfMaterial() method to Part because then I can use this same logic in more places without having to write the instanceOf check every time. If you want to avoid adding the method to Part you could create an interface and have the instance of check that. Then only the classes that have this would implement the interface. That way you only have to change things when you make the new class and only in the class not however many places you might do the instanceof check. Still seems not right, but it's easier. =:-0 Dave ___ Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored. Webobjects-dev mailing list (Webobjects-dev@lists.apple.com) Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription: http://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/webobjects-dev/bobstuart%40mcf.com This email sent to [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Bob Stuart ___ Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored. Webobjects-dev mailing list (Webobjects-dev@lists.apple.com) Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription: http://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/webobjects-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com This email sent to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Best Way® to test for existence of a rela tionsh ip
On Apr 7, 2008, at 10:36 AM, Mike Schrag wrote: I'd expect the instanceof check will be much more efficient than catching an exception. By far ... From an OO design point of view, I'd add a billsOfMaterial() method to the Part class that simply returns NSArray.emptyArray. ManufacturedPart will then override this to return the correct result for a ManufacturedPart. Ew gross ... By far one of my favorite technical arguments. If it's not an attribute of all Parts, then from an OO design standpoint it shouldn't be on Part. I agree if your argument is based on "the convenience of being able to call billsOfMaterial on the entire array," though. Yeah, I'm getting the impression that there's no really "ungross" OO way to do this. I think this and instanceOf are equally "gross" because if I add other classes that have a billsOfMaterial() relationship, then I'd have to remember to come here and add it to the list of things instanceOf checks. I think I'll go with adding the billsOfMaterial() method to Part because then I can use this same logic in more places without having to write the instanceOf check every time. Still seems not right, but it's easier. =:-0 Dave ___ Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored. Webobjects-dev mailing list (Webobjects-dev@lists.apple.com) Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription: http://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/webobjects-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com This email sent to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Best Way® to test for existence of a rela tionsh ip
I'd expect the instanceof check will be much more efficient than catching an exception. By far ... From an OO design point of view, I'd add a billsOfMaterial() method to the Part class that simply returns NSArray.emptyArray. ManufacturedPart will then override this to return the correct result for a ManufacturedPart. Ew gross ... If it's not an attribute of all Parts, then from an OO design standpoint it shouldn't be on Part. I agree if your argument is based on "the convenience of being able to call billsOfMaterial on the entire array," though. ms ___ Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored. Webobjects-dev mailing list (Webobjects-dev@lists.apple.com) Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription: http://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/webobjects-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com This email sent to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: DB2 and WebObjects
On Apr 7, 2008, at 2:19 AM, David Avendasora wrote: I'm not sure I'd call it a "bug" as Chuck's original code does the Right Thing® in 99.9% of the situations you'd use it. If my code does not work in 0.1% of situations, then I'd consider it buggy. But that is just me. :-) But, being the PITA that I am, I've come up with a situation where even though the his code can't verify that what I'm doing is safe from a referential-integrity perspective, I know it will be safe due to my specific business-logic rules. So, if by saying he gave me a patch for the bug, he means he told me which safety to disable, I guess that would be about right. :-) IIRC, there was also a change from entity().name() to entity.externalName(). Chuck On Apr 6, 2008, at 8:26 PM, Chuck Hill wrote: David Avendasora pointed out a bug in it if you are using self- referential relationships (entity with a relationship to itself). I gave him a patch, but I really need to rethink some parts of that code. It works for most things, but I think there are some more buggy cases. It also does not (yet) order operations on the same table which self-referential relationships really need. -- Practical WebObjects - for developers who want to increase their overall knowledge of WebObjects or who are trying to solve specific problems. http://www.global-village.net/products/practical_webobjects ___ Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored. Webobjects-dev mailing list (Webobjects-dev@lists.apple.com) Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription: http://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/webobjects-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com This email sent to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Best Way® to test for existence of a rela tionsh ip
I'd expect the instanceof check will be much more efficient than
catching an exception. From an OO design point of view, I'd add a
billsOfMaterial() method to the Part class that simply returns
NSArray.emptyArray. ManufacturedPart will then override this to
return the correct result for a ManufacturedPart.
Chuck
On Apr 7, 2008, at 6:34 AM, Bob Stuart wrote:
Try catch seems expensive to me. Why not just check with
if (aPart instanceof ManufacturedPart){
do something with aPart.billsOfMaterial()
}
At 9:12 AM -0400 4/7/08, David Avendasora wrote:
Hi all,
This is more of a Java question than a WO-specific one
I have an Inheritance structure in my app:
Part (abstract Superclass)
RawMaterial (subclass of Part)
ManufacturedPart (subclass of Part)
I have an NSArray of Parts that could be, RawMaterial instances,
ManufacturedPart instances, or most likely, a mixture of the two.
I want to iterate through the Array and get the contents of the
Part.billsOfMaterial() (toMany) relationship. The problem is that
while ManufacturedParts have this relationship, RawMaterials do not.
Right now, I'm using a try-catch block that catches the exception
on RawMaterial.billsOfMaterial() and just ignores it.
I could also add a billsOfMaterial() method to the RawMaterial
class that simply returns NSArray.emptyArray.
Is one way better than the other for any reason?
Thanks,
Dave
___
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
Webobjects-dev mailing list (Webobjects-dev@lists.apple.com)
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
http://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/webobjects-dev/bobstuart%40mcf.com
This email sent to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
Bob Stuart
___
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
Webobjects-dev mailing list (Webobjects-dev@lists.apple.com)
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
http://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/webobjects-dev/chill%40global-village.net
This email sent to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
Practical WebObjects - for developers who want to increase their
overall knowledge of WebObjects or who are trying to solve specific
problems.
http://www.global-village.net/products/practical_webobjects
___
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
Webobjects-dev mailing list (Webobjects-dev@lists.apple.com)
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
http://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/webobjects-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
This email sent to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Swapping a session on a direct action
On Apr 7, 2008, at 3:18 AM, Miguel Arroz wrote: Hi! We're having a problem with "zombie" sessions. One of our direct actions has some trickery to always create a new session, even if the wosid cookie has a valid session ID, and I believe something is acting up there, but I can't figure out why (yes, this looks strange, but we actually know what we are doing, or at least we like to believe so). The problem is this: everytime I access that DA, JavaMonitor shows 2 more sessions on that instance. After the typical 60 minutes, one of the sessions dies, but the other remains forever. This has obvious serious consequences, as Refuse New Sessions will wait for every session to die, and those zombie sessions simply won't go away. I have seen this happen when sleep() or terminate() throws an exception. As I needed a more sophisticated way to track sessions (I need to know the user login, etc) I built my own session tracker, that hooks into session's sleep and termination methods to keep track of what's going on. Looking at the table generated by that tracker, everything is fine: no zombie sessions appear, and all the sessions die after 60 minutes. So, to dig this further, what I want to know is where does that active session counter on JavaMonitor comes from. How's that count being made? Is it done on the app or on wotaskd? See activeSessionsCount() in the WOApplication API. Chuck -- Practical WebObjects - for developers who want to increase their overall knowledge of WebObjects or who are trying to solve specific problems. http://www.global-village.net/products/practical_webobjects ___ Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored. Webobjects-dev mailing list (Webobjects-dev@lists.apple.com) Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription: http://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/webobjects-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com This email sent to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Best Way® to test for existence of a relatio nsh ip
Try catch seems expensive to me. Why not just check with
if (aPart instanceof ManufacturedPart){
do something with aPart.billsOfMaterial()
}
At 9:12 AM -0400 4/7/08, David Avendasora wrote:
Hi all,
This is more of a Java question than a WO-specific one
I have an Inheritance structure in my app:
Part (abstract Superclass)
RawMaterial (subclass of Part)
ManufacturedPart (subclass of Part)
I have an NSArray of Parts that could be, RawMaterial instances,
ManufacturedPart instances, or most likely, a mixture of the two.
I want to iterate through the Array and get the contents of the
Part.billsOfMaterial() (toMany) relationship. The problem is that
while ManufacturedParts have this relationship, RawMaterials do not.
Right now, I'm using a try-catch block that catches the exception on
RawMaterial.billsOfMaterial() and just ignores it.
I could also add a billsOfMaterial() method to the RawMaterial class
that simply returns NSArray.emptyArray.
Is one way better than the other for any reason?
Thanks,
Dave
___
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
Webobjects-dev mailing list (Webobjects-dev@lists.apple.com)
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
http://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/webobjects-dev/bobstuart%40mcf.com
This email sent to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
Bob Stuart
___
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
Webobjects-dev mailing list (Webobjects-dev@lists.apple.com)
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
http://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/webobjects-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
This email sent to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Best Way® to test for existence of a relationsh ip
Hi all, This is more of a Java question than a WO-specific one I have an Inheritance structure in my app: Part (abstract Superclass) RawMaterial (subclass of Part) ManufacturedPart (subclass of Part) I have an NSArray of Parts that could be, RawMaterial instances, ManufacturedPart instances, or most likely, a mixture of the two. I want to iterate through the Array and get the contents of the Part.billsOfMaterial() (toMany) relationship. The problem is that while ManufacturedParts have this relationship, RawMaterials do not. Right now, I'm using a try-catch block that catches the exception on RawMaterial.billsOfMaterial() and just ignores it. I could also add a billsOfMaterial() method to the RawMaterial class that simply returns NSArray.emptyArray. Is one way better than the other for any reason? Thanks, Dave ___ Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored. Webobjects-dev mailing list (Webobjects-dev@lists.apple.com) Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription: http://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/webobjects-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com This email sent to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Swapping a session on a direct action
Hi! We're having a problem with "zombie" sessions. One of our direct actions has some trickery to always create a new session, even if the wosid cookie has a valid session ID, and I believe something is acting up there, but I can't figure out why (yes, this looks strange, but we actually know what we are doing, or at least we like to believe so). The problem is this: everytime I access that DA, JavaMonitor shows 2 more sessions on that instance. After the typical 60 minutes, one of the sessions dies, but the other remains forever. This has obvious serious consequences, as Refuse New Sessions will wait for every session to die, and those zombie sessions simply won't go away. As I needed a more sophisticated way to track sessions (I need to know the user login, etc) I built my own session tracker, that hooks into session's sleep and termination methods to keep track of what's going on. Looking at the table generated by that tracker, everything is fine: no zombie sessions appear, and all the sessions die after 60 minutes. So, to dig this further, what I want to know is where does that active session counter on JavaMonitor comes from. How's that count being made? Is it done on the app or on wotaskd? Yours Miguel Arroz Miguel Arroz http://www.terminalapp.net http://www.ipragma.com smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature ___ Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored. Webobjects-dev mailing list (Webobjects-dev@lists.apple.com) Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription: http://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/webobjects-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com This email sent to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: DB2 and WebObjects
I'm not sure I'd call it a "bug" as Chuck's original code does the Right Thing® in 99.9% of the situations you'd use it. But, being the PITA that I am, I've come up with a situation where even though the his code can't verify that what I'm doing is safe from a referential- integrity perspective, I know it will be safe due to my specific business-logic rules. So, if by saying he gave me a patch for the bug, he means he told me which safety to disable, I guess that would be about right. :-) Dave On Apr 6, 2008, at 8:26 PM, Chuck Hill wrote: David Avendasora pointed out a bug in it if you are using self- referential relationships (entity with a relationship to itself). I gave him a patch, but I really need to rethink some parts of that code. It works for most things, but I think there are some more buggy cases. It also does not (yet) order operations on the same table which self-referential relationships really need. ___ Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored. Webobjects-dev mailing list (Webobjects-dev@lists.apple.com) Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription: http://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/webobjects-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com This email sent to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Generate SQL fails
On 07/04/2008, at 4:19 PM, Rams wrote: I'm trying to Generate SQL to create my tables and it is failing. My searching leads me to believe it is due to my setup as described here... http://wiki.objectstyle.org/confluence/display/WOL/mail/3047829 I'm using: OS X 10.5 WO 5.4.1 WOLips 3.5? MySQL 5.0.51a and Connector J 5.0.8. Is there a workaround for this issue until there is a fix? Yes, set up your project linked to the WO5.3.3 frameworks. Also, does anyone have a rough timetable on when a fix will be available? Apple would, but nothing publicly announced. Wouldn't that require downgrading my entire system to Tiger? Honestly, that doesn't sound very reasonable. I've been using Leopard for six months. It would be rather difficult to uninstall/ downgrade now. I think it would be easier to learn enough SQL to set up tables manually... or is the Generate SQL issue only the tip of the iceberg? Search the wiki for a script called "woswitch", it will do everything for you included downloading and installing the 5.3.3. frameworks all you need to do is quit eclipse, run the script and restart eclipse and your done. It doesn't touch any of your installed frameworks, only downloads some files and modifies your wolips build properties file. Ok, I found woswitch at the very bottom of the page here: http://wiki.objectstyle.org/confluence/display/WO/WO+5.4+Getting+Started Ran the script and now I have numerous problems. I tried switching to 53, create an eomodel, generate sql. That worked in generating a simple entity in the database, I didn't try any relationships. Once done, I closed the project (without closing eclipse), switched back to 54, You MUST quit eclipse when switching between 54 and 53 using this script otherwise unexpected behaviour will ensue. reopened the project, and the entity no longer exists in the EOModel file. I assume that has something to do with the roughly 38 errors complaining about not being able to resolve the enitity... I'm guessing I don't have the proper frameworks selected. In addition to that, previously working apps no longer open correctly complaining with two errors that: Invalid classpath container: 'WebObjects Frameworks' in project 'WOLipsTest' The project cannot be built until build path errors are resolved So it seems either I'm doing something wrong, or I'm going to need to select my frameworks anytime I switch between the two... ?? The script creates a sandboxed WO 5.3.3 install under /Developer/ WebObjects53 so if you need to link to frameworks that aren't part of the WO base install you need to install them into /Developer/ WebObects53/Library/Frameworks (eg, the WO53 version of Wonder should go here). If you are using frameworks that are not version specific you can just symlink them there. Finally, WOnder is nowhere to be found. I get errors relating to anything WOnder and even though the frameworks are right where they were previous to running woswitch.sh, I cannot find them in the configure build path dialog any longer. I'm guessing that has something to do with the NEXT_ROOT business mentioned in the wiki, but I really have no idea how to get it back. You may need to do a clean of you get unexpected errors. The only thing that the script modifies on your system is your ~/Library/ wobuild.properties. It doesn't touch NEXT_ROOT directly. Assistance will be greatly appreciated if anyone can clue me into what I'm doing wrong... -- Learn how to secure your email (Mac OS X 10.3+) http://www.joar.com/certificates/ (Windows) http://www.marknoble.com/tutorial/smime/smime.aspx ___ Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored. Webobjects-dev mailing list (Webobjects-dev@lists.apple.com) Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription: http://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/webobjects-dev/qdolan%40gmail.com This email sent to [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Seeya...Q Quinton Dolan - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Gold Coast, QLD, Australia (GMT+10) Ph: +61 419 729 806 ___ Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored. Webobjects-dev mailing list (Webobjects-dev@lists.apple.com) Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription: http://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/webobjects-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com This email sent to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[SOLVED] Generate SQL fails
On Apr 7, 2008, at 2:19 AM, Rams wrote: I'm trying to Generate SQL to create my tables and it is failing. My searching leads me to believe it is due to my setup as described here... http://wiki.objectstyle.org/confluence/display/WOL/mail/3047829 I'm using: OS X 10.5 WO 5.4.1 WOLips 3.5? MySQL 5.0.51a and Connector J 5.0.8. Is there a workaround for this issue until there is a fix? Yes, set up your project linked to the WO5.3.3 frameworks. Also, does anyone have a rough timetable on when a fix will be available? Apple would, but nothing publicly announced. Wouldn't that require downgrading my entire system to Tiger? Honestly, that doesn't sound very reasonable. I've been using Leopard for six months. It would be rather difficult to uninstall/ downgrade now. I think it would be easier to learn enough SQL to set up tables manually... or is the Generate SQL issue only the tip of the iceberg? Search the wiki for a script called "woswitch", it will do everything for you included downloading and installing the 5.3.3. frameworks all you need to do is quit eclipse, run the script and restart eclipse and your done. It doesn't touch any of your installed frameworks, only downloads some files and modifies your wolips build properties file. Ok, I found woswitch at the very bottom of the page here: http://wiki.objectstyle.org/confluence/display/WO/WO+5.4+Getting+Started Ran the script and now I have numerous problems. I tried switching to 53, create an eomodel, generate sql. That worked in generating a simple entity in the database, I didn't try any relationships. Once done, I closed the project (without closing eclipse), switched back to 54, reopened the project, and the entity no longer exists in the EOModel file. I assume that has something to do with the roughly 38 errors complaining about not being able to resolve the enitity... I'm guessing I don't have the proper frameworks selected. In addition to that, previously working apps no longer open correctly complaining with two errors that: Invalid classpath container: 'WebObjects Frameworks' in project 'WOLipsTest' The project cannot be built until build path errors are resolved So it seems either I'm doing something wrong, or I'm going to need to select my frameworks anytime I switch between the two... ?? Finally, WOnder is nowhere to be found. I get errors relating to anything WOnder and even though the frameworks are right where they were previous to running woswitch.sh, I cannot find them in the configure build path dialog any longer. I'm guessing that has something to do with the NEXT_ROOT business mentioned in the wiki, but I really have no idea how to get it back. Assistance will be greatly appreciated if anyone can clue me into what I'm doing wrong... Posting my solution for posterity... the reason wonder could not be found is because the wonder frameworks needed to be installed for 5.3 as well. Download the appropriate wonder latest frameworks here: http://webobjects.mdimension.com/wonder/ Then unpack the 5.3 frameworks and drop them into /Developer/ WebObjects53/Library/Frameworks As for the other issues, it seems that simply closing the project isn't enough. I have to close eclipse, change between 53/54 and then start eclipse back up. I finally have a working eclipse installation and I am happy at the moment. I do appreciate everyone's assistance and I thank you all for your patience as well. -- Learn how to secure your email (Mac OS X 10.3+) http://www.joar.com/certificates/ (Windows) http://www.marknoble.com/tutorial/smime/smime.aspx smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature ___ Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored. Webobjects-dev mailing list (Webobjects-dev@lists.apple.com) Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription: http://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/webobjects-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com This email sent to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
