In the IndexController, I have two properties, from and to, both containing an instance of the Date object.
I have set up one separate observer for each property and run my overlap-prevention logic in there -- is this the right approach?
Here's the JS Bin: http://jsbin.com/yijezebetaya/1/
Yes, that approach is perfectly acceptable.
Related
I would like to know, that after building a pyomo model, if it is possible to send to the model an arbitrary solution and make it check if it is feasible. If yes return true and return false if the uploaded solution is infeasible
I expect to receive a true/false result depending on the feasibility of the uploaded solution
There is no general utility for checking if a model is feasible at an arbitrary point but something very close to what you want can be found here: https://github.com/Pyomo/pyomo/blob/master/pyomo/contrib/gdpopt/util.py#L176
You could implement your own is_feasible function by copying the code that loops over the constraints and variables.
One verbose but effective solution is to fix all your variables to their current value.
There are multiple ways to iterate over all model components of a certain type, you can iterate over variables and call model.var_name.fix().
I haven't tested this but it should work.
I'm trying to make my own full adder and some other devices as a sub-circuit in "Proteus" and use them several times in a bigger circuit.
The problem is when you copy a sub-circuit you need to rename all of its inner parts, otherwise, the parts with a same name in two sub-circuits would be considered as one, therefore you'd get some errors.
So I'd like to know if there is a way to define a full adder of my own and use it like "74LS183" which is a primitive device, and by primitive I mean it has been defined in the library.
From answer posted here
It's in the Proteus Help file:
SCHEMATIC CAPTURE HELP (F1) -> MULTI-SHEET DESIGNS -> Hierarchical Designs
See the section "Module Components":
Any ordinary component can be made into a module by setting the Attach Hierarchy Module checkbox on the Edit Component dialogue form.
The component's value is taken to be the name for the associated circuit,
and the component's reference serves as the instance name.
after this you can use your new implementation of that component with your new name. for making it available at library see "External Modules" section of proteus help.
The problem with copying is solved in "Proteus 8".not completely but sort of.
I mean you can copy a subcircuit without a need to change it's inner parts, but you must change the subcircuit name and I mean the bigger name above the subcircuit not the little one below it.
so there is no need to define a primitive.
I need a way for ember router to route to a recursive path.
For Example:
/:module
/:module/:submodule
/:module/:submodule/:submodule
/:module/:submodule/:submodule/...
Can this be done with Embers router, and if so, how?
I've been looking for examples, tearing apart the source, and I've pretty much come to the conclusion, it's not possible.
In a previous question, someone had pointed me to a way to get the url manually and split it, but I'm stuck at creating the state for the router to resolve to.
As of now, in my project, I currently just use the Ember.HashLocation to setup my own state manager.
The reason for the need of this, is because the module definitions are stored in a database, and at any given point a submodule of a submodule, recursively, could be added. So I'm trying to make the Application Engine handle the change.
Do your submodules in the database not have unique IDs? It seems to me that rather than representing your hierarchy in the path, you should just go straight to the appropriate module or submodule. Of course the hierarchy is still in your data model, but it shouldn't have to be represented in your routing scheme. Just use:
/module/:moduleId
/submodule/:submoduleId
And don't encode the hierarchy in the routes. I understand it might be natural to do so, but there's probably not a technical reason to.
If your submodules don't have unique ids, it's maybe a little tougher...you could build a unique ID by concatenating the ancestor ids together (say, with underscores), which is similar to splitting the URL, but a little cleaner probably. I will say that Ember/Ember Data doesn't seem to be too easy to use with entities with composite keys--if everything has a simple numeric key everything becomes easier (anyone want to argue with me on this, please explain to me how!).
DO you mean like this:
App.Router.map(function(match) {
match('/posts').to('blogPosts');
match('/posts/:blog_post_id').to('showBlogPost');
});
I'm taking over a project and wanted to understand if this is common practice using SOAP. The process that is currently in place I have to query all the values before I do an update cause I need to pass back all the values that are not being updated. Does this sound right?
Example Values:
fname=phill
lname=pafford
address=123 main
phone:222-555-1212
So if I just wanted to update the phone number I need to query for the record, get all the values and submit these values for an update.
Example Update Values:
fname=phill
lname=pafford
address=123 main
phone:111-555-1212
I just want to know if this is common practice or should I change the functionality of this?
This is not specific to SOAP. It may simply be how the service is designed. In general, there will be fields that can only be updated if you have the original value: you can't add one to a field unless you know the original value, for instance. The service seems to have been designed for the general case.
I don't think that it is a very "common" practice. However I've seen cases where the old values are posted together with the new values, in order to validate that noone else has updated the values in the meantime.
I have an app built on Model-Glue: Unity that contains some search forms. I need to trim leading and trailing spaces from search strings before using them to query the database. I'm also keeping the search terms in a bean that a user can save and re-use.
My problem is that I am unsure where to perform that trim(). The bean seems to be the wrong place for it, as I'm keeping the bean simple (no logic). Normally I would take care of that when updating the bean, but I'm using MakeEventBean to keep things simple. Re-touching all of the data in the Service layer seems an unnecessary layer of overhead. And, lastly, doing it in the datalayer with the actual SQL query doesn't seem right either. It'll work, but the information in my search bean will still be wrong.
What have you done in such cases?
Disclaimer: I'm not a MG user, so I'm not sure if this will be good and possible approach. Just want to share the idea.
In case of Transfer ORM beans I do such specific things in decorators which extend auto-generated beans.
For example, I can easily override setter setSearchPhrase(phrase), where trim the argument value and invoke original method.
I ended up making my Beans a little smarter than they were. Rather than monkey with every single setThing() method, I added a trimAll() method simple applied a trim() to each of the private properties in the Bean.